3 ms·

Rather than have them be for fixed periods, have the registration fee increase quickly. Want a 5 year copyright? Sure $100 registration. Another 5 years? $100

by zdw 2y ago

Rather than have them be for fixed periods, have the registration fee increase quickly. Want a 5 year copyright? Sure $100 registration. Another 5 years? $1000. Another 5 years? $10,000. This results in highly profitable media still being in copyright, but basically everything falls out somewhere close to the year 25 1m renewal mark, or soon after. Also, you have to give a few master copies to the copyright authority, so that it's less likely for the media to become lost.

tremarley 2y ago
That model would exclude all of the businesses that aren’t profitable or hold the patent for reasons that aren’t money related. I think a lot of people would consider it unfair
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 2Gkashmiri 2y ago
  Like.what. I hear this a lot but not much way of real examples. You hold on to.copyright of.a song you sang when you were 8 and isnt making any money? So what ?
- exe34 2y ago
  what's the downside here?
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    People who have more money can keep longer copyrights easier. That's the problem.
    - exe34 2y ago
      if they're making enough money off of it that they can afford the fees, then it's working as intended.
- dhc02 2y ago
  I think that for the person who suggested the idea, this would be considered success--creative products that aren't being actively used should revert to the commons. But as a comment in a different thread suggested, I do think that we'd want something like this to be accompanied by a shift in how we think about copyright. Right now, copyright is used for two broad reasons: 1) preventing unauthorized "commercial" use, and 2) preventing piracy. Use 1 is broadly good but flawed in the current system. But use 2 is culture-killing and creativity-surpressing with current copyright lengths, a good example of which being the loss of what.cd. The more I think about it, the more I think we need to separate the two uses, so that creative works are in the public domain by default after a short time for the purposes of private use and archival projects, but corporations are prohibited from using creative works they haven't paid for for commercial purposes on a much longer timescale. On balance, copyright seems to restrict the public and benefit corporations, and ideally that would be inverted.

by zdw 2y ago

tremarley 2y ago

That model would exclude all of the businesses that aren’t profitable or hold the patent for reasons that aren’t money related. I think a lot of people would consider it unfair

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
2Gkashmiri 2y ago
Like.what. I hear this a lot but not much way of real examples. You hold on to.copyright of.a song you sang when you were 8 and isnt making any money? So what ?
exe34 2y ago
what's the downside here?
- olyjohn 2y ago
  People who have more money can keep longer copyrights easier. That's the problem.
  - exe34 2y ago
    if they're making enough money off of it that they can afford the fees, then it's working as intended.
dhc02 2y ago
I think that for the person who suggested the idea, this would be considered success--creative products that aren't being actively used should revert to the commons. But as a comment in a different thread suggested, I do think that we'd want something like this to be accompanied by a shift in how we think about copyright. Right now, copyright is used for two broad reasons: 1) preventing unauthorized "commercial" use, and 2) preventing piracy. Use 1 is broadly good but flawed in the current system. But use 2 is culture-killing and creativity-surpressing with current copyright lengths, a good example of which being the loss of what.cd. The more I think about it, the more I think we need to separate the two uses, so that creative works are in the public domain by default after a short time for the purposes of private use and archival projects, but corporations are prohibited from using creative works they haven't paid for for commercial purposes on a much longer timescale. On balance, copyright seems to restrict the public and benefit corporations, and ideally that would be inverted.