This book documents how copyright power has expanded substantially since 1974 in five critical dimensions:
duration (from 32 to 95 years),
scope (from publishers to virtually everyone),
reach (to every view on a computer),
control (including "derivative works" defined so broadly that virtually any new content could be sued by some copyright holder as a "derivative work" of something), and
concentration and integration of the media industry.
It also documents how this industry has successfully used the legal system to limit competition to the major media corporations through legal action against...
What makes me sad is that a lot of "protected" works were made by artists who could take inspirations from works more easily at the time, as copyright was more permissive.
The idea that someone's "estate" can exist for decades after your death is sickening. All copyrights should end with the death of the creator. Descendants should have no right to feed off the works of an artist in perpetuity. It's the ultimate in rent-seeking pigs feeding at the trough.
And what if they didn't? What if the persons who supported them were not from their family?
Furthermore, have you look at the release dates in the article? It was almost 100 years ago. The article give an example of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate which sued Netflix two years ago.
If they didn't, or didn't get along then it's possible the author could have left the rights of his estate to someone else. If there is no will, things go by default to family.
The intent of copyright was never to be a never-ending "golden goose"! It was to give a very limited sole ability to monetize something in exchange for moving the arts and sciences forward.
Generational wealth was never a consideration. Nor was how helpful other people were to the enterprise.
It is amazing that the perception (and reality thanks to unlimited money from mega-corps) has changed to be something that someone "owns" and is "owed". It isn't and never was. It was only ever meant to be an encourangment for the good of society not for the individual.
How would that work with software, or other collaboratively developed corporate owned works? If a windows kernel developer dies do those lines of source code become public domain?
Suppose you're a software freelancer, you're 35, you have two young kids, you've spent the last 15 years working very hard writing software, and you're able to support yourself with annual license fees from some businesses.
If you decide to just watch TV for the rest of your life, your hard work will continue to pay off, and your kids will be provided for. But if you get hit by a bus one day and killed, your one valuable asset instantly becomes worthless, and your kids aren't provided for.
Sometimes, things don't work out. I joined a FAANG last year, and my stock is down over 50%. My children won't be provided for a well as they could have had I made a better choice. Who should I complain to?
It's not about complaining. The goal of copyright is to create an incentive. Leaving uncertainty in there, when you could easily write the rules to eliminate it, makes the incentive less valuable and undermines the original purpose.
I've always wondered if it would be possible to purchase the rights to things and then just let them be public domain. Most of that stuff isn't making any money for anyone, would a lump sum be enough to get it there?
29 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 58.0 ms ] threadhttps://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
I cannot fathom any reason for these extended lengths :/
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book):
What if that help and support went on for many years while the author was working on his "masterpiece"?
What if that masterpiece was released just years before his death?
How can people be so nihilists about this?
Furthermore, have you look at the release dates in the article? It was almost 100 years ago. The article give an example of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate which sued Netflix two years ago.
> And what if they didn't?
If they didn't, or didn't get along then it's possible the author could have left the rights of his estate to someone else. If there is no will, things go by default to family.
The intent of copyright was never to be a never-ending "golden goose"! It was to give a very limited sole ability to monetize something in exchange for moving the arts and sciences forward.
Generational wealth was never a consideration. Nor was how helpful other people were to the enterprise.
It is amazing that the perception (and reality thanks to unlimited money from mega-corps) has changed to be something that someone "owns" and is "owed". It isn't and never was. It was only ever meant to be an encourangment for the good of society not for the individual.
Suppose you're a software freelancer, you're 35, you have two young kids, you've spent the last 15 years working very hard writing software, and you're able to support yourself with annual license fees from some businesses.
If you decide to just watch TV for the rest of your life, your hard work will continue to pay off, and your kids will be provided for. But if you get hit by a bus one day and killed, your one valuable asset instantly becomes worthless, and your kids aren't provided for.
Welcoming 1927 to the Public Domain - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34215980 - Jan 2023 (32 comments)
Sherlock Holmes will finally escape copyright this weekend - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34164546 - Dec 2022 (102 comments)
Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Toon Is Set to Be Public Property - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34150530 - Dec 2022 (56 comments)
January 1, 2023 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1927 are open to all - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34072345 - Dec 2022 (461 comments)
2023's public domain is a banger - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071163 - Dec 2022 (5 comments)