6 ms·

20 years to make some money, and then we set the work free for the public benefit. If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for co

20 years to make some money, and then we set the work free for the public benefit. If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for copyrights.

reorder9695 2mo ago
It also solves the issue of potentially not knowing when the author died, with a fixed period (the number isn't so important imo so long as it's sane), a work is out of copyright x years after the first known copy was published.
- monknomo 2mo ago
  reduces the ownership hunt problem, as well!
marcosdumay 2mo ago
Either that or some exponentially increasing tax so that Disney can keep their vault. (I'm perfectly fine with them keeping it if they pay some proper taxes.)
- monknomo 2mo ago
  the important thing is that copyright serves the public good, I do not think it currently does, at least not as well as it could
  - joquarky 2mo ago
    The whole purpose is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The implementation is no longer in alignment with that constitutional requirement.
- Ikatza 2mo ago
  They pay taxes every time that they make money off Mickey Mouse, regardless of copyright status.
  - marcosdumay 2mo ago
    Yes, and they should pay taxes whether they use it or not if they want to keep it out of the public domain.
  - couchdive 2mo ago
    Do they? scope out their federal tax liability in 2025. https://insidethemagic.net/2026/04/new-report-shows-that-the-walt-disney-company-paid-no-federal-income-taxes-despite-making-billions-in-2025-rl1/ https://insidethemagic.net/2026/04/new-report-shows-that-the...
altmanaltman 2mo ago
But this must then follow for all forms of works, why just books? Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death for the public benefit as well if that's the case. If I wrote it, I own the copyright on it, why should I or my future family give away something I worked really hard for? Why do only authors must care about public benefits?
- tancop 2mo ago
  > Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death if public company means employee owned (instead of publicly traded or state owned) then im all for it. if the founders family are good managers they can easily convince their workers to let them keep running things. you dont deserve a job or a fortune just because your parents did a lot of hard work before you were an adult. you got to prove yourself and be better than the rest, thats what capitalism is all about right?
  - altmanaltman 2mo ago
    What do you mean that's what capitalism is about? It's about capital. It doesn't asks where you get that capital - if you have $100,000 that you inherited vrs $100,000 you earned, JPM will still see it as just $100,000. So yes, by capitalism, if your parents did a lot of hard work and saved the capital and gave it to you, you have it. Where does it make a moral judgement that it's wrong to have inheritance or right to earn it by the bootstraps? And no, I mean every trade secret of the company should become public and anyone should be able to create its products and brands. Basically, do to them what you propose to do to writers and artists - why must their families benefit from their work?
    - constantius 2mo ago
      To your second point: a company (or any kind of organisation) is continuous work. It's a very obvious retort to your analogy. It would be akin to the author writing a book in a series every year for twenty years, then giving their rights to their child who keeps writing books every year, and every book only has 20 years of copyright. Seems fair to me. To your first point: inheritance has a concentrating effect on wealth. Concentration of wealth is not a good thing, as it breeds inequality by definition. If your grandparents gave you a house for free, and you used that enormous advantage to pur your money elsewhere and then own 2, 3 houses, and your child then gets 10, that's 10 houses that people could own themselves, instead of paying the highest rent that your child can get away with. If you have any experience of poverty, you should understand how viscerally unfair the existence of 'rich kids' seem, and how damaging it is to society.
qwytw 2mo ago
For corporations sure. For individual authors that's certainly not fair. Especially since it makes it easier for corporations to exploit their work without paying them anything. > If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for copyrights Because there are fundamentally differ concepts and serve different purposes?
- monknomo 2mo ago
  I don't think they are very different in concept, other than one covers physical goods (and also procedures to make physical goods), and the other covers writings. The purposes of both are: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Like, this is a made up regime with a specific intent. The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history. I think we could quite reasonably choose a different period of time (and in fact, have done so several times over the past few hundred years) and still promote progress. I think it's very reasonable to say that one good idea should not be enough to let you coast your whole life, you should be prodded to cough up 3 good ideas. Further, it reduces corporate power at the other end by allowing individuals to play in coroporate properties after a relatively short time. You could be futzing around with, idk, a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime.
  - qwytw 2mo ago
    It would also make it much easier for corporations to exploit authors. They would generally make most of their money early (in the couple of years following when the content is released). Individual authors would be much more affected, it might take years for your book to become popular. Also imagine if a studio decides to make a movie or tv show just right after your copyright expires, they wouldn't pay the author anything and just have higher profit margins. > The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history Patented inventions and technologies have some sort of direct practical value. Society does not really benefit much if anyone is allowed to created derived works based on any copyrighted content without compensating the author. > a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime. I don't think cars are copyrighted unless you want to make an exact copy of it you shouldn't run into any issues.
Ekaros 2mo ago
I agree 20 or 25 years should be plenty of time to protect artistic work. No other industry or line of work has anything like that protection. A work published today by 10 year old could stay in protection for nearly 200 years. If that person was to live to 140, theoretically possible with medicine in future. We do not continue to pay for most things once they are created. Unless they are continuous services. Artistic works should not be any different.

20 years to make some money, and then we set the work free for the public benefit. If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for copyrights.

reorder9695 2mo ago

It also solves the issue of potentially not knowing when the author died, with a fixed period (the number isn't so important imo so long as it's sane), a work is out of copyright x years after the first known copy was published.

monknomo 2mo ago
reduces the ownership hunt problem, as well!

marcosdumay 2mo ago

Either that or some exponentially increasing tax so that Disney can keep their vault. (I'm perfectly fine with them keeping it if they pay some proper taxes.)

monknomo 2mo ago
the important thing is that copyright serves the public good, I do not think it currently does, at least not as well as it could
- joquarky 2mo ago
  The whole purpose is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The implementation is no longer in alignment with that constitutional requirement.
Ikatza 2mo ago
They pay taxes every time that they make money off Mickey Mouse, regardless of copyright status.
- marcosdumay 2mo ago
  Yes, and they should pay taxes whether they use it or not if they want to keep it out of the public domain.
- couchdive 2mo ago
  Do they? scope out their federal tax liability in 2025. https://insidethemagic.net/2026/04/new-report-shows-that-the-walt-disney-company-paid-no-federal-income-taxes-despite-making-billions-in-2025-rl1/ https://insidethemagic.net/2026/04/new-report-shows-that-the...

altmanaltman 2mo ago

But this must then follow for all forms of works, why just books? Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death for the public benefit as well if that's the case. If I wrote it, I own the copyright on it, why should I or my future family give away something I worked really hard for? Why do only authors must care about public benefits?

tancop 2mo ago
> Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death if public company means employee owned (instead of publicly traded or state owned) then im all for it. if the founders family are good managers they can easily convince their workers to let them keep running things. you dont deserve a job or a fortune just because your parents did a lot of hard work before you were an adult. you got to prove yourself and be better than the rest, thats what capitalism is all about right?
- altmanaltman 2mo ago
  What do you mean that's what capitalism is about? It's about capital. It doesn't asks where you get that capital - if you have $100,000 that you inherited vrs $100,000 you earned, JPM will still see it as just $100,000. So yes, by capitalism, if your parents did a lot of hard work and saved the capital and gave it to you, you have it. Where does it make a moral judgement that it's wrong to have inheritance or right to earn it by the bootstraps? And no, I mean every trade secret of the company should become public and anyone should be able to create its products and brands. Basically, do to them what you propose to do to writers and artists - why must their families benefit from their work?
  - constantius 2mo ago
    To your second point: a company (or any kind of organisation) is continuous work. It's a very obvious retort to your analogy. It would be akin to the author writing a book in a series every year for twenty years, then giving their rights to their child who keeps writing books every year, and every book only has 20 years of copyright. Seems fair to me. To your first point: inheritance has a concentrating effect on wealth. Concentration of wealth is not a good thing, as it breeds inequality by definition. If your grandparents gave you a house for free, and you used that enormous advantage to pur your money elsewhere and then own 2, 3 houses, and your child then gets 10, that's 10 houses that people could own themselves, instead of paying the highest rent that your child can get away with. If you have any experience of poverty, you should understand how viscerally unfair the existence of 'rich kids' seem, and how damaging it is to society.

qwytw 2mo ago

For corporations sure. For individual authors that's certainly not fair. Especially since it makes it easier for corporations to exploit their work without paying them anything. > If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for copyrights Because there are fundamentally differ concepts and serve different purposes?

monknomo 2mo ago
I don't think they are very different in concept, other than one covers physical goods (and also procedures to make physical goods), and the other covers writings. The purposes of both are: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Like, this is a made up regime with a specific intent. The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history. I think we could quite reasonably choose a different period of time (and in fact, have done so several times over the past few hundred years) and still promote progress. I think it's very reasonable to say that one good idea should not be enough to let you coast your whole life, you should be prodded to cough up 3 good ideas. Further, it reduces corporate power at the other end by allowing individuals to play in coroporate properties after a relatively short time. You could be futzing around with, idk, a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime.
- qwytw 2mo ago
  It would also make it much easier for corporations to exploit authors. They would generally make most of their money early (in the couple of years following when the content is released). Individual authors would be much more affected, it might take years for your book to become popular. Also imagine if a studio decides to make a movie or tv show just right after your copyright expires, they wouldn't pay the author anything and just have higher profit margins. > The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history Patented inventions and technologies have some sort of direct practical value. Society does not really benefit much if anyone is allowed to created derived works based on any copyrighted content without compensating the author. > a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime. I don't think cars are copyrighted unless you want to make an exact copy of it you shouldn't run into any issues.

Ekaros 2mo ago

I agree 20 or 25 years should be plenty of time to protect artistic work. No other industry or line of work has anything like that protection. A work published today by 10 year old could stay in protection for nearly 200 years. If that person was to live to 140, theoretically possible with medicine in future. We do not continue to pay for most things once they are created. Unless they are continuous services. Artistic works should not be any different.