4 ms·

The much, much simpler, cheaper, and broad solution is to reduce copyright length to 10 years. Or even 15 years.

• int_19h 3y ago
  To be honest, I'm not even sure that long makes sense. The point of copyright is to encourage creation of content. But do we actually have a problem with too little content being created these days? If anything, it's the opposite - there's an overabundance of content, to the point where the actual problem is finding the real gems in this firehose (and this does not correlate with price or popularity at all). Maybe it's time to just drop the whole thing altogether. It does mean that the only people who will write books then will be the ones who either enjoy it as a hobby, or feel very strongly about saying something. And I'm pretty sure that this will still result in more content being created than there is actual demand for.
• thayne 3y ago
  And while we are at it, make it so if a work goes out of "print", then the copyright expires.
• AlbertCory 3y ago
  > much, much simpler, cheaper, and broad you left out "politically doable." There's a good reason why copyright law is as f&cked up as it is: it's the major holders of copyrights now.
  • Animats 3y ago
    It might be do-able now. Today, distributors of content (Google, Facebook, etc) have more political clout than copyright holders. Go for, say 25 years with no formalities. For 25 to 50 years, you have to file a copyright registration with the Library of Congress and pay a modest fee. For 50 to 100 years, you have to pay a huge fee (millions), just so a few classic movies people will still pay for can have coverage, and some famous music that still generates revenue can be covered.