8 ms·

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable

by tkems 3y ago

Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as 1) when copyright ends for a work and a source to compare claims against 2) Orphaned works without known owners that are nearly unusable until expiration 3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection. 4) Archiving of expired works would be easier

bilsbie 3y ago
Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.
- blagie 3y ago
  Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be: - Trivial for Microsoft - Painful for a typical HN contributor - Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."
  - randomdata 3y ago
    If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentially buying the rights for Netflix but of course you have to pay 65K to make sure you have those rights to sell, which is money you don't have, so you need to take out a loan in order to potentially profit from your labor. OR you're Peter Beagle https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-rights/ https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-... The fact is that there are a million ways in which a class of entrepreneurs make money off of their work, even though, like most entrepreneurs they fail, and whenever HN starts talking copyright there are always people who probably make significantly more per year than the average writer does at writing who want to make sure writers make even less. It's weird that HN often loves entrepreneurs, and wants to make things easier for them - but not writers. Aside from that this scheme, as most other fix copyright schemes, will not be taken up by most other countries (other than U.S I mean) as they tend to have a "copyright exists because creators have moral rights to ownership of their work" theory of copyright and not the whole "copyright exists to foster innovation" theory. As other countries will not follow the U.S you would have what you often have today, things in Public Domain in U.S and not in other countries and so you cannot freely make derivative works for an international audience at least as you would be sued.
      - benj111 3y ago
        Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? Further, you are still free to take that risk and pay the 64k. Just like you are free to buy/sell that bitcoin for $x. That is your risk to take.
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        >Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? OR one can make an argument that has nothing to do with any of the things I commented and tick an item off the HN scorecard! >Further, you are still free to take that risk Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff.
        benj111 3y ago
        >Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff. Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make? The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever I would think you've got some insight by then whether it's worth paying the $4. And the Shakespeare reference is relevant because where do you want the cutoff? Life+70 is nonsensical, unless you're arguing for perpetual copywrite you need a line somewhere. Where do you want to draw the line?
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        >And the Shakespeare reference is relevant because where do you want the cutoff? Life+70 is nonsensical, unless you're arguing for perpetual copywrite you need a line somewhere. Where do you want to draw the line? Life + 70 is based on the concept of copyright outside of the U.S which doesn't think copyright exists to promote the arts but rather because if you create something you have a right to how it is disposed. All of these clever American solutions to copyright that would fix how it works in the U.S are not going to affect how it works outside the U.S and thus Life + 70 is more in keeping with the non-American conception of the purpose of copyright. Outside the U.S pay 1 dollar to own something you made is nonsensical.
danaris 3y ago
> rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) This would drastically change our current copyright regime. As it stands, everything you write has automatic copyright, and doesn't require even the smallest, brokest artist to do anything—or pay anything—in order to ensure that their creations cannot profit others without their consent. Requiring every work to be registered in order to be eligible for copyright would essentially change our system from a default of "assume anything you find is under copyright, get permission from the creator to use it" to "assume anything you find is free for the taking, and if the creator did register it they'll have to come after you." In other words, it would mean that anything belonging to big corporate media like Disney and Hasbro would be near-automatically protected, while small, independent artists would be massively more screwed than they are today, with their creations basically being assumed to be available for anyone capable of monetizing it against its creator's will, medium, large, or megacorporation, to profit off of to their shriveled hearts' content.
- freejazz 3y ago
  It wouldn't change anything, in order to enforce your copyright in the US, you need to pay for a registration, which also isn't very expensive.
- tgv 3y ago
  Many react to copyright with the image of a greedy, large corporation in mind. Unfortunately. While they are a bit of a problem (although mostly nuisance), solutions that attack them will not help the millions and millions of small creators and starting artists. Lawyers will see to that.
- tkems 3y ago
  I can see the issue with larger corporations having an easier time protecting works they create, I think a system where registration is simple would solve most of the issues. Patent applications are a complex process and I don't think we should base any new copyright system on that. We have the tools today to improve the registration system. I also think that some compromise needs to be made. Saying that all small, independent artists would be "massively more screwed" doesn't give them much credit. Having their work protected and documented as such should give them more protections if someone infringes on their work. A fast and simple process can be designed to allow everyone to register their works without limiting it to large corporations.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright Thing is most people won't even think to apply. That's why the copyright is granted automatically, with an option to renew for a longer term afterwards. An important distinction from patents. this was one of the earliest revisions to to protect he unaware, since consulting a lawyer under the original system would be too late.
- throwaway09223 3y ago
  > Thing is most people won't even think to apply. Good. As intended.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    "as intended" means nothing changes for corporations, a race to copyright before releasing anything for the creators who know better, and unaware creators (likely, lower income underprivileged, young) having their ideas stolen by the former 2 the moment they post. I don't see how this improves on the current model.
    - blagie 3y ago
      It means your post, above, isn't automatically copyrighted, and the public domain expands massively. I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all. Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright. What really improves here? It doesn't even benefit open source development.
tux3 3y ago
Patents are also very broken, the patent trolling ecosystem is the demonstration of that. Copyright is several times too long, but making it more like patents wouldn't help at all. On the contrary.
- tkems 3y ago
  I agree that patents are very broken, but I think that copyright and patents are different for these reasons: 1) Patents can cover broad topics. Copyright doesn't have a similar standard (from what I've seen). You can't just copyright all images of a sunset, but your specific image can be copyrighted. See the EFFs article for examples of broad patents: https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims 2) Patents have a complex application process. Copyright shouldn't require this level of complexity as the technology exists to detect similar or exact copies and can be streamlined for everyone (think of a simple web form with your information, copy of the work, etc).
fbdab103 3y ago
#2 is so frustrating. I have heard multiple reports of parties who were interested in remaking a game, only to discover that due to multiple mergers/acquisition/re-licensing deals over time, nobody is sure who retains the rights. Rather than engage in the legal quagmire, the remake does not happen.
- tkems 3y ago
  Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving. A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright notices of the small town photography company that took them. I asked my family members and they said the company is no longer in business, but I worry that those photos will never be able to be published until after well over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the copyright for such photos?
  - redeeman 3y ago
    if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts
    - paholg 3y ago
      So just illegally publish them anyway? The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.
      - redeeman 3y ago
        agreed, but it doesnt, and so one acts accordingly :)
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer? Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.
bdw5204 3y ago
Originally, US copyrights were 14 years with an optional 14 year renewal and you had to register it with the government and deposit a copy of it in the Library of Congress [0]. Copyrights were also limited to Americans because the purpose of the law was "the encouragement of learning" not allowing corporations to profit off of stuff they made a century ago. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution also says that the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and specifically requires that copyrights be for a limited time. In other words, we basically had that and politicians created the current system of copyright out of it thanks to 200 years or so of lobbying from special interests. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
- euroderf 3y ago
  > 200 years or so of lobbying from special interests This is where Disney gets a special achievement award.
- ngcc_hk 3y ago
  Rumour is Americans like to read dickens and hence not want to cover British copyright
- joquarky 3y ago
  At one point, an IP lobbyist tried to push the interpretation of "limited time" to "forever minus a day".
vegadw 3y ago
A fee, be it $5 or $1 doubling each year, doesn't work well for a variety of reasons. 1. Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable - Disney may lock things up to claim a catalog even if most, independently, isn't worth much. 2. What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode? 3. Some works exist in much higher quantity. Ie, photography vs video games. A photographer would have to increase their prices dramatically to retain copyright for even a short period. I am all for copyright reform, but this option doesn't work. I'm a much bigger fan of the idea of everything being public domain PERIOD with the arts being publicly funded - Ben Jordan has a great video defending this idea I can't link to easily while at work.
- majewsky 3y ago
  > Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable $1 doubling each year would be over $1 million after just 20 years, and over $1 billion after 30 years. Out of the big catalog of circa 30-year-old Disney content, maybe The Lion King still brings in enough revenue to justify a billion dollar yearly copyright fee, but most other stuff from that era sure won't. > What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode? Now this is the billion-dollar question (pun absolutely intended).
freejazz 3y ago
>Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as Often when I see posts like this, I wonder what the posters actually know about copyright. In order to bring any copyright action in the US, your work needs to be registered, which costs a bit more than $5, and also requires sending deposit copies to the the copyright office to be maintained in the library of congress. >3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection. Who cares? Honestly - what difference does it make? Has your macaroni art piece caused unnecessary litigation? are people afraid to make other macaroni sculptures, knowing that you made yours? What have you actually thought about copyright, its incentives, structures, and the creative market, if you are seriously making this assertion in the face of these obvious questions?

by tkems 3y ago

bilsbie 3y ago

Start with a dollar registration fee and double it every year.

blagie 3y ago
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this. A 16-year copyright would cost me $65k, which would be: - Trivial for Microsoft - Painful for a typical HN contributor - Impossible for anyone earning minimum wage I think a better standard might be "actively trying to commercialize."
- randomdata 3y ago
  If, after 16 years of trying to profit from a work, $65k isn't a trivial amount for you, you have failed to do the work justice[1]. Maybe it is time for someone else to try? [1] Or it is truly worthless; in which case, what do you need to retain the copyright for?
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    OR the work is a short story in which case it will not ever earn anywhere near 65K unless movie rights to the short story are sold. OR it was a novel that did not sell well in the first printing but had a small devoted clique and then some years later starts selling enough to make $120,000 a year. OR it didn't get taken up by many people but now there is some interest in your work so people are talking about potentially buying the rights for Netflix but of course you have to pay 65K to make sure you have those rights to sell, which is money you don't have, so you need to take out a loan in order to potentially profit from your labor. OR you're Peter Beagle https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-rights/ https://www.cbr.com/the-last-unicorn-peter-s-beagle-regains-... The fact is that there are a million ways in which a class of entrepreneurs make money off of their work, even though, like most entrepreneurs they fail, and whenever HN starts talking copyright there are always people who probably make significantly more per year than the average writer does at writing who want to make sure writers make even less. It's weird that HN often loves entrepreneurs, and wants to make things easier for them - but not writers. Aside from that this scheme, as most other fix copyright schemes, will not be taken up by most other countries (other than U.S I mean) as they tend to have a "copyright exists because creators have moral rights to ownership of their work" theory of copyright and not the whole "copyright exists to foster innovation" theory. As other countries will not follow the U.S you would have what you often have today, things in Public Domain in U.S and not in other countries and so you cannot freely make derivative works for an international audience at least as you would be sued.
    - benj111 3y ago
      Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? Further, you are still free to take that risk and pay the 64k. Just like you are free to buy/sell that bitcoin for $x. That is your risk to take.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        >Shakespeare is still popular, should we extend copyright so that his great great great great great great great great grand kids get a pay out from film rights and the like? OR one can make an argument that has nothing to do with any of the things I commented and tick an item off the HN scorecard! >Further, you are still free to take that risk Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff.
        benj111 3y ago
        >Probably if they were smart they would just forego the risk of creating something in the first place as it would be a world with much less chance of a payoff. Do people create things on the basis that there might be a payoff 16 years down the line? Did David Bowie write his last album on the basis of how how much money he'd make? The first year is $1, is that a risk? 2nd year is $2. If you written a book or whatever I would think you've got some insight by then whether it's worth paying the $4. And the Shakespeare reference is relevant because where do you want the cutoff? Life+70 is nonsensical, unless you're arguing for perpetual copywrite you need a line somewhere. Where do you want to draw the line?
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        >And the Shakespeare reference is relevant because where do you want the cutoff? Life+70 is nonsensical, unless you're arguing for perpetual copywrite you need a line somewhere. Where do you want to draw the line? Life + 70 is based on the concept of copyright outside of the U.S which doesn't think copyright exists to promote the arts but rather because if you create something you have a right to how it is disposed. All of these clever American solutions to copyright that would fix how it works in the U.S are not going to affect how it works outside the U.S and thus Life + 70 is more in keeping with the non-American conception of the purpose of copyright. Outside the U.S pay 1 dollar to own something you made is nonsensical.

danaris 3y ago

> rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) This would drastically change our current copyright regime. As it stands, everything you write has automatic copyright, and doesn't require even the smallest, brokest artist to do anything—or pay anything—in order to ensure that their creations cannot profit others without their consent. Requiring every work to be registered in order to be eligible for copyright would essentially change our system from a default of "assume anything you find is under copyright, get permission from the creator to use it" to "assume anything you find is free for the taking, and if the creator did register it they'll have to come after you." In other words, it would mean that anything belonging to big corporate media like Disney and Hasbro would be near-automatically protected, while small, independent artists would be massively more screwed than they are today, with their creations basically being assumed to be available for anyone capable of monetizing it against its creator's will, medium, large, or megacorporation, to profit off of to their shriveled hearts' content.

freejazz 3y ago
It wouldn't change anything, in order to enforce your copyright in the US, you need to pay for a registration, which also isn't very expensive.
tgv 3y ago
Many react to copyright with the image of a greedy, large corporation in mind. Unfortunately. While they are a bit of a problem (although mostly nuisance), solutions that attack them will not help the millions and millions of small creators and starting artists. Lawyers will see to that.
tkems 3y ago
I can see the issue with larger corporations having an easier time protecting works they create, I think a system where registration is simple would solve most of the issues. Patent applications are a complex process and I don't think we should base any new copyright system on that. We have the tools today to improve the registration system. I also think that some compromise needs to be made. Saying that all small, independent artists would be "massively more screwed" doesn't give them much credit. Having their work protected and documented as such should give them more protections if someone infringes on their work. A fast and simple process can be designed to allow everyone to register their works without limiting it to large corporations.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright Thing is most people won't even think to apply. That's why the copyright is granted automatically, with an option to renew for a longer term afterwards. An important distinction from patents. this was one of the earliest revisions to to protect he unaware, since consulting a lawyer under the original system would be too late.

throwaway09223 3y ago
> Thing is most people won't even think to apply. Good. As intended.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  "as intended" means nothing changes for corporations, a race to copyright before releasing anything for the creators who know better, and unaware creators (likely, lower income underprivileged, young) having their ideas stolen by the former 2 the moment they post. I don't see how this improves on the current model.
  - blagie 3y ago
    It means your post, above, isn't automatically copyrighted, and the public domain expands massively. I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all. Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright. What really improves here? It doesn't even benefit open source development.

tux3 3y ago

Patents are also very broken, the patent trolling ecosystem is the demonstration of that. Copyright is several times too long, but making it more like patents wouldn't help at all. On the contrary.

tkems 3y ago
I agree that patents are very broken, but I think that copyright and patents are different for these reasons: 1) Patents can cover broad topics. Copyright doesn't have a similar standard (from what I've seen). You can't just copyright all images of a sunset, but your specific image can be copyrighted. See the EFFs article for examples of broad patents: https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims 2) Patents have a complex application process. Copyright shouldn't require this level of complexity as the technology exists to detect similar or exact copies and can be streamlined for everyone (think of a simple web form with your information, copy of the work, etc).

fbdab103 3y ago

#2 is so frustrating. I have heard multiple reports of parties who were interested in remaking a game, only to discover that due to multiple mergers/acquisition/re-licensing deals over time, nobody is sure who retains the rights. Rather than engage in the legal quagmire, the remake does not happen.

tkems 3y ago
Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving. A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright notices of the small town photography company that took them. I asked my family members and they said the company is no longer in business, but I worry that those photos will never be able to be published until after well over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the copyright for such photos?
- redeeman 3y ago
  if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts
  - paholg 3y ago
    So just illegally publish them anyway? The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.
    - redeeman 3y ago
      agreed, but it doesnt, and so one acts accordingly :)
- NewJazz 3y ago
  If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer? Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.

bdw5204 3y ago

Originally, US copyrights were 14 years with an optional 14 year renewal and you had to register it with the government and deposit a copy of it in the Library of Congress [0]. Copyrights were also limited to Americans because the purpose of the law was "the encouragement of learning" not allowing corporations to profit off of stuff they made a century ago. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution also says that the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and specifically requires that copyrights be for a limited time. In other words, we basically had that and politicians created the current system of copyright out of it thanks to 200 years or so of lobbying from special interests. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

euroderf 3y ago
> 200 years or so of lobbying from special interests This is where Disney gets a special achievement award.
ngcc_hk 3y ago
Rumour is Americans like to read dickens and hence not want to cover British copyright
joquarky 3y ago
At one point, an IP lobbyist tried to push the interpretation of "limited time" to "forever minus a day".

vegadw 3y ago

A fee, be it $5 or $1 doubling each year, doesn't work well for a variety of reasons. 1. Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable - Disney may lock things up to claim a catalog even if most, independently, isn't worth much. 2. What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode? 3. Some works exist in much higher quantity. Ie, photography vs video games. A photographer would have to increase their prices dramatically to retain copyright for even a short period. I am all for copyright reform, but this option doesn't work. I'm a much bigger fan of the idea of everything being public domain PERIOD with the arts being publicly funded - Ben Jordan has a great video defending this idea I can't link to easily while at work.

majewsky 3y ago
> Big players can afford protection even when a product isn't profitable $1 doubling each year would be over $1 million after just 20 years, and over $1 billion after 30 years. Out of the big catalog of circa 30-year-old Disney content, maybe The Lion King still brings in enough revenue to justify a billion dollar yearly copyright fee, but most other stuff from that era sure won't. > What defines a work? For a TV series, is it the entire show, each season, or each episode? Now this is the billion-dollar question (pun absolutely intended).

freejazz 3y ago

>Everytime I see complications with copyright I think that it should be similar to patents. Short length of time with an optional renewal if the work is valuable enough. I don't think it would be too much to ask for rights holders to be required to apply for copyright (for a small fee, let's say $5/work) and provide a central authority with a copy of their work. This would solve issues such as Often when I see posts like this, I wonder what the posters actually know about copyright. In order to bring any copyright action in the US, your work needs to be registered, which costs a bit more than $5, and also requires sending deposit copies to the the copyright office to be maintained in the library of congress. >3) Everything under the sun is copyrighted for absurd lengths of time. Does a macaroni art piece I made when I was in 1st grade need copyright for 70 years after I'm gone? I don't think so, but I understand that the newest movies need some protection. Who cares? Honestly - what difference does it make? Has your macaroni art piece caused unnecessary litigation? are people afraid to make other macaroni sculptures, knowing that you made yours? What have you actually thought about copyright, its incentives, structures, and the creative market, if you are seriously making this assertion in the face of these obvious questions?