3 ms·
Nah, it's time to remember the spirit of it, not the letter. It was designed primarily to give leverage to the little guys against the big companies who had mor
by jrm4 3y ago
Nah, it's time to remember the spirit of it, not the letter. It was designed primarily to give leverage to the little guys against the big companies who had more power to copy, and it's needed now more than ever.
- ronsor 3y agoThen reform it and reduce term length, perhaps?
- jrm4 3y agoAbsolutely. 100%
- ronsor 3y agoI'm on board then. Now, if only legislators actually seemed to care what average people thought.
- corysama 3y agoI think the original law was: Manual registration required for 22 years of protection. Manual re-registration required for a 22-year extension. Public domain after 44 years at most. I’d support that. Make something at 18. Sell it until you are 62. “Author’s life + 70 years” is much too slow for the pace of culture in the past 70 years.
- a_vanderbilt 3y agoI think this would be an equitable compromise. AI can use the older stuff to build a foundation and license the newer stuff. Artists alive today get paid for their work, and we as a society can reap the benefits of art in a reasonable time frame. I have a speech I am delivering on this issue in a few months, would you mind if I adapt your comment and cite you?
- kemotep 3y agoOriginal copyright in the US was 14 years with the option to extend for 1 additional 14 year term. In 1831 it was changed to 28 years for the base term and the option to renew it for an additional 14 years or 42 years total. That was the copy right law for nearly 200 years. Today it is actually 95 years or 70 years after the death of the author, whichever one is sooner. I think a return to the 1831 copyright regime is pretty fair. Even just 28 years no extensions is enough time to have a full career in something.