this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
510 points (87.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43914 readers
1147 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn't exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.
i agree.
The world got essentially all classical music, the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. without the need for copyright. Shakespeare's work wasn't protected by copyrights either. So, it's not like amazing works of art require copyright. They'll happen regardless. It's more about how artists are incentivized to create and who profits.
Bonus point: they will be about passion, not the money.
Not saying money shouldn't be there - we need to support free creators so they could make a living and pursue their passion - but copyright is too often not about that in particular, being owned often not by the authors and squeezing everything if the creation gets popular.
Heck yeah, I'd support 25 years. We could be jamming to Nirvana and Tupac royalty free. Instead, we only just got Happy Birthday.
With a 28 year copyright term (14 years, renewable for another 14), the way it was in the early 1700s, Forrest Gump would just be entering the public domain.
That seems about right. They've made their money. It cost them $55m to make, they've made $650m on it so far. And anything that's going to come in in the future is going to be a trickle compared to the first few decades of the movie. It also seems about right because Forrest Gump has become part of the culture. People quote lines from it. It's used in memes. It has its own life that lives on outside of the IP owned by Paramount.
But, because of the warped copyright system, it won't be in the public domain for nearly another century.
The purpose of copyright is that it's a balance. It incentivizes artists to make things, and in exchange those things enter the public domain a short time later. Without copyright, the theory goes that artists won't create as much art, so fewer things will enter the public domain.
But, can anybody argue, with a straight face, that unless copyright terms are 120 years, Disney and friends just aren't going to bother? Do they really need more than a century as an incentive, and as a way to recoup their costs? Of course not.
The worst thing is that other countries used to have slightly more sane copyright systems, but the US imposed the ridiculous US system on most of the world by strong-arming every other country into agreeing to copyright treaties, that force these other countries to essentially adopt the US system.
Only the super rich disagree with you.
Totally agree. "Intellectual property" shouldn't be a thing. Yes, writing a novel or recording a song is work, but so is building a house. Craftspersons don't get royalties from people using the widgets that they make; they get paid only for the first sale of the product.
That said, intangibles like written and recorded media are qualitatively different, in that they can be effortlessly copied. Without some sort of legal protection, creators wouldn't be able to profit from even that first sale. A limited-term copyright is an okay compromise.
But now that corporations can "own" intangible works nearly indefinitely, they're getting greedy, and are applying that to physical objects that they sell through the subscription model. And it's bullshit.
Yes, absolutely, roll back copyright terms to 14 years.
This. If you invent some machine or process that will change the world, you have twenty years to make your fortune, after which you will be out-competed on price by cheap Chinese knock-offs. But if you write a book or a song or make a film, if it takes off you're set for life. And not only that, your descendants will be set for another seventy years.
20 years is quite short. But life+70 is too long. I've seen one more conservative take that would like to see 50 years for creative works. That would give enough time for two bouts of nostalgia, and meanwhile it would mean that Mozart and Beethoven would be joined by Hendrix and Elvis, that Shakespeare and Shelley would be joined by the likes of Orwell. You & I would be free to make new James Bond stories (and probably do a better job than the ones that currently have the film rights)
I think 20 years is a good amount of time. First, it matches how long patents last. Second, it gives enough time to milk the copyright to make lots of money from a creative work while letting customers see what innovation happens when it goes public domain in their lifetime.
I'm pretty sure most people share this opinion.
14 renewable once (if the author was still alive) to 28 years. I could live with that.
Copyright and proprietariness will vanish in a better society