Copyright Compromise

[Imitation Saccharin]

Copyright law would not be abolished, but things could only be copyrighted for 10 years after which they become public domain.
This would operate on a similar system to current patent law.

The motivation would be to ensure freedom of information is not curtailed by ever-extending DMCA-like acts, while maintaining the monetary success of new endeavors thus maintaining innovation.

I propose this because I have no problem in and of itself with a company claiming domain over pieces of trivial information, but find it disconcerting that a company can make this claim indefinitely.

 

[zoozilla]

Perhaps you could give a few examples that show how your idea would help. That might make it easier for people to praise the brilliance of your post.

 

[black lincon]

You forget that most of the people who would be affected by this aren't particularly interested in innovation. They also happen to have the deepest pockets and therefore better friends with the people who make laws. Other than that pretty good idea.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Perhaps you could give a few examples that show how your idea would help.

I propose this because I have no problem in and of itself with a company claiming domain over pieces of trivial information, but find it disconcerting that a company can make this claim indefinitely.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are ya?

 

[JMeganSnow]

Um . . . what are you basing this on? There's no such thing as an indefinite copyright. Reference this handy-dandy chart [http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/] if you want to know when various copyrights expire in the U.S.

I think for most *copyrighted* material, the lifespan should be: life of the author +18 years. This would enable, say, a writer who was earning their living strictly from writing royalties to use their works to provide for their minor children should they die--and individuals should be able to profit from their work for their entire lifetimes.

Now, when the copyrighted material is owned by a *company*, that's a different story. I could see, then, having some such limitation like "Life of the company +5 years OR 15 years whichever comes first". This allows the company a reasonable amount of time to profit from the material without making the static ownership of IP a one-way ticket to the gravy train. It is irrational to treat a corporation the same way you would treat an individual in this context because a corporation can be effectively immortal. You can dicker over the number, but there should be a hard and fast number for IP effectively owned by more than one person.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Um . . . what are you basing this on?

Micky Mouse, Bugs Bunny, that one hamster-looking thing.

There's no such thing as an indefinite copyright.

Never claimed otherwise. There is the ability to continually get extensions on the initial claim, which although possibly denied, aren't ironclad in their refusal.

--and individuals should be able to profit from their work for their entire lifetimes.

So why is a writer more deserving of continued profit then an engineer or scientist?

 

[JMeganSnow]

So why is a writer more deserving of continued profit then an engineer or scientist?

Um, did you maybe mean "deserving" there? Ah, there, you edited it.

Patents and copyrights work differently because the IP being covered is fundamentally different.

If I write a novel and register a copyright on it, no one else is in any way prohibited from writing their own novel, they are simply prohibited from producing copies of MY novel. However, a patent does prohibit other people from using the same technological innovation. A patent with an overly long duration may act to squash innovation and competition in an entire field--especially when the original patent definition is overly broad. Copyrights can't and don't do this. Hence the difference in treatment.

Really, if you're going to start a thread about copyrights it behooves you to educate yourself on the topic so you don't start talking about non-existent "indefinite" copyrights and making invalid comparisons.

 

[JMeganSnow]

You know why you can't have little mini-games in a Loading screen? That's copyrighted.

A lot of the current software "look and feel" crap should be an invalid form of copyrighting, too.

it behooves

Because should is such an unpretentious word.

Some of us actually like to use our vocabulary. If not sounding like a teenager is pretentious, then I'm pretentious and I LIKE it.

you don't start talking about non-existent "indefinite" copyrights

Straw man.

So you didn't say this?

I propose this because I have no problem in and of itself with a company claiming domain over pieces of trivial information, but find it disconcerting that a company can make this claim indefinitely.

Indefinite claim means an indefinite copyright.

 

[zoozilla]

I propose this because I have no problem in and of itself with a company claiming domain over pieces of trivial information, but find it disconcerting that a company can make this claim indefinitely.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are ya?

Yes, that's very specific. I mean, did you have a specific company in mind? Some specific piece of "trivial information" that you specifically don't want a company to have indefinite control over?

And sorry for being a complete idiot.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

one of the best solutions i've seen comes from Larry Lessig and it went something like this:

copyright is life +50 or 75 years, which ever is shorter and then goes into the public domain, if you wish it continued then you must pay for the extension.

btw the crazy copyright extension stuff is also called a mickey mouse law and comes from what disney has done to keep the copyright on the mouse and they are also the most vocal opponents to change if they have to pay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_mouse_law

 

[Souplex]

Then star wars fanfics would be legal to be made into films, and is that what you want?