6 ms·

The original US Copyright law extended protection for 14 years with the availability of renewal for another 14. I think that's reasonable and allows the expirat

by jstalin 12y ago

The original US Copyright law extended protection for 14 years with the availability of renewal for another 14. I think that's reasonable and allows the expiration of copyright after 14 years if the owner doesn't take the time to renew.

unreal37 12y ago
I agree it should expire and require active effort (and some $ amount) to renew. That way, Mickey Mouse can still be under copyright but most other artistic works will be available for public use.
- walterbell 12y ago
  How about a separate copyright category for Mickey Mouse?
  - chongli 12y ago
    Like... trademark?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Since Mickey Mouse has become an integral part of modern culture, at some point we should be able to do anything with Mickey we can currently do with the characters of Shakespeare and Grimm.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  I'm opposed to regressive copyright charges - which this sort of arrangement could lead to. Perhaps a percentage of the gross of all items sold under the copyright could be charged. That way if I'm making pin money from a few ebooks I don't have to give up that money so that Disney can be charged [at least] the full cost of the registration/renewal? One needs to write the law/regulations very carefully and be prepared to strike down extremely hard on corps who will try to manipulate this, eg by saying for a movie that the copyright work is on the DVD and you bought that for 1 cent but the packaging and label cost $19.99 and the work isn't available without those (or saying the customer pays for the TMs used separately or whatever other Hollywood accounting means they concoct).
sp332 12y ago
I wouldn't even mind so much if extensions were potentially infinite. My real problem is that everything gets the maximum "protection" by default. Creative Commons was invented to let authors selectively give up overbearing "protections". We should make some of these opt-in instead of opt-out.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  It seems like a sensible plan would be to charge $1 for copyright registration that lasts 5 years, then allow as many renewals for another 5 year period as you like but double the fee each time. At the 150 year mark Disney can decide for themselves whether another 5 years is worth a billion dollars.
  - msandford 12y ago
    Agreed in principle. I think the initial slope should be a little lower but after about 30 years things should REALLY start to take off. So maybe $10 a year for the first 15 years and then double it every year thereafter.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - dunham 12y ago
      He's proposing $7 _total_ for the first 15 years. ($1 for the first five, $2 for the next five, and $4 for the final five years.)
      - msandford 12y ago
        Graph the two of them and get back to me. I'm talking about the slope. I do realize that the total sum is basically trivial either way. But slope is an actual mathematical term and I used it as such.
        deleted 12y ago

by jstalin 12y ago

unreal37 12y ago

I agree it should expire and require active effort (and some $ amount) to renew. That way, Mickey Mouse can still be under copyright but most other artistic works will be available for public use.

walterbell 12y ago
How about a separate copyright category for Mickey Mouse?
- chongli 12y ago
  Like... trademark?
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Since Mickey Mouse has become an integral part of modern culture, at some point we should be able to do anything with Mickey we can currently do with the characters of Shakespeare and Grimm.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
I'm opposed to regressive copyright charges - which this sort of arrangement could lead to. Perhaps a percentage of the gross of all items sold under the copyright could be charged. That way if I'm making pin money from a few ebooks I don't have to give up that money so that Disney can be charged [at least] the full cost of the registration/renewal? One needs to write the law/regulations very carefully and be prepared to strike down extremely hard on corps who will try to manipulate this, eg by saying for a movie that the copyright work is on the DVD and you bought that for 1 cent but the packaging and label cost $19.99 and the work isn't available without those (or saying the customer pays for the TMs used separately or whatever other Hollywood accounting means they concoct).

sp332 12y ago

I wouldn't even mind so much if extensions were potentially infinite. My real problem is that everything gets the maximum "protection" by default. Creative Commons was invented to let authors selectively give up overbearing "protections". We should make some of these opt-in instead of opt-out.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
It seems like a sensible plan would be to charge $1 for copyright registration that lasts 5 years, then allow as many renewals for another 5 year period as you like but double the fee each time. At the 150 year mark Disney can decide for themselves whether another 5 years is worth a billion dollars.
- msandford 12y ago
  Agreed in principle. I think the initial slope should be a little lower but after about 30 years things should REALLY start to take off. So maybe $10 a year for the first 15 years and then double it every year thereafter.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - dunham 12y ago
    He's proposing $7 _total_ for the first 15 years. ($1 for the first five, $2 for the next five, and $4 for the final five years.)
    - msandford 12y ago
      Graph the two of them and get back to me. I'm talking about the slope. I do realize that the total sum is basically trivial either way. But slope is an actual mathematical term and I used it as such.
      - deleted 12y ago