3 ms·

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 a

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.
    - benj111 3y ago
      Yes because the US had no influence on the current copywrite system... >Outside the U.S pay 1 dollar to own something you made is nonsensical Define 'own'. You aren't paying to own the thing, you're paying for legal protections. This is the issue with intellectual 'property' it isn't property, it doesn't require an owner, you aren't deprived of the use of your work if I 'steal' it. You will always own a book in the sense that if somebody copies it, they need to give you credit. That concept of 'ownership' makes at least as much sense as yours.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        >Define 'own'. You aren't paying to own the thing, you're paying for legal protections...That concept of 'ownership' makes at least as much sense as yours. Define I am not talking about my opinions about stuff, I'm talking about what the legal concepts are regarding copyright in the EU. The EU is a place that is not America. The EU has more stringent copyright rules for non-corporate copyright holders (where it is 70 years after death of longest living creator, if Steamboat Willie was owned by its creators instead of Walt Disney corporation it would still not be Public Domain in Europe) >Yes because the US had no influence on the current copywrite system... I do not believe the EU has been influenced by the U.S to make a copyright system that is more strict than the copyright system of the U.S. It makes more sense to suggest their copyright system is more strict because they have a different model of what a copyright system is for that would argue for a stricter system of copyright.
        benj111 3y ago
        Well we both seem to disagree with the current system, as we're talking about alternatives So in the hypotheticals we're discussing, why are you pointing out it isn't compatible with the legal concepts of the current system, unless you want to keep those concepts?
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        OK well I guess I think your hypotheticals are 1. Even if only limited to U.S extremely unlikely to ever be implemented. 2. because of EU and other regional differences regarding copyright's purposes your hypothetical has actually no chance of ever being enacted outside the U.S 3. if your hypothetical was enacted inside U.S but not outside it would not solve the issue I find most irritating, near impossibility for people who do not have a team for dealing with these things to figure out if something is actually Public Domain or not?!? I recently had Google tell me it thought a video was copyrighted but it is definitely public domain in U.S but they might be right because hey some of the people who worked on the movie the video was taken from died in 1960s - so when does it run out of copyright well I can't track that down so I better not use that for what I want to do with it. Lord Dunsany died in 1957, I have a lot of uses for his stuff lined up but I better not do anything about it until 2027. My hypothetical is bring systems better in alignment - hopefully making EU more limited like U.S and thus people who want to use something to make art etc. can figure out exactly if it is in PD or not simply. Because that is the real copyright problem holding back small creators.
  - blagie 3y ago
    You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70. However, a mechanism which works for Star Wars and Mickey Mouse, but not for a short story, a play, or a specialized piece of software written by a single individual which e.g. generates $20k / year, doesn't work for me. The length of the copyright shouldn't be proportional to the effort invested in the work. If a book my parents wrote is supposed to move into the public domain, so should Star Trek: The Original Series. That doesn't preclude mechanisms like: - Required (free) registration. I go to a government website, get a code, and from there on, it says: Copyright (c) 2022. Registration number 5f902b0a-f56c-402a-95fd-47f12f40e538 - Required (free) maintenance. I need to renew this to maintain copyright. - Anyone can look up the copyright owner (even though it might be Copyrights By Proxy, which is okay too -- anonymity is valuable). - Reasonable limits on duration. This handles your forum post, abandoned works, and to be frank, a majority of works under copyright. Most things move into the public domain. However, most things isn't the same as everything. I'd also be supportive of a radical expansion of fair use doctrine.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      >You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70. although I'm not agreeing with them they are not really beating up a strawman - in the EU it's life+70, because it has a different motivation for copyright than the U.S - this means that you may think something is in public domain but then you find out it isn't really because the person who made it in 1925 died in 1970.
    - benj111 3y ago
      I not wedded to this system. My personal standpoint is that copywrite should be the minimum necessary to encourage and allow people to create works. That would suggest to me somewhere south of 10 years, possibly varying with the specific art form. The doubling fee thing is somewhat appealling because it acts as a tax on valuable works. If Disney wants to spend millions to protect Mickey mouse then there is that option, yes the public domain loses, but the tax acts as compensation for that. I don't see why this doesn't work for the little guy. If they want to pay the fees they can, the point is people are only going to pay fees if it's worth it. That applies to Disney or Joe blogs. If it isn't worth $1/$2/$4 why should you get to stop everyone else using it?
  - harimau777 3y ago
    I don't know if it's specifically 16+ years down the line. However, my understanding is that the model for most writers (i.e. those who don't become famous) is to keep writing books and develop a fanbase over time and/or gain a little over time from each book in the hope that eventually the aggregate is enough to switch to writing full time.

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.
  - benj111 3y ago
    Yes because the US had no influence on the current copywrite system... >Outside the U.S pay 1 dollar to own something you made is nonsensical Define 'own'. You aren't paying to own the thing, you're paying for legal protections. This is the issue with intellectual 'property' it isn't property, it doesn't require an owner, you aren't deprived of the use of your work if I 'steal' it. You will always own a book in the sense that if somebody copies it, they need to give you credit. That concept of 'ownership' makes at least as much sense as yours.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      >Define 'own'. You aren't paying to own the thing, you're paying for legal protections...That concept of 'ownership' makes at least as much sense as yours. Define I am not talking about my opinions about stuff, I'm talking about what the legal concepts are regarding copyright in the EU. The EU is a place that is not America. The EU has more stringent copyright rules for non-corporate copyright holders (where it is 70 years after death of longest living creator, if Steamboat Willie was owned by its creators instead of Walt Disney corporation it would still not be Public Domain in Europe) >Yes because the US had no influence on the current copywrite system... I do not believe the EU has been influenced by the U.S to make a copyright system that is more strict than the copyright system of the U.S. It makes more sense to suggest their copyright system is more strict because they have a different model of what a copyright system is for that would argue for a stricter system of copyright.
      - benj111 3y ago
        Well we both seem to disagree with the current system, as we're talking about alternatives So in the hypotheticals we're discussing, why are you pointing out it isn't compatible with the legal concepts of the current system, unless you want to keep those concepts?
        bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        OK well I guess I think your hypotheticals are 1. Even if only limited to U.S extremely unlikely to ever be implemented. 2. because of EU and other regional differences regarding copyright's purposes your hypothetical has actually no chance of ever being enacted outside the U.S 3. if your hypothetical was enacted inside U.S but not outside it would not solve the issue I find most irritating, near impossibility for people who do not have a team for dealing with these things to figure out if something is actually Public Domain or not?!? I recently had Google tell me it thought a video was copyrighted but it is definitely public domain in U.S but they might be right because hey some of the people who worked on the movie the video was taken from died in 1960s - so when does it run out of copyright well I can't track that down so I better not use that for what I want to do with it. Lord Dunsany died in 1957, I have a lot of uses for his stuff lined up but I better not do anything about it until 2027. My hypothetical is bring systems better in alignment - hopefully making EU more limited like U.S and thus people who want to use something to make art etc. can figure out exactly if it is in PD or not simply. Because that is the real copyright problem holding back small creators.
- blagie 3y ago
  You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70. However, a mechanism which works for Star Wars and Mickey Mouse, but not for a short story, a play, or a specialized piece of software written by a single individual which e.g. generates $20k / year, doesn't work for me. The length of the copyright shouldn't be proportional to the effort invested in the work. If a book my parents wrote is supposed to move into the public domain, so should Star Trek: The Original Series. That doesn't preclude mechanisms like: - Required (free) registration. I go to a government website, get a code, and from there on, it says: Copyright (c) 2022. Registration number 5f902b0a-f56c-402a-95fd-47f12f40e538 - Required (free) maintenance. I need to renew this to maintain copyright. - Anyone can look up the copyright owner (even though it might be Copyrights By Proxy, which is okay too -- anonymity is valuable). - Reasonable limits on duration. This handles your forum post, abandoned works, and to be frank, a majority of works under copyright. Most things move into the public domain. However, most things isn't the same as everything. I'd also be supportive of a radical expansion of fair use doctrine.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    >You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70. although I'm not agreeing with them they are not really beating up a strawman - in the EU it's life+70, because it has a different motivation for copyright than the U.S - this means that you may think something is in public domain but then you find out it isn't really because the person who made it in 1925 died in 1970.
  - benj111 3y ago
    I not wedded to this system. My personal standpoint is that copywrite should be the minimum necessary to encourage and allow people to create works. That would suggest to me somewhere south of 10 years, possibly varying with the specific art form. The doubling fee thing is somewhat appealling because it acts as a tax on valuable works. If Disney wants to spend millions to protect Mickey mouse then there is that option, yes the public domain loses, but the tax acts as compensation for that. I don't see why this doesn't work for the little guy. If they want to pay the fees they can, the point is people are only going to pay fees if it's worth it. That applies to Disney or Joe blogs. If it isn't worth $1/$2/$4 why should you get to stop everyone else using it?
- harimau777 3y ago
  I don't know if it's specifically 16+ years down the line. However, my understanding is that the model for most writers (i.e. those who don't become famous) is to keep writing books and develop a fanbase over time and/or gain a little over time from each book in the hope that eventually the aggregate is enough to switch to writing full time.