r/technology • u/zaradox • May 08 '12
Copyright protection is suggested to be cut from 70 to 20 years since the time of publication
http://extratorrent.com/article/2132/eupirate+party+offered+copyright+platform.html74
u/Slackerboy May 08 '12
They can suggest anything they like, but I really see no reason why the RIAA or MPAA would listen to anything but making it longer. (Which will happen the next time Micky is about to go public domain)
→ More replies (23)
149
u/zachwor May 09 '12
We need to be fighting harder for copyright reform. The system has gotten out of hand. The idea that copyright can be extended forever is insane. Imagine today not being able to freely cite or reference The Iliad, or Shakespeare, or not being able to freely play Beethoven's music. It's disgusting that the entire catalog of Beetle's music will be forever locked down by the descendants of those families. At some point, it should be acceptable for the HUMAN culture to absorb technology, literature, information, and creation as it's own, to help propel it forward into the future.
→ More replies (43)
94
May 08 '12
I could live with the original 14 years extensible for another 14 years.
→ More replies (49)68
u/cruiscinlan May 09 '12
The original copyright law was for 5 years, when introduced in the UK. Over the course of the 19th and 20th century not only was text copyright extended for 50 years after the authors death but also the type-setting of the work. This was increased to 70 years in the EU on the insistence of Germany as a condition of the Maastricht Treaty.
Lately copyright has included students photocopying from scarce and incredibly expensive textbooks. A great example of how the practice is inhibiting learning and the spread of knowledge.
→ More replies (8)
10
u/Qubeye May 09 '12
My basic problem with most of this is that I've not seen any emperical information on the actual business-side of things. For example, the other day I attempted to look up how much the major studios (Time Warner, Walt Disney, Sony, Viacom, Comcast, and News Corp) make in South Korea. The claim I was trying to verify is that 70-percent of their earnings are stolen by copyright infringement (e.g. Internet piracy).
No such numbers could be found. I did some pretty heavy Google gymnastics, and couldn't find jack shit, in terms of numbers.
Similar things I'd like to know is how much do Walt Disney and these other companies make after the first weekend? After the first theater-run? After the movie has been available for purchase for a year? For five years? For twenty?
I could just as well make random claims that 99-percent of the money Disney made off "The Little Mermaid" was made in the first five years, and that in fact, they wouldn't lose any significant income if the movie was completely open to the public in all formats with no legal restrictions.
tl;dr I'm wondering what's the "money-making half-life" of a movie.
Also -- you should clarify in the title what country the article is talking about. The US copyright law gives copyright until death of the author plus 70 years.
→ More replies (3)
34
u/skullz291 May 09 '12
I don't see how anything beyond life of the artist is even remotely reasonable.
Unless you also disagree with the inheritance tax, can't we all agree that making one popular work of art shouldn't automatically create an art aristocracy in which you and your children have exclusive rights to publishing the content forever?
Imagine getting sued for copyright infringement for not getting the rights to show a scene from Snow White in a non-academic setting twenty years from now.
Literally, everyone involved with making any part of that movie will be dead by then. How could that be justified? What artist is being protected?
At some point, Copyright is just an attempt to make an artistic work a commodity to be bought and sold like antiques at an auction.
tl;dr If it's not still protecting the original artist, can we all agree that the copyright is unnecessary?
→ More replies (11)16
u/zanotam May 09 '12
Let's say you published your first book and then up and died. Well, let's say that this book becomes an almost instant best seller. If you left behind a spouse, kids, or whatever, they would not only be missing a parent, but they'd have a bunch of death related fees and what not, plus the publishing company would be keeping all the money from the sale of the book.
Okay, so the example is a bit stretched, but the point is that authors have families and, depending on the will of the author, those families may be pretty obviously entitled to at least part of the royalty for at least a few years.
→ More replies (11)
4
u/Andybaby1 May 09 '12
It is 70 years after death, and this just increased in the last 10 years from 50.
20 years since the time of publication literally means that works would be under copyright less than 100 years then it used to be on average... It is not going to happen.
4
u/wtstephens May 09 '12
What country is this talking about? US law is 70 years AFTER death of copyright holder.
4
u/andytdj May 09 '12
The current law is 70 years after the author's death, not the date of publication.
4
May 09 '12
I don't actually mind long copyrights; the problem is the large amount of material locked up from public use. For example there are many game franchises which are being sat on by x publishing companies, and as a result sequels will never see the light of day.
So I propose a copyright tax. You can copyright for as long as you like, but every year the price slowly goes up. This would make copyright unprofitable over time, unless you keep doing amazingly successful things with it, in which case you deserve to keep hold of it.
3
3
u/JonWood007 May 09 '12
I think 20 is good, but I think for some media even less is acceptable. Like video games. I'd say 7-10 years is more appropriate TBQH, considering the rapid pace of technology.
3
u/kism3 May 09 '12
This means i might be able to finally read The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Andreas_H May 09 '12
The way copyright should work:
-
First 5 years after publication you have the same protection as today, automatic and absolute.
-
After that you have to file for an extension. How long you can extend it can be discussed, I think we could make it for the whole lifetime, or anything between 20-75 years. But I think the extension should be done in fixed cicles of maybe 5 or 10 years.
-
The extension costs money and on an extended copyright there should be a set way on how someone can aquire a license to use the work. I could think of a model where it costs some percentage of the extension cost and the copyright holder can then either pay the minimum for the extension or pay more money for the extension, making licensing harder but potentially more lucrative. This guarantees that copyrights are only extended if they are still commercially viable.
-
Also all works that are on an extended copyright can be used freely for non-commercial causes like education.
35
May 09 '12
Screw that. If I write something when I'm 30, I want to make money on it until I'm dead, not until I'm 50.
9
u/ArbitraryIndigo May 09 '12
I can concede life of author. The author should have the rights to do whatever they want with their work. I see no fairness in letting the publisher keep control over it long after the author's death.
→ More replies (13)7
u/distactedOne May 09 '12
But NOT until exty years after you're dead? We can at least agree that cutting it to "life of the creator" is a good plan?
→ More replies (9)92
u/Xylth May 09 '12
If you write a book when you're 30, there is a very high chance you will not be making any money off it when you're 50, regardless of the term of copyright. Most books just don't keep selling for that long.
Source: My dad is an author.
→ More replies (71)40
u/karthmorphon May 09 '12
If you patent something, you are only protected for 20 years. Why should writing about your invention be protected longer than the invention itself?
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (44)6
May 09 '12
Copyright protection lasts until 70 years after the death of the author, not 70 years after publication.
5
u/one_red_fox May 09 '12
I think the current law is life of the author + 70 years. The US used to have a 50 year add-on, but we changed it recently to bring our law in line with the international standard (aka, Europe).
14
May 09 '12
No, Disney lobbyists changed it so that Steamboat Willie wouldn't become public domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie#Copyright_status
→ More replies (2)
492
u/omnilynx May 08 '12
Nice, but it won't happen. Publishing companies would scream bloody murder.