this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
1570 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59457 readers
3225 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Idk, I've seen plenty of books be popular something like 5 years after release, so having those be duplicated by bigger publishers in that time seems like a really bad idea, especially for smaller authors who have a harder time breaking through.
I think 10-15 w/ a one-time renewal for another 10-15 with proof that the rights holder didn't recoup their investment sounds reasonable. They'd have to pay for that renewal (probably relative to expected/past sales), but it would be an option. It would suck to be at year 10 after launch, and suddenly there's a ton of demand for your book (say, your recent release broke through, and people are reading your older works) so a different publisher swoops in and steals all of that profit. Or maybe a big movie producer decides to make a movie based on your book about 10 years after it has released, should they be allowed to just not pay you for that work?
The copyright system certainly has problems, but it does provide value to smaller creators.
I admit I was only thinking about the output of our largest firms. There's room for that, and I could easily be persuaded that the strength and duration of IP law should be inversely proportional to the size of the IP holder itself. And especially whether it is held by the sole creator, or collectively by private interests. People should own what they personally made, as much as possible under the circumstances.
Eh, once you share something publicly, you no longer have complete control over it. You'll always own it, but you won't always have the authority to tell others how your work may be used.
And yeah, the renewal thing is an attempt to prioritize smaller creators (who may actually need the extra protections) over larger creators (who don't need the extra protections).