19 ms·

Yes, please. I'd argue for all copyrights to expire at 20 years after publication. The idea that there's a perpetual right to intellectual "property" is a very

Yes, please. I'd argue for all copyrights to expire at 20 years after publication. The idea that there's a perpetual right to intellectual "property" is a very dangerous one to a free society and to freedom of expression. There's no inherent right to own ideas. That's a legal construct created to encourage sharing of those ideas. But the idea that a 20-year limit is too short to encourage authors and musicians and game developers to create new creative work is ludicrous. If anything, the essentially unlimited copyright of today encourages less creative output and less innovation. Why develop any new characters or stories if you've got multiple generations worth of copyright left to go? Keep pumping out the sequels.

sp332 13y ago
I wouldn't even mind a compromise where anyone who paid a small extension fee could keep copyright going. That way Disney, Bono, etc could keep their own copyrights without messing things up for every other copyrighted work.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Yes! Are you an EU citizen? If so, it would be great if you could voice your opinion in the ongoing consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules, currently held by the European Commision. Here's the link: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyr... Even non-complete surveys will be considered and you can be sure your contribution will be read since the number of contributions is always relatively low. The same goes for any other EU citizens on HN. Now is the time to make yourself heared!
- gabemart 13y ago
  This idea is floated quite often in reformist discussions of copyright, but I think it would be a huge headache. I have worked with public domain material quite a bit. Currently, anything published in the United States prior to 1923 is in the public domain in the United States [1][2]. Some works published after 1923 are also in the public domain if they meet certain conditions (e.g. a work published in 1925 with a copyright notice where the copyright was never renewed), but it can be an extreme headache to work out which post-1923 works are in copyright and which are not. Although I am in no way a fan of the current system, it at least has the advantage of clarity for pre-1923 works. In a proposed system of copyright extension, renewal or terms that are in other ways modifiable on a per-work basis, establishing whether or not works are still in copyright would become an absolute nightmare. Consider that, in the US, copyright applies to any eligible creative work at the moment it is "created and fixed in a tangible form" [3]. In the internet age, millions or billions or works are created each day that are protected by copyright. Most of these works do not have a title and will never be registered anywhere, but copyright applies none the less. A central registry of copyrighted works is impossible, much less a registry that records the specific extensions or renewal term on a per-work basis. In my opinion, the only possible system that can work is one based on fixed lengths of time. If copyright is extendable, the large majority of works will fall into a legal grey area where it is unclear whether or not the copyright has been extended and almost impossible to find out. Under such a system, the only safe approach to handling copyrighted works would be to assume each work had had its copyright extended to the maximum term possible under law, unless it was provable that was not the case (which, as I have argued, would be extremely difficult). Under a fixed-term system, it is simple to work out whether or not most works are still copyrighted, even in cases where the title, author of record or copyright holder are not identifiable. [1] There may be some obscure exceptions to this rule, but it holds broadly enough that I have never encountered any in practice. [2] http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm [3] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
  - sp332 13y ago
    Why is it impossible? If they're paying for a copyright extension, shouldn't it be clear which works they are paying for? Anything not in the registry would fall under the shorter term.
    - gabemart 13y ago
      It's not impossible, but it can be extremely difficult. Consider a short story published in a literary journal last week. Allow a copyright system to exist that covers each eligible work for 30 years by default, and allows multiple extensions of 5 years at a cost of $1000 per extension per work, up to a total copyright term of 100 years. Someone in 2047 discovers a copy of this particular journal issue, which has now become obscure. They identify that this short story, though never being given acclaim, has had a subtle yet profound cultural influence. They decide to republish the story in their own commercial magazine, but want to check if the copyright has been extended. If it has not, the story is in the public domain. If is has been extended, the story is still covered by copyright. They can search the central registry for the title of the short story and the name of the author. But they also have to search for the names of the editors of the journal, because it isn't clear whether or not the copyright stayed with the author or was transferred to the journal as part of the submission process. In fact, the copyright might have been granted to the owner of the journal, which may be an individual or may be an institution. The entry for the copyright might be under the title of the short story, or under the title for the journal, or under the title of that particular issue of the journal. Furthermore, the author of the story, if they retained the copyright, may have submitted the story under a pen name, and/or may have registered the copyright of the short story under a different title than the title they used to submit to the journal, or the title might have been changed by the editors. Or, the author, after having the short story accepted by the journal, may have sold it to a publisher who published it in a short fiction anthology, the copyright for which is registered completely separately and is essentially invisible to our hypothetical future researcher. Any of these agents might have extended the copyright. It would be extremely difficult to prove to a high degree of certainty that the story was or was not covered by copyright.
      - 13y ago
jrs99 13y ago
20 years EVERYTHING. Even for something like Photoshop, imagine the amount of choice a consumer would have if there were a thousand Photoshops out there by different companies. Microsoft could even make a Photoshop. It would be ridiculous but kind of awesome. The same is true if we had maybe 10,000 Zelda games on the market. Imagining that is kind of weird. But the result is just awesome.
- cm2012 13y ago
  There is 1000 photoshops out there - they just don't use the name "photoshop". For a product like that the copyright doesn't really make a difference, except it might confuse customers.
- zokier 13y ago
  > Even for something like Photoshop, imagine the amount of choice a consumer would have if there were a thousand Photoshops out there by different companies. Microsoft could even make a Photoshop First of all even if copyright was expired it doesn't mean access to source code. Secondly, do you really think that having access to 20 year old version of Photoshop (source code or not) would be significant factor for anybody to enter the market? Making it work on modern systems would mean essentially a complete rewrite, at which point the original copyright would be irrelevant. Making it competitive would be probably more difficult with the original codebase than with a new clean design.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    >First of all even if copyright was expired it doesn't mean access to source code. Maybe it should. Registering a copyright already requires the submission of several copies of the work. Why shouldn't the source code necessary to produce that work be a required part of the submission? If the public is to be expected to take advantage of public domain works, they must have access to high quality versions in useful formats.
    - mihai_ionic 13y ago
      There's no such thing as "registering a copyright."
dottrap 13y ago
Here's an additional idea to shorter copyright periods (not mutually exclusive). Weaken protection for a copyrighted item over its duration. For example, when the subject is first copyrighted, it enjoys all the protections we have today, but say at different time periods (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc.) more things become fair use or public domain. As a simple example, take a copyrighted song. When first registered, it would have all the protections known today. But suppose that after awhile, the allowed cases of fair use are extended. So at a certain point still within the copyright period, people may be able to use certain bars of the song. And eventually people might be able to do their own covers of the song, perhaps more/earlier fair use is granted for those not earning money on it, e.g. your YouTube fan videos. And at a certain point, people can start using parts of the song in other works that are not wholly dependent on the song, such as use in a background track to a small segment in in a YouTube video like the credits out-tro.
- TylerE 13y ago
  Covers are explicitly allowed, even today. There's a standard royalty that applies, but no permission, or approval process or anything.
  - jonhohle 13y ago
    Covers are allowed because they are performed in venues with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC licenses - http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx. Covers performed in public in a venue without one of these licenses are not explicitly allowed.
    - TylerE 13y ago
      I was thinking in terms of recording a cover on a album.
      - scelerat 13y ago
        No, even then the songwriters get paid, again, via ASCAP, BMI, et al. Michael Jackson made billions off the Beatles catalog, for example. The songwriting copyrights, not the recordings.
10feet 13y ago
Do you actually have any skin in the game? I mean, are you someone who this would affect your income? Because it is very easy to suggest this, when there is no downsides to you. Now, as a developer and game creator, I do have some fish in the boat, but I also agree that a 20 year limit should exist.
- bandushrew 13y ago
  it is very easy to argue against it, when you stand to lose money if it were implemented.
- smithzvk 13y ago
  Every one in "the public" has skin in the game, cuz, you know, it's their "domain" we are talking about. The very fact that people think that pushing stuff into the public domain is some sort of gift, or that the public has no say in the matter, is kind of the point of the post.
zby 13y ago
This is essentially the founding idea of the Pirate Parties.

sp332 13y ago

I wouldn't even mind a compromise where anyone who paid a small extension fee could keep copyright going. That way Disney, Bono, etc could keep their own copyrights without messing things up for every other copyrighted work.

sentenza 13y ago
Yes! Are you an EU citizen? If so, it would be great if you could voice your opinion in the ongoing consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules, currently held by the European Commision. Here's the link: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyr... Even non-complete surveys will be considered and you can be sure your contribution will be read since the number of contributions is always relatively low. The same goes for any other EU citizens on HN. Now is the time to make yourself heared!
gabemart 13y ago
This idea is floated quite often in reformist discussions of copyright, but I think it would be a huge headache. I have worked with public domain material quite a bit. Currently, anything published in the United States prior to 1923 is in the public domain in the United States [1][2]. Some works published after 1923 are also in the public domain if they meet certain conditions (e.g. a work published in 1925 with a copyright notice where the copyright was never renewed), but it can be an extreme headache to work out which post-1923 works are in copyright and which are not. Although I am in no way a fan of the current system, it at least has the advantage of clarity for pre-1923 works. In a proposed system of copyright extension, renewal or terms that are in other ways modifiable on a per-work basis, establishing whether or not works are still in copyright would become an absolute nightmare. Consider that, in the US, copyright applies to any eligible creative work at the moment it is "created and fixed in a tangible form" [3]. In the internet age, millions or billions or works are created each day that are protected by copyright. Most of these works do not have a title and will never be registered anywhere, but copyright applies none the less. A central registry of copyrighted works is impossible, much less a registry that records the specific extensions or renewal term on a per-work basis. In my opinion, the only possible system that can work is one based on fixed lengths of time. If copyright is extendable, the large majority of works will fall into a legal grey area where it is unclear whether or not the copyright has been extended and almost impossible to find out. Under such a system, the only safe approach to handling copyrighted works would be to assume each work had had its copyright extended to the maximum term possible under law, unless it was provable that was not the case (which, as I have argued, would be extremely difficult). Under a fixed-term system, it is simple to work out whether or not most works are still copyrighted, even in cases where the title, author of record or copyright holder are not identifiable. [1] There may be some obscure exceptions to this rule, but it holds broadly enough that I have never encountered any in practice. [2] http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm [3] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
- sp332 13y ago
  Why is it impossible? If they're paying for a copyright extension, shouldn't it be clear which works they are paying for? Anything not in the registry would fall under the shorter term.
  - gabemart 13y ago
    It's not impossible, but it can be extremely difficult. Consider a short story published in a literary journal last week. Allow a copyright system to exist that covers each eligible work for 30 years by default, and allows multiple extensions of 5 years at a cost of $1000 per extension per work, up to a total copyright term of 100 years. Someone in 2047 discovers a copy of this particular journal issue, which has now become obscure. They identify that this short story, though never being given acclaim, has had a subtle yet profound cultural influence. They decide to republish the story in their own commercial magazine, but want to check if the copyright has been extended. If it has not, the story is in the public domain. If is has been extended, the story is still covered by copyright. They can search the central registry for the title of the short story and the name of the author. But they also have to search for the names of the editors of the journal, because it isn't clear whether or not the copyright stayed with the author or was transferred to the journal as part of the submission process. In fact, the copyright might have been granted to the owner of the journal, which may be an individual or may be an institution. The entry for the copyright might be under the title of the short story, or under the title for the journal, or under the title of that particular issue of the journal. Furthermore, the author of the story, if they retained the copyright, may have submitted the story under a pen name, and/or may have registered the copyright of the short story under a different title than the title they used to submit to the journal, or the title might have been changed by the editors. Or, the author, after having the short story accepted by the journal, may have sold it to a publisher who published it in a short fiction anthology, the copyright for which is registered completely separately and is essentially invisible to our hypothetical future researcher. Any of these agents might have extended the copyright. It would be extremely difficult to prove to a high degree of certainty that the story was or was not covered by copyright.
    - 13y ago

jrs99 13y ago

20 years EVERYTHING. Even for something like Photoshop, imagine the amount of choice a consumer would have if there were a thousand Photoshops out there by different companies. Microsoft could even make a Photoshop. It would be ridiculous but kind of awesome. The same is true if we had maybe 10,000 Zelda games on the market. Imagining that is kind of weird. But the result is just awesome.

cm2012 13y ago
There is 1000 photoshops out there - they just don't use the name "photoshop". For a product like that the copyright doesn't really make a difference, except it might confuse customers.
zokier 13y ago
> Even for something like Photoshop, imagine the amount of choice a consumer would have if there were a thousand Photoshops out there by different companies. Microsoft could even make a Photoshop First of all even if copyright was expired it doesn't mean access to source code. Secondly, do you really think that having access to 20 year old version of Photoshop (source code or not) would be significant factor for anybody to enter the market? Making it work on modern systems would mean essentially a complete rewrite, at which point the original copyright would be irrelevant. Making it competitive would be probably more difficult with the original codebase than with a new clean design.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >First of all even if copyright was expired it doesn't mean access to source code. Maybe it should. Registering a copyright already requires the submission of several copies of the work. Why shouldn't the source code necessary to produce that work be a required part of the submission? If the public is to be expected to take advantage of public domain works, they must have access to high quality versions in useful formats.
  - mihai_ionic 13y ago
    There's no such thing as "registering a copyright."

dottrap 13y ago

Here's an additional idea to shorter copyright periods (not mutually exclusive). Weaken protection for a copyrighted item over its duration. For example, when the subject is first copyrighted, it enjoys all the protections we have today, but say at different time periods (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc.) more things become fair use or public domain. As a simple example, take a copyrighted song. When first registered, it would have all the protections known today. But suppose that after awhile, the allowed cases of fair use are extended. So at a certain point still within the copyright period, people may be able to use certain bars of the song. And eventually people might be able to do their own covers of the song, perhaps more/earlier fair use is granted for those not earning money on it, e.g. your YouTube fan videos. And at a certain point, people can start using parts of the song in other works that are not wholly dependent on the song, such as use in a background track to a small segment in in a YouTube video like the credits out-tro.

TylerE 13y ago
Covers are explicitly allowed, even today. There's a standard royalty that applies, but no permission, or approval process or anything.
- jonhohle 13y ago
  Covers are allowed because they are performed in venues with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC licenses - http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.aspx. Covers performed in public in a venue without one of these licenses are not explicitly allowed.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    I was thinking in terms of recording a cover on a album.
    - scelerat 13y ago
      No, even then the songwriters get paid, again, via ASCAP, BMI, et al. Michael Jackson made billions off the Beatles catalog, for example. The songwriting copyrights, not the recordings.

10feet 13y ago

Do you actually have any skin in the game? I mean, are you someone who this would affect your income? Because it is very easy to suggest this, when there is no downsides to you. Now, as a developer and game creator, I do have some fish in the boat, but I also agree that a 20 year limit should exist.

bandushrew 13y ago
it is very easy to argue against it, when you stand to lose money if it were implemented.
smithzvk 13y ago
Every one in "the public" has skin in the game, cuz, you know, it's their "domain" we are talking about. The very fact that people think that pushing stuff into the public domain is some sort of gift, or that the public has no say in the matter, is kind of the point of the post.

zby 13y ago

This is essentially the founding idea of the Pirate Parties.