6 ms·

The current US copyright duration is 70 years after the life of the author. This is absolutely bonkers. 50 years from publication would be a significant impro

The current US copyright duration is 70 years after the life of the author. This is absolutely bonkers. 50 years from publication would be a significant improvement. 50 years ago was 1975. If copyright were limited to 50 years, we'd be looking at all of the Beatles works being in the public domain. We'd be midway though Led Zeppelin, and a lot of the best work from Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones. Also, Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man. Disney would still profit from the MCU films which they produced in the 2010's, but they couldn't stop you from releasing your own Batman vs Spider-Man story. The Harry Potter books would still belong to JK Rowling, but the Narnia stories would be available for all. The Godfather 1 and 2 would be in the public domain, as would be original Star Trek TV show, and we'd be coming up on Star Wars pretty soon. If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. It is good that Paul McCartney and George Lucas and JK Rowling have profited from their creative output. It would be okay if they only profited for the first 50 years. Nobody is counting on revenue over half a century in the future when they create a work of art today. This is our culture. It should belong to all of us.

jfim 1y ago
> Disney would still profit from the MCU films which they produced in the 2010's, but they couldn't stop you from releasing your own Batman vs Spider-Man story. Wouldn't they still have a trademark on those characters though?
- ncallaway 1y ago
  The trademark on characters is related to selling goods, if the character is used as a way of identifying an authentic seller. So, if Disney is using mickey mouse on t-shirts to identify it as a Disney manufactured t-shirt, you wouldn't be allowed to use mickey mouse on t-shirts in a similar fashion in a way that might cause consumer confusion about who manufactured the t-shirt. If Wolverine was in the public domain, then they couldn't use a Wolverine trademark to stop you from selling a Wolverine comic book. However, if they used a _specific_ Wolverine mark to identify it as a Disney Wolverine book, then you'd be restricted from using that. Basically, trademark exists to prevent consumer confusion about who is the creator that is selling a good.
  - jfim 1y ago
    I see, so in that hypothetical world, one could make a spider guy comic book that looks suspiciously like another, but not label it "The Amazing Spiderman (r)"? Sounds like it would be a boon for things like fan art and fan fiction.
tpxl 1y ago
> If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. Citation needed. You can freely copy and distribute linux and it still got made.
- eru 1y ago
  Linux is under the GPL, which explicitly needs copyright to work. Something like the BSD licenses approximates 'no copyright' better, perhaps? But also not completely.
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  The GP wasn't referring to DRM or DMCA type "copyright protection" as the phrase is typically used. Nobody in this thread has mentioned any of that. The GP is referring to legal protections, and guess what? Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Nearly every GPL license--every one that we could name--protects a copyrighted work! Nearly every GFDL, AGPL, LGPL protects works by means of copyright law! Can you imagine that? So do the Apache license, the BSD licenses, the MIT license! Creative Commons (except for CC0) these licenses are legally protecting copyrighted works. Thank you! Now everyone who proposes to draw down limits on copyright coverage and reduce the length of terms and limit Disney from their Mouse rights, y'all are also proposing the same limits on GPL software, such as Linux, and nearly every work with a license from the above list -- all of Wikimedia Commons, much of Flickr.com, all your beloved F/OSS software will be subject to the same limitations and the same restrictions you want to put on Paramount and the RIAA's labels.
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    Yeah, I think most of us are fine with 50 years old Linux kernel being released into public domain.
- pastage 1y ago
  Linux has used the GPL to its advantage. That can not exist without copyright. (The two camps in copyright discussions, improving it e.g. CC, or destroy it)

jfim 1y ago

> Disney would still profit from the MCU films which they produced in the 2010's, but they couldn't stop you from releasing your own Batman vs Spider-Man story. Wouldn't they still have a trademark on those characters though?

ncallaway 1y ago
The trademark on characters is related to selling goods, if the character is used as a way of identifying an authentic seller. So, if Disney is using mickey mouse on t-shirts to identify it as a Disney manufactured t-shirt, you wouldn't be allowed to use mickey mouse on t-shirts in a similar fashion in a way that might cause consumer confusion about who manufactured the t-shirt. If Wolverine was in the public domain, then they couldn't use a Wolverine trademark to stop you from selling a Wolverine comic book. However, if they used a _specific_ Wolverine mark to identify it as a Disney Wolverine book, then you'd be restricted from using that. Basically, trademark exists to prevent consumer confusion about who is the creator that is selling a good.
- jfim 1y ago
  I see, so in that hypothetical world, one could make a spider guy comic book that looks suspiciously like another, but not label it "The Amazing Spiderman (r)"? Sounds like it would be a boon for things like fan art and fan fiction.

tpxl 1y ago

> If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. Citation needed. You can freely copy and distribute linux and it still got made.

eru 1y ago
Linux is under the GPL, which explicitly needs copyright to work. Something like the BSD licenses approximates 'no copyright' better, perhaps? But also not completely.
AStonesThrow 1y ago
The GP wasn't referring to DRM or DMCA type "copyright protection" as the phrase is typically used. Nobody in this thread has mentioned any of that. The GP is referring to legal protections, and guess what? Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Linux is legally protected by copyright! Nearly every GPL license--every one that we could name--protects a copyrighted work! Nearly every GFDL, AGPL, LGPL protects works by means of copyright law! Can you imagine that? So do the Apache license, the BSD licenses, the MIT license! Creative Commons (except for CC0) these licenses are legally protecting copyrighted works. Thank you! Now everyone who proposes to draw down limits on copyright coverage and reduce the length of terms and limit Disney from their Mouse rights, y'all are also proposing the same limits on GPL software, such as Linux, and nearly every work with a license from the above list -- all of Wikimedia Commons, much of Flickr.com, all your beloved F/OSS software will be subject to the same limitations and the same restrictions you want to put on Paramount and the RIAA's labels.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  Yeah, I think most of us are fine with 50 years old Linux kernel being released into public domain.
pastage 1y ago
Linux has used the GPL to its advantage. That can not exist without copyright. (The two camps in copyright discussions, improving it e.g. CC, or destroy it)