4 ms·

Can we go back to death +50 then? Tolkien would be public domain next year. In Canada it was close but they switched to +70 last year.

tptacek 3y ago
That's a term shorter than 1909, before Disney even existed. Seems pretty unlikely. The "life" stuff doesn't make any sense, either; it's always been a genuinely weird term.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  In 1909 the US switched from a term of 28 years extensible by 14 if the author lived, to a term of 28 years extensible by 28 if the author lived. It didn't grow to life +50 until 1976. Edit: I think the confusion may arise from the Berne convention. The US did sign, but not until 1988.
kmeisthax 3y ago
Take it up with Germany, they're the ones that pushed life+70 on the EU, who then ratcheted it onto the US...
kelnos 3y ago
That doesn't go far enough. Copyright terms should be on the order of 20 years or so, and should have nothing to do with whether or not the creator is still alive.
- NolF 3y ago
  It's probably too short. It would live authors with very little bargaining power particularly if they become bigger in their writing carriers. Corporations would just have to wait 20 years and save themselves the exclusive rights and royalties. It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc. Realistically no author is thinking I won't create this art unless I get lifetime + 70. I would think 50 years total is a much more reasonable figure.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    40 years seems like the highest defensible limit. This would mean if you created a work in your 20s, copyright would expire when you're eligible for social security. It's safe to say that if you haven't made money on your work within nearly 2 generations since its publication and before you become a pensioner, you're not going to. Or it's at least not going to drive you to create new works. Corporations can't wait even 20 years because tastes change. There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore. Also corporations can't have much margin on public domain material; there's too much competition if anyone can publish it, and for digital creations they'd be competing with legal p2p sharing. So they need that exclusivity.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      I'm fine with 70 years post creation, it's 70 years post death which is too much IMHO.
    - HenryBemis 3y ago
      > There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore. Perhaps not for Sum 41. But how about Beatles? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Metallica? I don't know if people will still be listening to Swift and Eilish in 50 years from now, but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..
      - dotancohen 3y ago
        A simple, naive solution I've seen proposed would enable copyright extension on an exponential fee scale. This has the nice side effect of wildly-successful works disproportionately funding the copyright offices, thus enabling theoretically lower fees for newcomers.
      - dkersten 3y ago
        > but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons.. Sure, but should a corporation continue to make huge profits from these artist who will be long dead?
- tptacek 3y ago
  That's less time than the copyright terms at the time of the founders.
  - tacocataco 3y ago
    I was under the impression copyright was 14 years back then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
    - tptacek 3y ago
      It was 14+14.
- gwd 3y ago
  I get the idea, but I think that's way too short. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out in 1997; imagine if instead of paying Rowling for the royalties to make the movie in 2001, the studios had just waited until 2017 and done it without her permission, paying her not a penny.
  - PoignardAzur 3y ago
    "Wait 16 years to make a movie for a franchise that's popular with children now" is a bold proposition.
    - PurpleRamen 3y ago
      That's actually very common in Hollywood. Wait if a work survives the test of time. And then reap on the now money-loaded customers and cash out from their reminiscence.
      - galangalalgol 3y ago
        Hollywood is already rebooting reboots of remakes of comic books vaguely based on historic events. Imagine if original copyright rules in the us applied (14 extensible by 14 for a living author). They could reboot anything before 1995 for free.
        PurpleRamen 3y ago
        They already do that now, even for less stuff from less than 20, 30 years. They reboot, remake, continue anything for whatever reason. Money is relevant, but by far not the biggest hurdle to prevent them. The permissions of the right holders and the influence of the creators are more important IMHO. For example, Netflix just now announced a reboot of One Piece Anime, a series running for 25 years. The creator is still working on the original source. Imagine if Netflix could just do that on their own, the creator had no influence at all on their work. They could just make shit along the way as they see it. Twist it, change it, with their power, they could be damaging the original work for good, simply because they are bigger.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  How about doing the same with other assets - land, real estate? After 20 years ownership reverts to the public. You can enjoy your house for 20 years.
- scythe 3y ago
  It should preferably depend on the type of work. Books generally have a long, slow RoI. People are still buying Tolstoy. I don't believe Tolstoy should be copyrighted, but insofar as copyright is a system designed by eighteenth-century economists to incentivise creative works, it seems to function basically as designed with long terms for books. Movies and music last a little shorter. For some reason musicians tend to have short natural lives, and copyrights start to seem like grave-robbing. Video games and software are practically dead within two decades. The primary effect of copyrights on software more than 20 years old seems to be to stifle innovation and promote rent-seeking. I think this is why tech people have such a dim view of copyright, because the system as it exists seems to create a lot of busywork and headaches that just feel so unnecessary for anyone tasked with filling in the gaps.
- simondotau 3y ago
  How about copyright terms of 10 years for all works, or for a tiny nominal fee (between $1 and $10) you can list the work on a register for a further 10 years, which you can do multiple times up to a maximum of 50 years. The idea is to strike a balance between giving creators time to monetise their works while also allowing abandoned/unlicensed works to fall into public domain reasonably quickly.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I don't understand why copyright is so long when patents last a mere 20 years.

tptacek 3y ago

That's a term shorter than 1909, before Disney even existed. Seems pretty unlikely. The "life" stuff doesn't make any sense, either; it's always been a genuinely weird term.

galangalalgol 3y ago
In 1909 the US switched from a term of 28 years extensible by 14 if the author lived, to a term of 28 years extensible by 28 if the author lived. It didn't grow to life +50 until 1976. Edit: I think the confusion may arise from the Berne convention. The US did sign, but not until 1988.

kmeisthax 3y ago

Take it up with Germany, they're the ones that pushed life+70 on the EU, who then ratcheted it onto the US...

kelnos 3y ago

That doesn't go far enough. Copyright terms should be on the order of 20 years or so, and should have nothing to do with whether or not the creator is still alive.

NolF 3y ago
It's probably too short. It would live authors with very little bargaining power particularly if they become bigger in their writing carriers. Corporations would just have to wait 20 years and save themselves the exclusive rights and royalties. It should be looked form the frame of how long is appropriate to promote the creation of the arts etc. Realistically no author is thinking I won't create this art unless I get lifetime + 70. I would think 50 years total is a much more reasonable figure.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  40 years seems like the highest defensible limit. This would mean if you created a work in your 20s, copyright would expire when you're eligible for social security. It's safe to say that if you haven't made money on your work within nearly 2 generations since its publication and before you become a pensioner, you're not going to. Or it's at least not going to drive you to create new works. Corporations can't wait even 20 years because tastes change. There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore. Also corporations can't have much margin on public domain material; there's too much competition if anyone can publish it, and for digital creations they'd be competing with legal p2p sharing. So they need that exclusivity.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    I'm fine with 70 years post creation, it's 70 years post death which is too much IMHO.
  - HenryBemis 3y ago
    > There's not much mainstream demand for Sum 41 anymore. Perhaps not for Sum 41. But how about Beatles? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Metallica? I don't know if people will still be listening to Swift and Eilish in 50 years from now, but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons..
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      A simple, naive solution I've seen proposed would enable copyright extension on an exponential fee scale. This has the nice side effect of wildly-successful works disproportionately funding the copyright offices, thus enabling theoretically lower fees for newcomers.
    - dkersten 3y ago
      > but something tells me that Beatles, Iron Maiden, Michael Jackson, Sinatra, will echo for eons.. Sure, but should a corporation continue to make huge profits from these artist who will be long dead?
tptacek 3y ago
That's less time than the copyright terms at the time of the founders.
- tacocataco 3y ago
  I was under the impression copyright was 14 years back then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It was 14+14.
gwd 3y ago
I get the idea, but I think that's way too short. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out in 1997; imagine if instead of paying Rowling for the royalties to make the movie in 2001, the studios had just waited until 2017 and done it without her permission, paying her not a penny.
- PoignardAzur 3y ago
  "Wait 16 years to make a movie for a franchise that's popular with children now" is a bold proposition.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    That's actually very common in Hollywood. Wait if a work survives the test of time. And then reap on the now money-loaded customers and cash out from their reminiscence.
    - galangalalgol 3y ago
      Hollywood is already rebooting reboots of remakes of comic books vaguely based on historic events. Imagine if original copyright rules in the us applied (14 extensible by 14 for a living author). They could reboot anything before 1995 for free.
      - PurpleRamen 3y ago
        They already do that now, even for less stuff from less than 20, 30 years. They reboot, remake, continue anything for whatever reason. Money is relevant, but by far not the biggest hurdle to prevent them. The permissions of the right holders and the influence of the creators are more important IMHO. For example, Netflix just now announced a reboot of One Piece Anime, a series running for 25 years. The creator is still working on the original source. Imagine if Netflix could just do that on their own, the creator had no influence at all on their work. They could just make shit along the way as they see it. Twist it, change it, with their power, they could be damaging the original work for good, simply because they are bigger.
bazoom42 3y ago
How about doing the same with other assets - land, real estate? After 20 years ownership reverts to the public. You can enjoy your house for 20 years.
scythe 3y ago
It should preferably depend on the type of work. Books generally have a long, slow RoI. People are still buying Tolstoy. I don't believe Tolstoy should be copyrighted, but insofar as copyright is a system designed by eighteenth-century economists to incentivise creative works, it seems to function basically as designed with long terms for books. Movies and music last a little shorter. For some reason musicians tend to have short natural lives, and copyrights start to seem like grave-robbing. Video games and software are practically dead within two decades. The primary effect of copyrights on software more than 20 years old seems to be to stifle innovation and promote rent-seeking. I think this is why tech people have such a dim view of copyright, because the system as it exists seems to create a lot of busywork and headaches that just feel so unnecessary for anyone tasked with filling in the gaps.
simondotau 3y ago
How about copyright terms of 10 years for all works, or for a tiny nominal fee (between $1 and $10) you can list the work on a register for a further 10 years, which you can do multiple times up to a maximum of 50 years. The idea is to strike a balance between giving creators time to monetise their works while also allowing abandoned/unlicensed works to fall into public domain reasonably quickly.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

I don't understand why copyright is so long when patents last a mere 20 years.