10 ms·

I'm going to designate this as the obligatory "copyright is far too long" subthread. In my opinion, the ideal length (if we are to have copyright) is between 1

• modeless 2y ago
  Has anyone done a study on when copyrighted works make their money? I'm guessing that the vast majority of the income is made in the first decade after creation. Timeless classics are by far the exception. And for those, does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? The creation that copyright was supposed to incentivize already happened. At that point society benefits when works go into the public domain so derivatives can flourish.
  • ronsor 2y ago
    > does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? In my opinion, it doesn't. In creative and entertainment industries, the idea of practically indefinite royalties has been normalized, but no other industries has this*. For example, it would be strange to continue paying a construction company after your home has been built. *As far as I can remember. I'm open to correction here.
    • lionkor 2y ago
      any subscription service that doesn't deliver new value each day or month, like the Adobe suite(s)
      • ronsor 2y ago
        In the case of Adobe, you're paying for continuous updates and their added cloud services (or other functionality which requires their servers). Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. Meanwhile one does not pay for continuous updates to a particular novel or a movie. Even if they do pay for new installments in a series, they do so separately.
        • drdeca 2y ago
          > Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. And the per-second pricing is even less!
        • bluGill 2y ago
          Adobe presumably also fixes bugs, so hopefully you are getting something better over time. I've in the past wore out a favorite book and since it was in print bought a new copy - and found the same typos that were in the previous copy.
        • benj111 2y ago
          I'm sure thats what they say you're paying for. I suspect you're just paying a monopoly tax.
    • radlad 2y ago
      I don't understand the analogy. We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. Probably floorplans would be a closer comparison - and I believe they are licensed IP?
      • shiroiushi 2y ago
        >We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. You might pay the construction company again for the identical 2nd house, but you're not going to pay the architect again.
        • Juliate 2y ago
          Dépends. If the 2nd house location requires review by an architect because of ground issues or regulation. If contractual provisions require an architect fee. If small adjustments that may have structural impacts are needed. You won’t pay the same amount, but still something.
          • shiroiushi 2y ago
            You're quibbling. That's really not at all the same as paying an architect to design an all-new building.
            • Juliate 2y ago
              Not quibbling. That’s not the same order of magnitude but it’s real life. It happens and can be a significant part of revenue for the architect.
        • eesmith 2y ago
          Why not? The US, for example, recognizes a copyright in architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t...
      • 2y ago
    • benj111 2y ago
      I'd go slightly further. A rich author can retire, and not write any more books. From an encouraging creativity POV, copyright length should be set at about the amount of time it takes to create a followup. But, as open source software, and most authors and musicians demonstrate. People will create without any financial incentive. So ultimately copyright is there to allow an industry that can actually find and distribute these works. For the record, I'm not suggesting that creators should be decently rewarded for their works.
    • paxys 2y ago
      That isn't the right analogy. To start, royalties have nothing to do with copyright. They are simply an agreement between an author and a publisher. I give you the exclusive right to publish my book, and I get a cut of every sale. Royalties extend far beyond creative fields. Any deal where someone gets a percentage share of the sale of a product or service on an ongoing basis is a "royalty". E.g. in manufacturing or even software.
  • fwip 2y ago
    Some people would say that the fortunate authors have already benefitted society, and that the potential of winning this lottery ticket was part of their incentive to do so. We could equally ask "does it benefit society to enrich tech founders with billion-dollar acquisitions?" That said, I believe the security of UBI to be a stronger enabler for creativity than gambling you'll write the next great American novel in-between shifts at the fish cannery.
  • pclmulqdq 2y ago
    My guess is that authors have relatively long-term returns on their books, while movies are known to generally make almost all their money in the first year.
    • Juliate 2y ago
      Generally yes, significant revenue (for books but also movies and music) may happen several years after the first release/publication. Because… reasons you don’t always control.
      • account42 2y ago
        Ok, but the goal is not to make sure that artists can derive every possible revenue but only to make sure that they get enough to for the creation to be worth it.
        • Juliate 2y ago
          Given the nature of the cultural market (authors/original creation often gets a very small share of what the end consumer pays, unless they are also their own editors, producers and distributors), it’s hard to make it worth it without extending in time (and part of the idea is that some of the value you didn’t get while you’re living will get to your legacy, which is a deep motivation too).
    • Mindwipe 2y ago
      > while movies are known to generally make almost all their money in the first year. That hasn't been true for fifteen years.
      • mcosta 2y ago
        After the DVD and TV licenses, what are the sources of income? Toys?
        • s1artibartfast 2y ago
  • benj111 2y ago
    I'd say less than 5 years. I'm not sure its even the relevant question. What length of time does a film studio, or book publisher look at for payback? If everyones calculating their return on the first 12 months, setting copyright to 12 months obviously isn't going to impact any industry investment decisions.
  • tpmoney 2y ago
    I would bet it’s a bathtub curve for a lot of things. You make a chunk initially, then your cultural relevance / popularity wanes. Then roughly 20-30 years later you see a revival as all the younger generation that were fans of your work become old enough to both spend disposable income on more of it and have their nostalgia kick in. I there’s a number of older 80’s and early 90’s properties that are getting / have gotten renewed interest because the original fans are old enough to renew that interest. Think things like Cyberpunk (1980s TTRPG -> 2020s CRPG). I wonder if you could have a system that captures that sort of thing. Something like 10 years exclusive + if you register the copyright you can get 10 more years of a standard royalty + limited right of refusal and another 10 years of just standard royalties. That way you could benefit from the nostalgia bump but also society can benefit from easier access to build on your IP.
• aucisson_masque 2y ago
  I mean if everyone agree but a few big companies, how is it possible that it has not yet been changed by politicians. I’m not saying specifically USA but also Europe, I can’t see common people fighting over the right of author to hold intellectual properties for 70 years. Haven’t been trials to shorten it somewhere, either USA or any other developed countries where it’s actually enforced ?
  • ronsor 2y ago
    There are a few reasons why copyright terms aren't shortened: * International treaties make it difficult without buy-in from everyone, or at least the most important countries. The USA is probably the only country that could afford to unilaterally make such a change. * Politicians are largely beholden to big companies now. * The average person is distracted with other societal woes, and politicians and companies work hard to keep it that way. * Some people have been convinced that excessive copyright is a moral good through propaganda.
    • genghisjahn 2y ago
      I’m not sure where I stand on this, but is it possible that some people have been convinced that copyright is a moral evil by propaganda? I pause when I hear this line of argument, “I’m a free thinker and I have objective truth. Others are weak minded victims of propaganda.”
      • ronsor 2y ago
        Of course. There's all kinds of propaganda (and depending on where you stand, some propaganda is good and other propaganda is bad), and not one person is immune. But for the sake of this discussion, there are some extra factors to consider: * Those promoting copyright expansion or the status quo have significant amounts of money; those criticizing it mostly do not (counting groups with real principles, anyway) * It is suspicious for people who have no personal interest in extended copyright to excessively favor it.
  • lmm 2y ago
• plopz 2y ago
  The only part that feels weird about a shorter duration like that is tv/movie adaptations of books. The game of thrones show came out 15 years after the first book, does that mean they would have been able to make it without licensing it from the author?
  • echelon 2y ago
    This is a remarkably salient point. It can take a long time for certain works to find their wings or true market potential, especially books and music. Some examples of music: "Take On Me", "Running Up That Hill", "Bohemian Rhapsody", or even bands, like Neutral Milk Hotel
    • jhbadger 2y ago
      You may have a point with a cult band like Neutral Milk Hotel, but songs like Take On Me and Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new -- it's just that both got a second wave of popularity decades later when they were used on soundtracks of films/shows.
      • echelon 2y ago
        > Running Up That Hill were incredibly popular when they were new It was far more popular in the recent revival!
  • ronsor 2y ago
    It does mean that, and I think that's just something that would have to be accepted. Disney's empire is built on adaptations of public domain stories, after all.
    • echelon 2y ago
      Disney is about to be faced with a landscape where anybody can make Pixar films from home. They're in for a world of hurt in the new regime where thought moves faster than IP. Film studios only existed because (1) distribution used to be hard and (2) films were financially and logistically difficult to make. Netflix and YouTube slayed the first challenge, and now GenAI will fell the latter and give indie directors the same kind of platform that indie game and indie music folks currently have: true one person studios.
• pclmulqdq 2y ago
  European patents have an interesting fee structure that increases exponentially (IIRC doubling every ~3 years), with a 20 year limit. I think this (plus mandatory registration if you want to enforce) is a great solution to copyrights, too, even if you let it run unbounded. If the registration fee is $1000, a registration 30 years later is $1000000 and if you want 60 years you have to pay $1000000000 over the life of the copyright. Any excess revenue could, theoretically, be redistribute as grants for the arts.
  • devsda 2y ago
    I think it should be proportionate (& increasing exponentially) to the revenue(not profit because hollywood accounting). Big coporations like Disney can hold on to the material and pay the sum with profits from other ip if it's fixed.
    • shiroiushi 2y ago
      I completely disagree. The previous comment's idea is better: just charge fees. The government shouldn't be worried about exactly how profitable something is, because you can argue that too many ways (see Hollywood accounting). It's too easy for large corporations to invent "creative accounting" tricks, and just basing things on revenue penalizes any company that invests larger amounts of money in ventures that have lower profit margins (e.g. doing high-quality movie production with physical models, on-location shooting, etc. instead of just using some crappy AI to generate everything). With exponentially increasing fees, the copyright holder can decide for themselves if it's economically worthwhile to pay the renewal fees or release it into the public domain. If the cost to extend copyright another 5 years after 50+ years is $1B, for instance, very few copyright holders will bother with that unless it's a highly profitable property.
      • wtallis 2y ago
        The problem with "just charge fees" is that it wastes an excellent opportunity to make the copyright system more useful for individual authors and artists, and instead strengthens the status quo with even more incentives to consolidate copyright powers under mega-corporations. Long before the fees got high enough to incentivize a corporation to abandon a work's copyright to the public domain, they would force authors to sell out to a corporation in return for a share of future earnings, rather than accept an immediate loss of all royalties.
• liontwist 2y ago
  What it sounds like you’re saying is “this stuff is too old to be interesting” which is kind of the point.
  • ronsor 2y ago
    The point of copyright is to promote the creation of new works. It has nothing to do with the popularity of the work under copyright or after entering the public domain. Mickey Mouse was still relevant at the time of entering the public domain, ninety-five lobbied years later.
    • deprecative 2y ago
      To add it's only Steamboat Willie Mickey that is public domain. The actual character as we think of him isn't. The creator has been dead for nearly 80 years. It's absolutely insane that any of those creations are still privately owned.
    • liontwist 2y ago
      Yep. But if it still commands economic value for its creator and you cut that off, then it is reducing that incentive to create and cultivate in the first place.
      • account42 2y ago
        You are assuming that incentive to create keeps increasing with more monetary reward. Incentive doesn't start out at zero without rewards (see history before copyright) and is never infinite (what good is infinite money if you never get to use it).
        • liontwist 2y ago
          And you are assuming it doesn’t. Brand is valuable for consumers and protecting that brand only makes sense if you continue to have ownership and control over it. For a non infinite money glitch version of this, see “Calvin and Hobbes”. Would the world be better if those characters could be printed on random merchandise?
• benfortuna 2y ago
  If this was the case would we have enough interesting content (movies, music, etc.) to reduce demand for streaming services, etc.? I think those indirect impacts probably incentivize more lobby groups to keep the status quo.
• anilgulecha 2y ago
  The original copyright law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne) got it right IMO: 14 years.
• Animats 2y ago
  All the TRIPS agreement requires is 50 years. That can be from first publication, regardless of when the author dies. The US should go with 50 years from first publication. It doesn't have significant financial effect for rights holders. Revenue on content over 50 years old is tiny. Maybe if you're still alive, the sole author, and own the rights yourself, you could apply for an extension for the rest of your life. But no more than that. Someone with Trumpworld connections could push this, as a way of getting back at Hollywood.
  • Mindwipe 2y ago
    > All the TRIPS agreement requires is 50 years. That can be from first publication, regardless of when the author dies. TRIPS requires fifty years for features, but not for various bits of copyright that go into making a feature, where it requires life + 50. There are vanishingly small amounts of films that would be genuinely clear under the TRIPS terms, they'd basically just be performing arts pieces with no script or planning or music.
• theshrike79 2y ago
  I'd go with something like the Sony Spiderman deal. Unless they release new IP with that character every X years, the rights revert back go Marvel (Now Disney). Same with books. If you have an ongoing series for 20 years, the first books shouldn't enter public domain. But a book series or TV show with no new content for 15+ years? Public domain.
  • HideousKojima 2y ago
    That gets really murky really fast. Is 10 Cloverfield Lane a sequel to Cloverfield? They decided to throw the Cloverfield name onto it shortly before release for marketing reasons, the actual movie has nothing to do with the events and story of the original Cloverfield. Is the video game Nier a sequel to Drakengard? Technically yes, but the connection is vague and distant. And there's also Drakengard 2 which is the sequel to a different ending for the original game. How would you count Fear the Walking Dead, the spin-off series of The Walking Dead, itself and adaptation of a comic book series. Do the shows continue to get copyright protection so long as the comics are still being published? Or vice versa?
• vundercind 2y ago
  It should definitely be short enough for creatives to engage directly with their influences from childhood and adolescence in middle age, and to take on and use the earlier works of their contemporaries in their later years. So, probably not more than twenty years. Fifteen would be better.
• benj111 2y ago
  Surely the point of copyright is to allow a person to have sole rights to commercialise a thing before it goes to the public domain. If so, if they havent done that in the first 10/15 years, why should they get an extra 10/15 years? Further, another issue of very long copyrights is preserving things you don't really have a right to preserve. that successful videogame may still be around in 25 years. the one that wasn't so popular has much less chance of surviving. And then you have the added complication of what was successful? a fixed term means you know when something is in the public domain. personally, I think there should be registration and fees attached. if you want copyright protection for the first 5 years, pay a nominal fee. if you want more than that, pay exponentially more for each year. If companies want to pay that tax, they can. if it isn't worth it, then it can go in the public domain. Either way, at least you have a register of what is in, and out of copyright.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]