7 ms·

Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much

Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much of the law today as is (copyrights can apply to more than the original copyright law allowed and are automatically in force even without registering) but change the duration mechanism. For the first 14 years of the work's existence you get a copyright for free. For the next 14 years, you can re-register but with a higher but still nominal fee. For each year after that, you must re-register and the fee goes up at an accelerating rate eventually reaching millions per year per copyrighted item. I'm assuming there would have to be a cap somewhere. The government gets new revenue, most copyrights are shortened and enter the public domain more quickly and for the copyrights that are extremely valuable and still producing value in excess of the ever increasing registration fee, it will be worthwhile for the holder to pay.

cynicalkane 14y ago
I don't like this because the amount an entity will pay to keep copyright is roughly proportional to how culturally valuable it is. The more Disney will pay to lock up Mickey Mouse, the more we want the mouse to be free.
- loarabia 14y ago
  Well. You could always let the yearly payment grow uncapped. Assuming it grows faster than the rate of inflation at some point it would almost assuredly be in the interest of any holder to release a copyright. Another idea. Letting cost rise uncapped would eventually cause any holder to not re-register but is bad for smaller entities that hold copyrights. Capping the long-term re-registration cost while still having a long time limit could be a decent blend. Mickey Mouse is trademarked which is perpetual so it seems like the copyright on some cartoons would expire but it still wouldn't open the floodgates to any random person making their own Mickey cartoon series as Disney would vigorously enforce their trademark. Edited: Added another thought. On more edit: Trademark vs. Copyright
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  If there is no cap on the exponential portion eventually Mickey will be too expensive to protect and he will be free. The result would be the Government capturing all the value in later years and then the work would be freed allowing the public to capture the value. I think the OP's suggestion is the best I have heard so far. It could be a simple formula like a fee starting at $10/year for each copywrited work after 14 years, then it doubles ever year. By the 24th year you would be looking at paying just over $5,000, but by the 44th year Disney would be paying $5Bn/year. Probably not worth keeping the rights on Mickey for $5Bn/year.
  - Danieru 14y ago
    Now Government will have yet another source of revenue to optimize. Since Government hates giving up revenue we could expect entities close to giving up due to cost to receive exceptions. Anything to keep the money flowing.
- yuhong 14y ago
  Yea, but having random works be in copyright for too long is even worse, especially as it gets harder to find the copyright owner.
- bo1024 14y ago
  Right, but this should be perfect because they're paying the public. (Not that I expect the government to spend the money wisely, but in theory it seems to make sense.)
icebraining 14y ago
Simpler: the fee starts at $1 for the first year and doubles every year.
- htf 14y ago
  Here's a bag of dollars. That should be sufficient.
  - manaskarekar 14y ago
    Relevant: http://www.al6400.com/blog/2006/07/10/a-penny-doubled-everyday/ http://www.al6400.com/blog/2006/07/10/a-penny-doubled-everyd...
mvc 14y ago
I like this idea, but often economics isn't the only thing at play. Imagine for example, after 28 years, Halliburton wanted to make use of a John Lennon song in their advertising (pun not intended). Seems unfair that John (or his heirs) would have to pay to keep it from being used in this way.
- jkn 14y ago
  This is definitely an issue, however at some point the right of the people to appropriate their culture outweighs the right of the artists to control their creations. I think when your work has been in the wild for 28 years, it's time to let go.
  - devcpp 14y ago
    Agreed. We're not used to see modern works reused freely because it has never happened. But with an open mind, I can easily see it. 28 years after your death, the world well deserves to finally use your work.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Existing music copyright already has this property. Mechanical licensing means that, simply by paying a standarized fee, a performance or recording of a piece of music may be lawfully created. This issue occurs regularly during political campaigns in which a candidate or party may use a song (Palin's use of "Barracuda" and Silversun Pickup' "Panic Switch" by Romney) against the wishes of the musician in question. Generally the negative publicity of the musician's protest outweighs benefits to the campaign. But legally there's not much musicians can do. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/politics/music-in-campaigns/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/politics/music-in-campaigns/in... More broadly, the question becomes: at what point is a work fair pickings -- should we be able to prohibit Mozart or Vivaldi or Shakespeare works from being appropriated by various commercial or political concerns? Regardless, "use against my wishes or viewpoints" isn't one of the concerns of copyright as formed in the US Constitution. My view is that absent a brief period of commercial control, works should be released to public domain reasonably speedily.
- dredmorbius 14y ago

cynicalkane 14y ago

I don't like this because the amount an entity will pay to keep copyright is roughly proportional to how culturally valuable it is. The more Disney will pay to lock up Mickey Mouse, the more we want the mouse to be free.

loarabia 14y ago
Well. You could always let the yearly payment grow uncapped. Assuming it grows faster than the rate of inflation at some point it would almost assuredly be in the interest of any holder to release a copyright. Another idea. Letting cost rise uncapped would eventually cause any holder to not re-register but is bad for smaller entities that hold copyrights. Capping the long-term re-registration cost while still having a long time limit could be a decent blend. Mickey Mouse is trademarked which is perpetual so it seems like the copyright on some cartoons would expire but it still wouldn't open the floodgates to any random person making their own Mickey cartoon series as Disney would vigorously enforce their trademark. Edited: Added another thought. On more edit: Trademark vs. Copyright
wtvanhest 14y ago
If there is no cap on the exponential portion eventually Mickey will be too expensive to protect and he will be free. The result would be the Government capturing all the value in later years and then the work would be freed allowing the public to capture the value. I think the OP's suggestion is the best I have heard so far. It could be a simple formula like a fee starting at $10/year for each copywrited work after 14 years, then it doubles ever year. By the 24th year you would be looking at paying just over $5,000, but by the 44th year Disney would be paying $5Bn/year. Probably not worth keeping the rights on Mickey for $5Bn/year.
- Danieru 14y ago
  Now Government will have yet another source of revenue to optimize. Since Government hates giving up revenue we could expect entities close to giving up due to cost to receive exceptions. Anything to keep the money flowing.
yuhong 14y ago
Yea, but having random works be in copyright for too long is even worse, especially as it gets harder to find the copyright owner.
bo1024 14y ago
Right, but this should be perfect because they're paying the public. (Not that I expect the government to spend the money wisely, but in theory it seems to make sense.)

icebraining 14y ago

Simpler: the fee starts at $1 for the first year and doubles every year.

htf 14y ago
Here's a bag of dollars. That should be sufficient.
- manaskarekar 14y ago
  Relevant: http://www.al6400.com/blog/2006/07/10/a-penny-doubled-everyday/ http://www.al6400.com/blog/2006/07/10/a-penny-doubled-everyd...

mvc 14y ago

I like this idea, but often economics isn't the only thing at play. Imagine for example, after 28 years, Halliburton wanted to make use of a John Lennon song in their advertising (pun not intended). Seems unfair that John (or his heirs) would have to pay to keep it from being used in this way.

jkn 14y ago
This is definitely an issue, however at some point the right of the people to appropriate their culture outweighs the right of the artists to control their creations. I think when your work has been in the wild for 28 years, it's time to let go.
- devcpp 14y ago
  Agreed. We're not used to see modern works reused freely because it has never happened. But with an open mind, I can easily see it. 28 years after your death, the world well deserves to finally use your work.
dredmorbius 14y ago
Existing music copyright already has this property. Mechanical licensing means that, simply by paying a standarized fee, a performance or recording of a piece of music may be lawfully created. This issue occurs regularly during political campaigns in which a candidate or party may use a song (Palin's use of "Barracuda" and Silversun Pickup' "Panic Switch" by Romney) against the wishes of the musician in question. Generally the negative publicity of the musician's protest outweighs benefits to the campaign. But legally there's not much musicians can do. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/politics/music-in-campaigns/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/politics/music-in-campaigns/in... More broadly, the question becomes: at what point is a work fair pickings -- should we be able to prohibit Mozart or Vivaldi or Shakespeare works from being appropriated by various commercial or political concerns? Regardless, "use against my wishes or viewpoints" isn't one of the concerns of copyright as formed in the US Constitution. My view is that absent a brief period of commercial control, works should be released to public domain reasonably speedily.
dredmorbius 14y ago