4 ms·

I hope to see copyright duration go down to a reasonable length within my lifetime. There's tons of creative derivative work which builds upon existing content

I hope to see copyright duration go down to a reasonable length within my lifetime. There's tons of creative derivative work which builds upon existing content which cannot be sold due to copyright. The way I think about IP is that if you grew up with something, by the time you're an adult it should be possible to remix it in any way you like, because it's part of your culture. Nobody should get to lock down an idea for their lifetime.

jazzyjackson 2y ago
14 years as originally intended would be fine. All the classic movies up to 2010, and I still have to pay a subscription to watch, and lots of them are unavailable because the studios want to haggle over licenses for 50 year old properties? It's the kind of thing that might drive a man to pirate. If your book hasn't made you rich in the first 14 years after publishing, I'm sorry, audience just isn't that into you. (I am aware movie deals can languish for many years before finally landing a deal, and with 14 years studios could just wait you out and there's no incentive to write a script anymore, but copyright should be 14 years after publishing right? And movie scripts are not generally published before they get made into a movie, if ever.)
- jasinjames 2y ago
  Not sure if this influences your thinking at all, but whatever duration copyright applies for starts once it was made, whether it was published or not. > Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation ... [1] And "creation" basically means "written down" [2]. IANAL. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_expression#:~:text=A%20work%20first%20must%20be,through%20visual%20or%20audio%20means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o...
- 8note 2y ago
  if you do suddenly become popular, you can write a second book, and get involved in TV or movie adaptations of it. GRRM isnt included on ASOIAF content because hes the copyright holder, but because his influence makes people want to see the shows
  - wisty 2y ago
    You could argue that 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book. OTOH preventing adaptations stifles things. Imagine if Tolkein had managed to lock down his orcs and elves like Disney locked down the mouse. I think 20 or 30 years is fairer. But IIRC it's not about fair, the Constitution says that it should only be to encourage innovation, and long copyright inhibits innovation.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book If you want to make an official adapatation, hire the author. If not, it's not official. This takes care of itself for authors who cultivate their fan base.
      - antifa 2y ago
        I think some kind of automatic royalty would be a nice middle ground.
        musicale 2y ago
        Compulsory licensing seems to have worked OK (though maybe not great) in some areas, such as broadcast retransmission, and recordings of cover versions of songs.
      - Ekaros 2y ago
        You could also keep trademarks. So content might not be protected, but you couldn't release remixes under trademarked names.
    - musicale 2y ago
      > the Constitution says that it should only be to encourage innovation, and long copyright inhibits innovation. I concur, but the Supreme Court might not. Plaintiffs in Eldred v. Ashcroft were defeated on "limited times", and I expect that a "promote the progress" argument would have an even harder time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Maybe a middle ground is mandatory, standardised licensing after 14 years and then public domain after 28. (Where do the multiples of 7 come from?)
- EvanAnderson 2y ago
  The option for a single renewal for 14 more years doesn't strike me as onerous. It makes a concession for the "audience hasn't made you rich in the first 14 years" and is still light years ahead of the current de facto infinite duration. It won't ever change, though. No chance ever. Other than to be actually made infinite. The nature of "intellectual property" and money being speech in US politics locks that in.
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    Well, at some point our government will collapse entirely, and then all the laws can change. I'm starting to think that might not be far off.
    - autobodie 2y ago
      I'm afraid that is just wishful and overly-optimistic thinking.
- bsder 2y ago
  The original author (not an assignee) should get N years free and should be able to renew every N years for some fee that escalates upwards with a single retroactive period if you haven't paid. If you hit a second period that you haven't paid, copyright dropped. If you aren't the original author, you get to renew once for N years--no more. This is a nice compromise in that it disincentivizes simply squatting on properties--you have to pay money to maintain later copyright so you have a strong push to make money on it.
Trung0246 2y ago
One of my idea was establish a copyright renew system in which first year is free, then for second year the right holder will pay $1 to retain the rights, third year pay $2, fourth year pay $4, fifth year pay $8... which follows the power of 2. If they cannot pay for next year then the copyright will fall into public domain (or allows more restrictive form of non-commercial). Most of the worthless stuff will expire at around 10-15 years. Then around 35-40 years for big works that generate tons of revenue if they can pay that amount.

jazzyjackson 2y ago

14 years as originally intended would be fine. All the classic movies up to 2010, and I still have to pay a subscription to watch, and lots of them are unavailable because the studios want to haggle over licenses for 50 year old properties? It's the kind of thing that might drive a man to pirate. If your book hasn't made you rich in the first 14 years after publishing, I'm sorry, audience just isn't that into you. (I am aware movie deals can languish for many years before finally landing a deal, and with 14 years studios could just wait you out and there's no incentive to write a script anymore, but copyright should be 14 years after publishing right? And movie scripts are not generally published before they get made into a movie, if ever.)

jasinjames 2y ago
Not sure if this influences your thinking at all, but whatever duration copyright applies for starts once it was made, whether it was published or not. > Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation ... [1] And "creation" basically means "written down" [2]. IANAL. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_expression#:~:text=A%20work%20first%20must%20be,through%20visual%20or%20audio%20means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o...
8note 2y ago
if you do suddenly become popular, you can write a second book, and get involved in TV or movie adaptations of it. GRRM isnt included on ASOIAF content because hes the copyright holder, but because his influence makes people want to see the shows
- wisty 2y ago
  You could argue that 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book. OTOH preventing adaptations stifles things. Imagine if Tolkein had managed to lock down his orcs and elves like Disney locked down the mouse. I think 20 or 30 years is fairer. But IIRC it's not about fair, the Constitution says that it should only be to encourage innovation, and long copyright inhibits innovation.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book If you want to make an official adapatation, hire the author. If not, it's not official. This takes care of itself for authors who cultivate their fan base.
    - antifa 2y ago
      I think some kind of automatic royalty would be a nice middle ground.
      - musicale 2y ago
        Compulsory licensing seems to have worked OK (though maybe not great) in some areas, such as broadcast retransmission, and recordings of cover versions of songs.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      You could also keep trademarks. So content might not be protected, but you couldn't release remixes under trademarked names.
  - musicale 2y ago
    > the Constitution says that it should only be to encourage innovation, and long copyright inhibits innovation. I concur, but the Supreme Court might not. Plaintiffs in Eldred v. Ashcroft were defeated on "limited times", and I expect that a "promote the progress" argument would have an even harder time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Maybe a middle ground is mandatory, standardised licensing after 14 years and then public domain after 28. (Where do the multiples of 7 come from?)
EvanAnderson 2y ago
The option for a single renewal for 14 more years doesn't strike me as onerous. It makes a concession for the "audience hasn't made you rich in the first 14 years" and is still light years ahead of the current de facto infinite duration. It won't ever change, though. No chance ever. Other than to be actually made infinite. The nature of "intellectual property" and money being speech in US politics locks that in.
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  Well, at some point our government will collapse entirely, and then all the laws can change. I'm starting to think that might not be far off.
  - autobodie 2y ago
    I'm afraid that is just wishful and overly-optimistic thinking.
bsder 2y ago
The original author (not an assignee) should get N years free and should be able to renew every N years for some fee that escalates upwards with a single retroactive period if you haven't paid. If you hit a second period that you haven't paid, copyright dropped. If you aren't the original author, you get to renew once for N years--no more. This is a nice compromise in that it disincentivizes simply squatting on properties--you have to pay money to maintain later copyright so you have a strong push to make money on it.

Trung0246 2y ago

One of my idea was establish a copyright renew system in which first year is free, then for second year the right holder will pay $1 to retain the rights, third year pay $2, fourth year pay $4, fifth year pay $8... which follows the power of 2. If they cannot pay for next year then the copyright will fall into public domain (or allows more restrictive form of non-commercial). Most of the worthless stuff will expire at around 10-15 years. Then around 35-40 years for big works that generate tons of revenue if they can pay that amount.