3 ms·

Pray tell me, what are these root issues you speak of? I'm mostly in agreement with vaksel. I don't see how the copyright system has anything to do with how the

Pray tell me, what are these root issues you speak of? I'm mostly in agreement with vaksel. I don't see how the copyright system has anything to do with how the MPAA/RIAA tries to enforce it's copyright upon meaningless things like dancing videos of babies. Which by the way happened http://www.switched.com/2008/08/21/dancing-baby-lawsuit-turns-tables-on-music-industry/ http://www.switched.com/2008/08/21/dancing-baby-lawsuit-turn...

tutwabee 18y ago
The DMCA seems to legally broaden the intellectual property rights of mega-corporations in nasty ways. The RIAA, MPAA, and many electronics corporations frequently abuse these rights, while staying within the law. Maybe the RIAA and MPAA are the good guys. They're just stress-testing the system to work out bugs. Legal loopholes and kinks will be discovered, abused, and patched up much more hastily this way.
Xichekolas 18y ago
Well just to throw it up for consideration, I think granting exclusive rights to a work for "life + 70 years" for an individual and 120 years for a corporation is rather absurd. If the point of copyright was really to encourage artists/writers to produce content, don't you think 25 years would be sufficient time to capitalize on a work? Although I'd even settle for simply "life". The original copyright terms (in 1790) were 14 years with an option to extend once for 14 more. The current system is in place so corporate copyright owners can continue to profit off their long-dead artist's creations... ahem Disney. Nothing made since 1923 has entered the public domain. So yeah, the MPAA/RIAA definitely make bone-headed enforcement decisions, but the underlying system is also broken.
- Retric 18y ago
  IMO, I think life + 20 is reasonable. To avoid upsetting company's like Disney a fee per work to preserve valuable copyright seems reasonable. I would say 10k / year + 5% of the gross sales would be reasonable. That way you promote new works, but don't need to fight corporations that want copy write to last until the end of time. It's also a good divider between works that people are actually interested in preserving from works that generate little income.
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    I think "life" is sufficient. With that, someone can capitalize on their work for their entire career. Anything past death simply serves to allow offspring to ride the laurels of their parents. As for corporations, I'd be open to a pay-as-you-go system like you propose, only I'd make the payment grow at some exponential percentage. Say the first year costs $1 and the fee grows by 25% a year. Adjusted for 3% inflation, the fees would be something like: Year Fee/yr 1 $1 10 $5.71 25 $104.17 50 $13,169 100 $210 million 150 $3.36 trillion This would put a natural limit on corporate copyright, due to their willingness to pay. With this system, Disney would pay $5,659,799 this year for the Mickey Mouse copyright (assuming it started at 10 cents in 1928, which is assuming 3% inflation backwards from now). By 2033 this would be a billion dollars a year... by 2064 a trillion. (Again, at 3% inflation, a trillion dollars in 2064 is like $200 billion today).
    - kajecounterhack 18y ago
      lol what if someone commits murder for the sake of obtaining a copyright? that's not actually that far-fetched if you think about it. well...maybe. big evil corporations are, after all, the stuff of movies haha
jimbokun 18y ago
The root issue of having copyright laws that enable corporations to sue people for dancing baby videos.

tutwabee 18y ago

The DMCA seems to legally broaden the intellectual property rights of mega-corporations in nasty ways. The RIAA, MPAA, and many electronics corporations frequently abuse these rights, while staying within the law. Maybe the RIAA and MPAA are the good guys. They're just stress-testing the system to work out bugs. Legal loopholes and kinks will be discovered, abused, and patched up much more hastily this way.

Xichekolas 18y ago

Well just to throw it up for consideration, I think granting exclusive rights to a work for "life + 70 years" for an individual and 120 years for a corporation is rather absurd. If the point of copyright was really to encourage artists/writers to produce content, don't you think 25 years would be sufficient time to capitalize on a work? Although I'd even settle for simply "life". The original copyright terms (in 1790) were 14 years with an option to extend once for 14 more. The current system is in place so corporate copyright owners can continue to profit off their long-dead artist's creations... ahem Disney. Nothing made since 1923 has entered the public domain. So yeah, the MPAA/RIAA definitely make bone-headed enforcement decisions, but the underlying system is also broken.

Retric 18y ago
IMO, I think life + 20 is reasonable. To avoid upsetting company's like Disney a fee per work to preserve valuable copyright seems reasonable. I would say 10k / year + 5% of the gross sales would be reasonable. That way you promote new works, but don't need to fight corporations that want copy write to last until the end of time. It's also a good divider between works that people are actually interested in preserving from works that generate little income.
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  I think "life" is sufficient. With that, someone can capitalize on their work for their entire career. Anything past death simply serves to allow offspring to ride the laurels of their parents. As for corporations, I'd be open to a pay-as-you-go system like you propose, only I'd make the payment grow at some exponential percentage. Say the first year costs $1 and the fee grows by 25% a year. Adjusted for 3% inflation, the fees would be something like: Year Fee/yr 1 $1 10 $5.71 25 $104.17 50 $13,169 100 $210 million 150 $3.36 trillion This would put a natural limit on corporate copyright, due to their willingness to pay. With this system, Disney would pay $5,659,799 this year for the Mickey Mouse copyright (assuming it started at 10 cents in 1928, which is assuming 3% inflation backwards from now). By 2033 this would be a billion dollars a year... by 2064 a trillion. (Again, at 3% inflation, a trillion dollars in 2064 is like $200 billion today).
  - kajecounterhack 18y ago
    lol what if someone commits murder for the sake of obtaining a copyright? that's not actually that far-fetched if you think about it. well...maybe. big evil corporations are, after all, the stuff of movies haha

jimbokun 18y ago

The root issue of having copyright laws that enable corporations to sue people for dancing baby videos.