Chat

I've mentioned this before here, but my stance is 20 years flat for a work owned by corporation, and life for works owned by an individual.

As a published author, I'm glad copyright existed. Without it, none of my publishers would have been in business and I would have had to find some other income source. But I think the default should be "public domain" rather than "copyright", and I'm skeptical of allowing corporations to own the copyright to individuals' works.

I'm fine with copyright, but it should end when the author dies instead of extending x years after the death. But patents should be limited to a few years after product release and the loopholes closed. Right now some patents can be extened infinitely.

My biggest frustration with copyright is in situations when the item is out of print or rights owned by an entity that has dissolved. There really should be a way to republish such works without waiting many decades for it to be in public domain.

I think -- copyright should apply to humans only and be non-transferable from the original artist except in cases of death. Grant copyright to individuals or joint copyright with groups with fractional right for 7 years if the work is distributed, 1 year if not. Legal entities cannot own any copyright at all.

I think somewhere in the ballpark of 10-20 years is probably enough to reward creators. Anything significantly longer than that, and it just incentivizes them to milk their creations forever, and punishes other creators who might otherwise make novel derivative works.

I am also of the belief that intellectual property in general (copyrights and patents) should be subject to eminent domain in the same way that physical private property is, i.e. it should be possible to force the creator to sell it to the public (with fair compensation) in cases where it would be an invaluable public good.

Yes, copyright and should exist, but only for about ten years, which should be enough time to get rich off it. Afterwards you can just come up with new ideas.

Long live copyleft

Fun topic! Copyrights have their place in society even now. However, I say it should be a fixed 20 to 30 years MAXIMUM. That should be enough time for people to commercialize and profit for the original creator or organization. Anything beyond that just starts getting ridiculous.

I don't have a clear answer, but it's really interesting to look at places like Shenzhen in China where copyright is largely ignored. The tech industry there is booming with competition, and good ideas are adopted (or stolen depending on how you look at it) quickly between products. In many ways it seems better for the consumer.

Edit: I might be muddying the waters here between copyright and patents, but it seemed relevant to bring up anyway given the discussion of capitalism.

As a hobby artist, I think copyright should exist to protect individual artists commercial rights. Whether I sell my work or not, should be up to me. On the other hand, we should not punish people for finding inspiration in other people's works or using them as wallpapers, and usually we don't.

It should not be legal for H&M to scrape Artstation or Deviantart for images to print on their T-shirts, not even if 20 years have passed since it was posted. If they want to use an image, they should have to contact the artist and get permission first.

I think works owned by corporations is a different beast. Corporations should also be allowed to profit of their works, but I don't think they should be able to hold copyrights as a default. Copyright should protect those who make art, not those who commission art.

Copyright is essential. Without it, it would be nearly impossible for most creators to make a profit or even recoup their investment. Some other companies would just reproduce the finished good and sell it for less due to having fewer expenses. And while some may argue "people who want to support the creator will buy the official source" but the point is, without copyright, it will be almost impossible to know what is the official version and what isn't.

For example, books. The official first release has to pay for the time the author spent writing the book, it has to pay for the editors working on it, they have to pay for an artist to create cover art or any other illustrations used, they have to pay for advertisements, and finally the distribution. Someone else can just copy the finished work and then just have to pay for distribution. A person buying the book would have no chance of knowing which book is the original one because the books are identical. If Trademarks are still a thing there might be a different company name on the book but it would take a lot of effort for consumers to figure out which is the original.

Same with any kind of software. Someone has to pay for the time spent by the programmers, the designers, the person coming up with the ideas, and all other people involved in getting the program finished. Without copyright, someone else can just create a somewhat official-looking site and sell the product for slightly less. Mark it "On-Sale" and people wouldn't even be able to tell from the price whether the product is "official" or not.

We can get rid of copyright once the need for work is eliminated. If all of our basic needs are taken care of regardless of what we do, then creating art can entirely turn into something done out of passion. It could be achieved by implementing a UBI or however else the need for work/money is eliminated.

I agree that the current time of 70 years or the life of the author+70 years is too long and unnecessary though. A reduction to 20-30 years should be sufficient. Especially since trademark law can extend that. I don't think the moral argument of an author having control over how their creation is supposed to be used holds up.

It's a good idea to know the history of US copyright before answering this question.

As far as my answer, maybe 10 years. Even then, all content is remixed and remastered, so I don't really see a point to copyrights at all. Anything that relies on copyright are a part of incredibly incredibly oversaturated industries, so people should just make what they are passionate about, and not worry about whether some dude decides to rip it off to create some other thing. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all. Jazz musicians certainly don't give a shit, and people have been stealing the Amen Break for decades.

People are too damn concerned over trying to be rich and famous from whatever idea they foolishly think is unique. Every melody has essentially already been created, and if it hasn't, then AI and LLMs will take care of the rest. Create art because you like to create art.

The problem is the work-to-live death spiral. Install UBI and abolish copyright.

How about an annual renewal fee that increases exponentially over time? The mouse can afford it.

I prefer a flat time period not in excess of a single lifetime. So, like, 20 years.

Reason being: if an old person invents something (presumably) to benefit his family and immediately dies, I think it’s fair to give the kids time to benefit from it.

Shouldn’t be too long, though, since it shouldn’t have a multigenerational effect. As in, it shouldn’t benefit him during his lifetime AND his kids during theirs.

I'm too content with copyleft licenses like the GPL and Creative Commons to ever want to go back to anything more restrictive.

I'm clearly not an expert in the matter and perhaps this is just my wishful? thinking.

I feel like any type of scientific knowledge humanity has acquired shouldn't be "owned" by any individual / entity and subsequently only benefit an -often small- portion of society. For example, it baffles me how some medications take years and years -usually until the patents expire- to become available to the majority of the patients that need them. I get that companies need a return on their investments. But imo that should never come at the cost of any person's life or health. Like, aside from production costs, the costs of researching a given drug are fixed. So, it's not like the more people that use it takes money out of their pockets somehow. Logically, it should be the other way around.

Idk, it just doesn't make sense to me when the knowledge already exists and people aren't able to make use of it until much later because apparently that's the only way someone's able to make a profit in this current system? Maybe copyright sucks?

What do y'all think?

Edit: I was just made aware from reading the other comments that patents / copyright are actually two distinct forms of IP that serve different purposes. So yeah, definitely not an expert. Not deleting bc I still stand by what I said, but my comment doesn't really answer the question at hand.

Copyright and patents: 10-20 years maximum, depending on the industry. Trademarks should be forever, because that kinda defeats the point of a trademark if it expires.

Let me give an example I understand personally: Rubik's cubes. Rubik's cubes were invented by Ernő Rubik, and gained widespread popularity in the early 80s. In 1982 there was a speed solving competition, where Minh Thai got the world record fastest solve at 22.95 seconds. After this, the "craze" died out and it lost much popularity. Ideal Toy Corp sold the puzzle and retained a patent on it until 2000, after which was the second cubing craze. Sales doubled between 2001 and 2003, and the speed solving competitions came back. This time, however, solvers were not buying the stiff, clunky, catchy, sandy "Rubik's Cubes", they were at first appearing to be buying Chinese "knock-offs", brands which quickly developed recognition and brand loyalty among speed solvers. They were designed for speed, they had looser springs, less plastic, but "torpedoes" to keep them in place under other pieces, and cut out corners to allow imprecise movement. You can buy a better cube than the Rubik's Cube for less money than a Rubik's Cube. You can buy 10 speed cubes for the price of one Rubik's Brand speed cube, their failed attempt at capitalizing on the market. Rubik's Brand has spent the entire time up until very recently not interacting with the rest of the community, trying to sue companies out of selling their products.

I would say 10-15 years max. If you can't make a profit within that amount of time you are unlikely to ever make a profit. Hell, even that long is probably too long.

Abandoned IP should automatically end the copyright. If I can't buy it new from an authorized seller, then I should be able to get it somewhere else without issue.

Existing beyond death seems too exploitative for my liking. But also, what do people think about trademarks and patents.

Maybe I’m just naive, but I feel like it doesn’t really make sense particularly in the internet era. I can understand the argument that patents and copyright can allow people to profit off of their ideas and all, and maybe it would actually discourage anybody from making anything otherwise… But I just don’t really buy that? It seems like patents and rights often end up being held by large corporations instead of creators anyway, and they have incentive to iterate anyway? I dunno.

But in some sense copyright and patents only benefit the owner of them and everybody else suffers as a result. Technically speaking it’s better if everybody can have free access to books and knowledge and works of art, and it’s beneficial for everybody in society if anybody can create things based on other designs and works. Like I don’t really benefit at all from E-ink having patents which stifles innovation in the field just so that they can turn a profit for years before anybody else can… Maybe you can argue that they wouldn’t have invented it unless they were incentivized by being able to weaponize the legal system as a result of their patent findings, but I kind of doubt that… They’d still have a good product that people would want anyway? Maybe I’m just being idealistic, but it seems a huge shame that we can’t imagine that humans would want to create and better the lives of ourselves and others without profit motives, you know? It’d be nice if we could just support each other and work on making cool and better things.

I think copyright is most valuable as a tool to protect someone's work from plagiarism. Preventing others from copying your work without attribution is a good thing. Using copyright to block the derivative or transformative work others make is counterproductive. I like the phrase "rising tides lifts all boats".

I think rules on fair use should be far more forgiving than they currently are. You should be able to protect complete concepts, like a unique character, setting, or story, but you can't stop others from modifying or being inspired by someone's ideas.

I also think corporations or private entities should never be able to own copyright. Copyright must be owned by a person or a group of people (the makers/authors). Ownership of copyright shouldn't be able to be transferable, but you can give permission to use the copyright like a normal license or contract would. That means copyright ends when the last owner does, and the work enters public domain.

Edit corrected with attribution to without attribution

Copyright is odd, if I make a hammer then the person who buys it can hammer away making things they can sell for profit, modify the hammer, make another similar one or give it away or rent it out without any restriction. But I might have patent on the design and I might have copyright on the logo.

If I make a film of me making the hammer then copyright applies and even if they buy the film from me they can’t do with it what they want and probably have to pay me more to show it.

What I’m saying is that I think we need to rethink and simplify copyright. It’s simply not right that children couldnt (up to 2015) sing Happy Birthday at a party without paying the rights holder for the tune.

I think the value that has been produced by a single IP should be a trigger for passing into the public domain, not just elapsed time

10 years by default, then you can apply for up to two 5 year extensions. Extensions should only be granted if the work is still being made available (as in physical copies still being printed, digital copies still being sold, streaming available, software compatible with current platforms, etc), if it's abandoned you can't retain copyright just to not publish it.

I'd go with the following:

• Everything is CC-BY by default, copyright is opt-in.
• If someone opts in to copyright, it ends whenever they die (I'm going to be nice and say "until the last person dies" for a group project).

I hate copyright, but understand that some people really want to keep their work for themselves. Maybe they can do that - in a world where copyrighting isn't default, we'd have so much to choose from that we wouldn't need the content made by the kind of people who decide to prevent sharing their work.

The Harry Spotter videos proved that copyright should expire after 25 years.

Copyright should protect the artist, not corporations. But it's become a business, with companies made only for the sole purpose of (sometimes falsely) claim copyright of works.

We can see this with videos being copyright strike when they were making clear use of "fair use", or when some years ago there was an issue with channels about Classical Music having their videos taken down for copyright claim coming from a company that alleged to have the rights over different pieces (not the performances, that are protected by copyright), but the piece itself, from different eras/centuries (20th and 21th century compositions are protected by copyright, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th and 15th century compositions are not)

There also have been cases of an artist/author losing the right to reproduce their own work after getting out of a contract because the publishing house/music company got full right on their work. Sometimes getting to the point that the artist couldn't perform because the music company had the right to the image of the artist.

So, how can copyright be shaped in a way that upholds the right of the artist, but doesn't allow for any kind of corporative abuse to exist?

Copyright protection should only apply to people and if they are alive.

We're stifling artistic innovation when copyright is controlled by corporations.

Half of mean median life expectancy which is something like 40 years. Same for everyone. Makes no sense that one can write a book and then live off it forever. That does not encourage more books. Good gig though.

Edit: Ideally something better would be good but we only know copyright.

The original duration of copyright was a flat 14 years, with a single additional 14 year extension if the copyright holder applied for it. So 28 years in total.

It turns out that after 28 years the vast, vast majority of copyrighted works have already earned essentially all of the money that they will ever earn. Most of them go out of print forever before that point. It's only a rare few works that end up becoming "classics" and spawning "franchises" that last beyond that point. We're sacrificing the utility of the vast bulk of what should be in the public domain for the sake of making those occasional lucky hits into cash cows.

There's a great paper by Rufus Pollock, Forever Minus a Day? Calculating Optimal Copyright Term, wherein he uses rigorous economic analysis to calculate that the optimal duration of copyright for generating the maximum value for society is 15 years with a 99% confidence interval extending up to 38 years. So remarkably the original law hit the right duration almost exactly through sheer happenstance.

In an earlier paper he also determined that the optimal duration of copyright actually decreases as it becomes easier to distribute work, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively.

I think it should be limited to thirty years at the absolute maximum. In addition, I feel as though copyright should have to be defended. If the copyright holder does not make their copyrighted work available for a certain amount of time, it should fall into public domain.