4 ms·

My proposition(probably not original at all) is that we let Disney(and anyone else) extend copyright on thing it wants at an ever increasing (exponential) rate.

by nkassis 15y ago

My proposition(probably not original at all) is that we let Disney(and anyone else) extend copyright on thing it wants at an ever increasing (exponential) rate. If they have to pay they will make sure to only keep things under copyright that are still bringing them value. Also, we need to move towards a registration based copyright system. This post doesn't need copyright protection.

dmayle 15y ago
I agree completely. First 14 years: free. Beyond that start raising the price. Registration only kicks in once you have to start paying...
- kijin 15y ago
  That looks like a very reasonable compromise between short default terms and paid registration/extension.
jessriedel 15y ago
Copyrights are currently free. Under your system, you'd have to figure out how to decide what counts as a single "work" for setting prices.
- vaksel 15y ago
  how about this...let them decide on the yearly value...and enforce licensing costs equal to X% of that value. that way they won't want to set the value high to pay the fees...and not too low since then the licensing costs would be too low
  - roc 15y ago
    Which would harm outsiders and new creators while giving an advantage to corporations that knew the rules and could afford to play the game. Publishers would be only too willing to pay registration rates that independent creators could never afford. It would allow them to never pay original authors for their copyrights in favor of simply waiting them out and plucking the work out of the public domain once the creator had given up. If you thought "work for hire" was bad today, imagine what it would look like if publishers all knew that independent creators were likely only a year or two away from not even having that copyright with which they currently negotiate.
- nkassis 15y ago
  Yeah that definition would have to be reviewed and I think the first ~10 years would should be free.
jkn 15y ago
Also, we need to move towards a registration based copyright system. This post doesn't need copyright protection. This idea seems very wrong to me, for two reasons. First, you might not deem this particular comment of yours worthy of copyright protection, but people might find themselves in different situations. Consider for example the following Reddit comments, don't they deserve copyright protection? http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kkmm4/you_unexpectedly_timetravel_to_1985_you_have_no/c2l1ju0 http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kkmm4/you_unexpec... http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_destroy_the_entire_roman_empire_during/c2giwm4 http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_des... Secondly, a registration based system puts unsophisticated creators at a disadvantage. People who don't have the resources to register all their creations or lack knowledge of the procedures will be penalized. I would be happy to live in a copyright-free society[1], as it would not favor anyone. But a registration based system would shift the balance even more to the advantage of big corporations and copyright trolls. [1] As long as some moral rights are preserved, e.g. one cannot take credit for someone else's work.
- nkassis 15y ago
  You could offer a grace period (lets say 1 year) to give time to people to register their post if they want. Same as with the reform to Patents which occurred last year.
  - jkn 15y ago
    This will still favor sophisticated creators/content owners. I see the advantage of your system when coupled to an increasing price for maintaining registration (it would flatten the plot in the original submission). But I don't see the advantage over the solution of a short-term copyright: your system would basically keep out of the public domain important works that already benefited the content owners more than enough...
    - nkassis 15y ago
      Well I feel it's a compromise, large corporation like Disney will never yield, what I'm trying to avoid is them causing other works that are no longer in print or distributed from disappearing. I want to give a disincentive to keep things under copyright for ever. "your system would basically keep out of the public domain important works that already benefited the content owners more than enough." While true the exponential rise in cost in my proposition would lead to ensuring that these things will go into the public domain at some point. As it is now, extensions apply to everything including things for which no one cares for anymore. Let's not ignore that the current system is also biased towards large corporations anyway. The cost of enforcing copyright is prohibitively high for small creators. I also suggest in a previous post to have a open databases showing registration (paid for by the registration fees) that would make it easier to find and contact creators to license their things.
drewcrawford 15y ago
The problem with a registration-based system is that the immediate logical reduction is to a git push hook that notifies the copyright office each time I push to a public project on GitHub. Nobody is prepared to build that server farm. And that's just for our industry; I can't imagine what kind of copyrightable data is produced on a daily basis in, say, engineering or science. I'm on board with charging renewal fees for copyright, but you have to do it with a "five years after publication freebie" clause. I'm not going to file for protection on the 20 or so small projects I work on each year. Keep in mind--lesser OSS projects will fall out of copyleft under this system, because now copylefters have the same fee structure that copyrighters do, but not the business model that goes with it. So, depending on your view of copyleft, this can be good or bad.

by nkassis 15y ago

dmayle 15y ago

I agree completely. First 14 years: free. Beyond that start raising the price. Registration only kicks in once you have to start paying...

kijin 15y ago
That looks like a very reasonable compromise between short default terms and paid registration/extension.

jessriedel 15y ago

Copyrights are currently free. Under your system, you'd have to figure out how to decide what counts as a single "work" for setting prices.

vaksel 15y ago
how about this...let them decide on the yearly value...and enforce licensing costs equal to X% of that value. that way they won't want to set the value high to pay the fees...and not too low since then the licensing costs would be too low
- roc 15y ago
  Which would harm outsiders and new creators while giving an advantage to corporations that knew the rules and could afford to play the game. Publishers would be only too willing to pay registration rates that independent creators could never afford. It would allow them to never pay original authors for their copyrights in favor of simply waiting them out and plucking the work out of the public domain once the creator had given up. If you thought "work for hire" was bad today, imagine what it would look like if publishers all knew that independent creators were likely only a year or two away from not even having that copyright with which they currently negotiate.
nkassis 15y ago
Yeah that definition would have to be reviewed and I think the first ~10 years would should be free.

jkn 15y ago

Also, we need to move towards a registration based copyright system. This post doesn't need copyright protection. This idea seems very wrong to me, for two reasons. First, you might not deem this particular comment of yours worthy of copyright protection, but people might find themselves in different situations. Consider for example the following Reddit comments, don't they deserve copyright protection? http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kkmm4/you_unexpectedly_timetravel_to_1985_you_have_no/c2l1ju0 http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kkmm4/you_unexpec... http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_destroy_the_entire_roman_empire_during/c2giwm4 http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_des... Secondly, a registration based system puts unsophisticated creators at a disadvantage. People who don't have the resources to register all their creations or lack knowledge of the procedures will be penalized. I would be happy to live in a copyright-free society[1], as it would not favor anyone. But a registration based system would shift the balance even more to the advantage of big corporations and copyright trolls. [1] As long as some moral rights are preserved, e.g. one cannot take credit for someone else's work.

nkassis 15y ago
You could offer a grace period (lets say 1 year) to give time to people to register their post if they want. Same as with the reform to Patents which occurred last year.
- jkn 15y ago
  This will still favor sophisticated creators/content owners. I see the advantage of your system when coupled to an increasing price for maintaining registration (it would flatten the plot in the original submission). But I don't see the advantage over the solution of a short-term copyright: your system would basically keep out of the public domain important works that already benefited the content owners more than enough...
  - nkassis 15y ago
    Well I feel it's a compromise, large corporation like Disney will never yield, what I'm trying to avoid is them causing other works that are no longer in print or distributed from disappearing. I want to give a disincentive to keep things under copyright for ever. "your system would basically keep out of the public domain important works that already benefited the content owners more than enough." While true the exponential rise in cost in my proposition would lead to ensuring that these things will go into the public domain at some point. As it is now, extensions apply to everything including things for which no one cares for anymore. Let's not ignore that the current system is also biased towards large corporations anyway. The cost of enforcing copyright is prohibitively high for small creators. I also suggest in a previous post to have a open databases showing registration (paid for by the registration fees) that would make it easier to find and contact creators to license their things.

drewcrawford 15y ago

The problem with a registration-based system is that the immediate logical reduction is to a git push hook that notifies the copyright office each time I push to a public project on GitHub. Nobody is prepared to build that server farm. And that's just for our industry; I can't imagine what kind of copyrightable data is produced on a daily basis in, say, engineering or science. I'm on board with charging renewal fees for copyright, but you have to do it with a "five years after publication freebie" clause. I'm not going to file for protection on the 20 or so small projects I work on each year. Keep in mind--lesser OSS projects will fall out of copyleft under this system, because now copylefters have the same fee structure that copyrighters do, but not the business model that goes with it. So, depending on your view of copyleft, this can be good or bad.