5 ms·

I am generally very anti-copyright ( I hold that ten- to twenty years should be enough for the creator/their family) but I really like this exponential tax prop

by sireat 11y ago

I am generally very anti-copyright ( I hold that ten- to twenty years should be enough for the creator/their family) but I really like this exponential tax proposal.

phaemon 11y ago
That's an odd shifting of the Overton Window. I would generally think that someone who was anti-copyright would start from the position that copyright shouldn't exist at all. And that someone who was very anti-copyright would be actively protesting against the law.
- mcv 11y ago
  It's a compromise. If copyright really is so important to your business model, then you can afford to pay for the extension. Once it stops bringing in money, it becomes public domain within a decade. As it is now, all art that does not generate money is forgotten and remains inaccessible forever.
  - TillE 11y ago
    In particular, there's a ton of interesting non-fiction (eg, niche history books containing original research) that's out of print but not out of copyright. Nobody benefits from this. If we had a reasonable "orphaned works" law, the internet could contain much much more useful information.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      Or, more likely, publishers would allow print-on-demand ordering of any book in their collection. Either way, it's win-win.
kagamine 11y ago
Life of the author unless the author dies within 20 years of start of initial copyright in which case immediate family can extend by 20 more years, giving offspring, spouse etc, a chance to gain income from a deceased's work. (i chose 20 years because that would be baby to adult in the case of offspring). Companies: 20 years then stfu. Remember, they can still sell their product, and they could come up with a scheme to mark it original or authentic, like wines and foods now do.
- sireat 11y ago
  About companies this is what I think: If Mickey Mouse goes off copyright, sure there would be copycats making Mickey toys and not paying royalties/fees. Possibly somebody non-Disney approved would be making a Mickey Mouse movie. However, Disney could still be certifying approved toys(Nintendo seal worked quite well, there were non Nintendo cartridges but they were hard to find and generally horrible , I was tinking Custer's Revenge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer%27s_Revenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer%27s_Revenge but that was a non Atari approved cartridge). And if someone can make a new Mickey movie that stands along Fantasia then more power to them is what I say. Disney has been sitting on Mickey laurels for too long.
  - joezydeco 11y ago
    Atari didn't approve cartridges. That's exactly how something like Custer's Revenge got made. Nintendo didn't just approve cartridges by attaching a sticker to them, there was a protection chip inside (sold to the manufacturer by Nintendo) that allowed access to the NES. The reverse-engineering of this chip led to lawsuits: https://goo.gl/Cy736g https://goo.gl/Cy736g
  - EvanAnderson 11y ago
    You're conflating trademark and copyright. They're two different things. The copyright on Steamboat Willie expiring means that the cartoon, Steamboat Willie, falls into the public domain. That doesn't mean that anyone can make "copycat" Mickey Mouse toys, infringing on Disney's trademark.
    - sireat 11y ago
      You are correct, but then there is even less sense for Steamboat Willie to be still copyrighted (besides the obvious use in opening credits of recent Disney features, which the cynical me thinks is some attempt to extend the copyright protection not just a homage to the humble beginnings). If the MM toys still have trademark protection why shouldn't Steamboat Willie go to public domain?

by sireat 11y ago

I am generally very anti-copyright ( I hold that ten- to twenty years should be enough for the creator/their family) but I really like this exponential tax proposal.

phaemon 11y ago

That's an odd shifting of the Overton Window. I would generally think that someone who was anti-copyright would start from the position that copyright shouldn't exist at all. And that someone who was very anti-copyright would be actively protesting against the law.

mcv 11y ago
It's a compromise. If copyright really is so important to your business model, then you can afford to pay for the extension. Once it stops bringing in money, it becomes public domain within a decade. As it is now, all art that does not generate money is forgotten and remains inaccessible forever.
- TillE 11y ago
  In particular, there's a ton of interesting non-fiction (eg, niche history books containing original research) that's out of print but not out of copyright. Nobody benefits from this. If we had a reasonable "orphaned works" law, the internet could contain much much more useful information.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    Or, more likely, publishers would allow print-on-demand ordering of any book in their collection. Either way, it's win-win.

kagamine 11y ago

Life of the author unless the author dies within 20 years of start of initial copyright in which case immediate family can extend by 20 more years, giving offspring, spouse etc, a chance to gain income from a deceased's work. (i chose 20 years because that would be baby to adult in the case of offspring). Companies: 20 years then stfu. Remember, they can still sell their product, and they could come up with a scheme to mark it original or authentic, like wines and foods now do.

sireat 11y ago
About companies this is what I think: If Mickey Mouse goes off copyright, sure there would be copycats making Mickey toys and not paying royalties/fees. Possibly somebody non-Disney approved would be making a Mickey Mouse movie. However, Disney could still be certifying approved toys(Nintendo seal worked quite well, there were non Nintendo cartridges but they were hard to find and generally horrible , I was tinking Custer's Revenge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer%27s_Revenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer%27s_Revenge but that was a non Atari approved cartridge). And if someone can make a new Mickey movie that stands along Fantasia then more power to them is what I say. Disney has been sitting on Mickey laurels for too long.
- joezydeco 11y ago
  Atari didn't approve cartridges. That's exactly how something like Custer's Revenge got made. Nintendo didn't just approve cartridges by attaching a sticker to them, there was a protection chip inside (sold to the manufacturer by Nintendo) that allowed access to the NES. The reverse-engineering of this chip led to lawsuits: https://goo.gl/Cy736g https://goo.gl/Cy736g
- EvanAnderson 11y ago
  You're conflating trademark and copyright. They're two different things. The copyright on Steamboat Willie expiring means that the cartoon, Steamboat Willie, falls into the public domain. That doesn't mean that anyone can make "copycat" Mickey Mouse toys, infringing on Disney's trademark.
  - sireat 11y ago
    You are correct, but then there is even less sense for Steamboat Willie to be still copyrighted (besides the obvious use in opening credits of recent Disney features, which the cynical me thinks is some attempt to extend the copyright protection not just a homage to the humble beginnings). If the MM toys still have trademark protection why shouldn't Steamboat Willie go to public domain?