4 ms·

That would be a tough change... An easier one, which is how things used to be, that everything enters public domain IF not renewed after X years (let's say 20).

by glimshe 1mo ago

That would be a tough change... An easier one, which is how things used to be, that everything enters public domain IF not renewed after X years (let's say 20). Abandoned or complex IP would just become public domain unless the owners themselves figure things out and demonstrate interest with the renewal process. Even a modest fee would lead to a huge gain without much friction for the true rights holders.

throwaway12053 1mo ago
Alternatively a "use it or lose it" requirement that the company must use the IP in a significant way. Either by proving that the sales of the product is still significant (like GTA V) or provide a meaningful update within X years (unlike GTA 6)
debugnik 1mo ago
Legal would remember to pay the fee for their abandoned works, just in case, while the rest of the company does nil with them. I'd rather address the issue directly and expire the copyright after X years since it was last published. Then again Disney's old "vault" strategy would counter it, and Nintendo is already toying with it to sell through FOMO. How can it be this hard to make companies keep our digital culture available for sale? It's not even charity.
- quacked 1mo ago
  We'll do it ourselves! People are natural hoarders and archivists, as should be effortlessly proven by custom wikis.
- glimshe 1mo ago
  It's okay if Legal does that. The idea isn't to prevent companies from owning copyrighted works long-term, it's to prevent the waste of abandoned works. There are thousands, if not millions, of works that could be cleanly reused under my proposal. I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument. I'm just saying that my proposal would be a lot easier to put in practice than anything that hurts companies. The strength of the proposal is exactly that companies will mostly shrug while creating a very clear legal separation of what's "active copyright" and what's an "abandoned work". By the way, this would also apply to the GPL (and other copyleft licenses).

by glimshe 1mo ago

throwaway12053 1mo ago

Alternatively a "use it or lose it" requirement that the company must use the IP in a significant way. Either by proving that the sales of the product is still significant (like GTA V) or provide a meaningful update within X years (unlike GTA 6)

debugnik 1mo ago

Legal would remember to pay the fee for their abandoned works, just in case, while the rest of the company does nil with them. I'd rather address the issue directly and expire the copyright after X years since it was last published. Then again Disney's old "vault" strategy would counter it, and Nintendo is already toying with it to sell through FOMO. How can it be this hard to make companies keep our digital culture available for sale? It's not even charity.

quacked 1mo ago
We'll do it ourselves! People are natural hoarders and archivists, as should be effortlessly proven by custom wikis.
glimshe 1mo ago
It's okay if Legal does that. The idea isn't to prevent companies from owning copyrighted works long-term, it's to prevent the waste of abandoned works. There are thousands, if not millions, of works that could be cleanly reused under my proposal. I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument. I'm just saying that my proposal would be a lot easier to put in practice than anything that hurts companies. The strength of the proposal is exactly that companies will mostly shrug while creating a very clear legal separation of what's "active copyright" and what's an "abandoned work". By the way, this would also apply to the GPL (and other copyleft licenses).