3 ms·

How do you feel about the lengths of copyright? Do you feel the current length (life + 70 years) is too much/too little/ just right? Personally, as much as I h

How do you feel about the lengths of copyright? Do you feel the current length (life + 70 years) is too much/too little/ just right? Personally, as much as I hate the concept of copyright, I do still want artists (I include authors etc in this term) to be able to do their work professionally without relying on something like patreon (which primarily predates serialised work like comics) so I would prefer shortening copyright to something more in line with patents, 20 years. How do you, as an author, feel about reform like that?

kayodelycaon 3y ago
The current length is indefensible to me. There is zero justification for it beyond pure profit. I’d prefer it be lifetime of original creator, only for the original creator. All other cases (transfer of copyright, death of the creator, etc) would have a maximum of 20 years. Alternatively, I’d prefer 30 or 40 years, but I would grudgingly accept 20. :)
- Snow_Falls 3y ago
  See, I actuall disagree, o think it should be a set time, regardless of authors death and inheritable. I think there would be a lot of things not made near the end of the creators life if they didn't think their family would be supported by it. Hence, why I think it should be a fixed length. Also I think it could he shorter than 20 years, I picked that just because its the length of patents. IMO, if you haven't profited sifficoently off something in say 10 years, then it doesn't really benefit you to hold it for longer. Do you have any reason for 40 years or does it just "feel right", like with my arbitrary choice to have it be parity with patents?
  - kayodelycaon 3y ago
    I may not have explained my first idea correctly, it’s lifetime or 20 years, whichever is longer. As for 40 years, it allows time for a given work to solidify in history. Multiple generations will have grown. If the work is relevant to multiple generations 40 years after creation, then it should belong to everyone. Twenty years is too short. It would be available to people who grew up with the first printing and to whom it is still relevant. Basically copyright should be long enough for most things to become firmly irrelevant, outlive their usefulness, or made their changes to society before entering public domain. A lot of people who oppose copyright would not like this because it intentionally keeps the stuff they want to use out of their reach until they would no longer want it. For me, the purpose of public domain is allowing what has been important in our cultural history to be for everyone, not locked behind a rent-seeking corporation. But I also want authors to be able to keep control over their own works as long as it remains relevant to them.

kayodelycaon 3y ago

The current length is indefensible to me. There is zero justification for it beyond pure profit. I’d prefer it be lifetime of original creator, only for the original creator. All other cases (transfer of copyright, death of the creator, etc) would have a maximum of 20 years. Alternatively, I’d prefer 30 or 40 years, but I would grudgingly accept 20. :)

Snow_Falls 3y ago
See, I actuall disagree, o think it should be a set time, regardless of authors death and inheritable. I think there would be a lot of things not made near the end of the creators life if they didn't think their family would be supported by it. Hence, why I think it should be a fixed length. Also I think it could he shorter than 20 years, I picked that just because its the length of patents. IMO, if you haven't profited sifficoently off something in say 10 years, then it doesn't really benefit you to hold it for longer. Do you have any reason for 40 years or does it just "feel right", like with my arbitrary choice to have it be parity with patents?
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  I may not have explained my first idea correctly, it’s lifetime or 20 years, whichever is longer. As for 40 years, it allows time for a given work to solidify in history. Multiple generations will have grown. If the work is relevant to multiple generations 40 years after creation, then it should belong to everyone. Twenty years is too short. It would be available to people who grew up with the first printing and to whom it is still relevant. Basically copyright should be long enough for most things to become firmly irrelevant, outlive their usefulness, or made their changes to society before entering public domain. A lot of people who oppose copyright would not like this because it intentionally keeps the stuff they want to use out of their reach until they would no longer want it. For me, the purpose of public domain is allowing what has been important in our cultural history to be for everyone, not locked behind a rent-seeking corporation. But I also want authors to be able to keep control over their own works as long as it remains relevant to them.