How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?
from the different-ideas dept
Over the years, we've seen numerous ideas and recommendations for ways to fix copyright, and a popular one is getting rid of the automatic creation of copyright on new works, requiring individuals to actually register that work -- often combined with a shorter time limit on copyrights that would have a renewal option. Larry Lessig has long supported such a system. The thinking is that this still lets those big companies who want to hoard their copyrights forever do so, but opens up plenty of other orphaned content that is locked down just because Disney doesn't want to lose the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Benjamin Krueger points us to Andrew Dubber's recent proposal of switching to a five-year renewable copyright plan, that also includes a use-it-or-lose it clause. Basically, copyright holders who want to retain their copyright can do so, but they have to renew the registration once every five years. And, during those five years, the content has to be available commercially one way or another. This way, if content is being neglected, ignored, abandoned or orphaned, it makes its way into the public domain in short order, where perhaps others can make it more useful. This would seem to fit much more closely with the original purpose of copyright law, though (as per usual), I'm sure there will be many complaints from copyright holders about how such a system would destroy their rights. When reading through those, though, note that they never seem very concerned with the rights of the public either.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Use it or Lose it
This should have been a cornerstone of copyright from the beginning. The idea that some 75+ year old created work that is no longer available in any form is locked up and no one else is allowed to do something with it serves no constructive purpose. Locking creations behind copyright law and then letting them languish is the exact opposite of what these laws were created for in the first place.
Or to take more recent examples, music. These music companies let a lot of stuff go out of print, yet no one else is allowed to do anything with it. Hey Big Music Biz...if you wont keep it available to people who WANT TO BUY IT, then step aside and let those who DO want to have a go with it. Same goes for TV shows and old movies. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. If YOU cant figure out a way to monetize your back catalogs, then get the hell out of the way and let those who can do so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Use It or Lose It
Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. So long as the copyright is generating income, I see no reason why the government shouldn't collect essentially what is an "intellectual Property Tax". If it's not generating income, there is no reason for the copyright to exist. I'd like to see this concept extended to patents as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Great...
I think most reasonable people* will find this plan agreeable. I think it needs an outer limit of say 50 years or the lifetime of the holder, whichever is longer. Now to get everyone to lobby for this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In My Lousy Opinion
Personally, as a struggling, procrastinating artist, I prefer automatic copyright which expires in 5-20 years.
I think most of the problems with copyright stem from allowing corporations to perpetuate copyright on works created by dead people.
Work created by/for a corporate entity with its copyright assigned to the corporation would expire 5 years after its creation.
If the copyright stayed in an individual's name, then the copyright would have to be renewed after 20 years, but only by the artist him/herself.
I think this strikes a great balance between corporate content, which should be dynamic and have a fast turnover and individually created content which (from personal experience) can take a long time to develop and bring to fruition.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sort of good...
I like the idea but I think 5 yearly renewals would be too little to begin with. I'd suggest 15 years with 5 yearly renewals afterwards. That would give a decent guaranteed time to make money back on the original outlay, while protecting works from becoming orphaned.
I can't ever see the corporations go for it though - one clerical error and Disney's crown jewels would be public property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good, but...
Needs to be a bit longer than five years, more like a decade, ten years.
But the idea of this never ending copyright is just ridiculous. It doesn't work, and it just causes more problems than it helps.
One thing though, the creator of the content should be the one who has to do it. Often times it's someone else who claims copyright over something they don't own the copyright to. Should also be a way to sell the copyright rights to someone else, a transfer of ownership. Then copyrighted works will actually have value.
At the same time, get rid of patent laws altogether, or make a similar law about limiting the time on a patent to a decade and you must produce a product, or the patent is not valid. Product on the market, although that still doesn't fix the patent system, which just needs to be done away with.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copyleft by default
I suggested something similar a couple of years ago, which would make a new work freely copyable by default, but that could subsequently be registered for a reproduction monopoly with renewal fee.
I called it Good Copyright, Bad Copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In order for this to work, the general person needs to be educated on the *Original* intent of the copyright system, that copyright was originally intended to put art and works into the Public Domain after the government-granted monopoly timeframe.
At the same time, maybe similar efforts should be pursued for patent overhaul. Companies that file patents after a brainstorming session without intent of bringing a product to market should be taken to the cleaners.
Think of the effects of that small 2 person company who sued RIM. The needs of the few greedy people don't outweigh the needs of the many.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sort of good...
Nah, 5 years should be more than long enough. If you can't get a product marketable in 5 years than your business already failed.
In the case of music or movie producers, if, in 5 years, that particular product doesn't have enough income to justify renewal than they probably aren't selling it anymore.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Am I the only one seeing the loophole here?
Sure you can buy a copy of Song of the South on DVD. It's only $10,000,000.
See, copyright office? We're selling it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sort of good...
Yeah, your right. To compare, the IRS wants to see a company become profitable within 7 years.
With everything working right, a piece of art should become profitable within 12 months of going to market.
A well-funded label with manufacturing inhouse could potentially see profit within a few months of hitting the store shelf (if it's any good).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Am I the only one seeing the loophole here?
+1 Insightful. I was just about to mention this. However, it also means that at some point a company will decide that it's not worth it to even offer it. After all, it does cost some money to put something up to be available commercially.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yeah
I suggested this quite a while back in the comments on this very site, but no doubt many have come up with the idea. I think it's a good one, but needs some restrictions that I mentioned before.
The main thing is making sure that there are no loopholes in the "commerically available" clause. We don't want any person or company making one production run of the material then hoarding back 10 copies which they'll make available at $1,000,000 each in order to fulfill this requirement. Commerical availability should mean readily available in quantity on the open market in the same price range as comparable products or comparable to the inflation adjusted original mass distribution price.
I also agree that 5 years is too low for the initial term. 10-20 is better with subsequent 5 year renewals allowed if availability and other requirements are met.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this idea. Just because the band I was in stopped gigging (and selling CDs) five years ago, why should I lose the rights to the songs I wrote?
Along with that I don't want the expense of renewing such rights every five years.
I don't understand why copyright should ever expire, except perhaps upon the death of the creators.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sort of good...
I disagree with that, actually. There's plenty of albums that have only become successful after a re-release years down the line (or, for example, getting a kick into the mainstream from inclusion on a movie soundtrack), and many independent movies take a few years to get picked up by a distributor.
After a decade or so, yeah you had your chance to have the exclusive rights (remember, public domain means everyone can make money off your work, but doesn't stop you from doing the same). But, in a market increasingly moving towards a long-tail format, it may take longer for your work to be noticed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Go a bit further
It's a good start, but I'd say make it go even further.
10 year initial term, with 5 year extensions. Make each extension progressively more expensive - giving large companies a reason to let things fall back into the public domain when they're no longer profitable enough to cover the cost of keeping them locked up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
So you're saying that you don't want anyone listening to your music ever again? And if you don't want to go threw the expense of renewing a copyright than I guess the product no longer has value to you.
This is why copyright expired before, so when the item no longer had value to the producer than someone else can use the value that they can give it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
As a song-consumer...
As a guy that enjoys music, I would say as long as you were doing something with your music, you wouldn't lose your rights. As long as you paid to re-up, you need never lose those rights. Sure it's a bit of a hassle, but ultimately this isn't about you, it's about how you benefit me, a member of the public. If you aren't, then your works go to a state where someone else can do something with them.
Someone else could take your song and make it useful to the public again, and that is the intention of copyright, to benefit the public. If your song is sitting on a shelf somewhere, it isn't benefiting the public and therefore doesn't deserve protection from obscurity or someone who could possibly bring it back to a state where it benefits the public.
Many would argue that without the incentive of copyright to infinity, many artists would not or could not create things to benefit the public. I refer them to "Cacoethes Scribendi." Oliver Wendell Holmes pretty effectively refutes that notion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Maybe if the assignee is a person, it gets an inital 10 year term, with up to 5- 5 year renewal options.
If the asignee is a corporation, it gets an inital 5 year term with 7- 5 year renewal options. (but at additional expense as a corporation is expected to have more resources to bring the product to market)
Separate Mechanical Reproduction rights from lyrical rights so sound recordings get something like 50 years protection.
The goal is to promote progress of the arts. If you aren't doing anything with it, let someone else create derivative works.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
"I don't understand why copyright should ever expire, except perhaps upon the death of the creators."
You don't understand because you've likely never had to use another's (orphaned) work. A band I used to tour with created plenty of their own music but still added samples, etc. here and there. One sample was part of a song put out by some middle eastern artist about 15-20 years ago and whose publisher cannot be found BUT if they tried to release their CD with the sample un-cleared, they'd have been sued. The song was incomplete without the sample as it served as a very nice break but the keyboardist had to decide against using it since the laws surrounding orphaned works are very blurry.
So there was no purpose served by allowing perpetual copyright. The sampled artist was (still) unheard since they didn't release the song with the sample included and the song the band played was basically an incomplete work without it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Sort of good...
I'm just thinking about some stats I heard a while ago that most companies flop and die within a year.
How about a compromise? If Ulke is correct and the IRS expects a company to become profitable within 7 years, why don't we start there. 7 year copyright and renewal. That way everything is consistent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I like the idea... I'd extend the initial period to 15 years for corporations, 20 for individuals--with ad infinitum renewals up to the lifetime of the creating entity (individual or corporate)--provided it's being used, that is.
I would also limit the amount of possible transfer of copyright holder. Perhaps to once per renewal? That way you couldn't license something to everybody for a fee, and the rights would transfer all over the fricking map willy nilly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Sort of good...
There's plenty of albums that have only become successful after a re-release years down the line (or, for example, getting a kick into the mainstream from inclusion on a movie soundtrack), and many independent movies take a few years to get picked up by a distributor.
The reason for this, is simple-- The work is orphaned, or near-orphaned, sitting on the shelf. As a producer, it usually costs less to re-purpose an existing piece of work rather than hiring current talent to write and sing a work specific for a movie soundtrack.
A Sony Movie could use Sony Recording Artists for a blockbuster picture. This is something smaller independents lack resources to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Think about this from the public's point of view. A band has stopped selling CDs, and in fact stopped selling them 5 years ago. If they were popular you *might* still be able to find their CDs in big music stores, but otherwise you're forced to dig through indie music stores (if there are any in your area) or hit the reseller market (of which the indie music store is usually a part of anyway).
In other words, their music is probably impossible to find for the average person in the legal market. Why should it be illegal to hit up the infinite memory of the p2p sector to grab the songs then? The band is no longer making money off of them (remember, they stopped selling CDs, and aren't touring any longer either). Allowing the band to retain control over the songs is simply hurting the public.
This is a legitimate criticism, but one must still consider just what's going on. The government is granting you a monopoly. This essentially becomes an every-5-years tax on that monopoly, to ensure that you're using it well.
If you're not making any money off of the monopoly, then why should you retain it? Remember, copyright is an artificial construct created and maintained through the government's will. It is given to you, the creator, as an incentive to create, and release your creations to the public. However, if you are not taking advantage of that incentive, it is correct for the government to remove what it had granted, and allow the public to benefit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sort of good...
That's good, and I like that idea, but then you have to account for asignees that are either trusts or foundations... To mitigate this, possibly they are released into the Public Domain immediately..?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A publishing problem
Suppose a songwriter (or author, or artist) who owns a copyright wishes to make the work commercially available, but cannot find a publisher/studio/whatever, and doesn't have the resources to self-publish. It seems like someone in this situation, who can show they have made a good-faith effort, should be allowed to keep their copyright.
I know fuzzy terms like "good-faith effort" open up a whole can of legal worms, and I know that at the moment, there are a lot of resources available in the vanity-press area, but the situation may yet come up, and I'd like to know how you think it ought to be handled.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Why should you keep getting paid for something you did five years ago? I sure don't.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Short-term automatic copyright
I like the proposal, assuming certain limits. First, I disagree that there should be no automatic copyright. The automatic copyright protects works-in-progress from plagiarism and/or outright theft. If I complete a novel and the wrong person somehow gets ahold of it and claims it as their own work, what would my recourse be if no automatic copyright exists? However, I do think automatic copyright needs to be very limited (maybe 1-2 years), and then can only be extended by registering.
Second, I still think there needs to be an ultimate limit on copyright. The 5-year renewal is okay, but I don't believe that a corporation ought to be able to permanently withhold work from the public domain. I fear that, given the opportunity, most publishers would horde their copyrights forever. You could offset this by making registration expensive, but then there is the side-effect of hurting the original creators, who may not have the money to register, and would thus be forced to sell their work to corporate entities to get it registered.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Consider Copyright Abolishment
How about abolishing copyright altogether? Plagiarism can be protected against by trademark/anti-fraud law.
Better yet, implement very specific copyright law in area where it is actually beneficial. For example, copyright power can be applied for people who make free software so that distributors will be forced to disclose the source code.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Renewable - Great Idea
I'm not sure I agree with the work must be sold to enable renewal. As pointed out, opporunties for sale may or may not be viable during a 5 year period. However, I do think that if the copyright holder is not the original creator that this clause would come into affect.
For instance, the creator doesn't do anything with it, no big deal. Some company buys his work and then doesn't do anything, that is a big deal and by adding a commercial element you would prevent someone just buying and sitting on a ton of copyrighted material.
I really like the overall concept of turning this back into an active versus passive right. Very much like a domain registration, if you want to continue using it, you have to pay a fee, if not you lose it. I like the idea of giving someone the ability to by in year increments to renew their copyright up to maybe 10 or 15 years at a time. That way, they can decide how often they want to be bothered, etc. versus the cost to re-license.
Where do I sign my 'John Hancock'
Freedom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Couldn't you offer the song to other bands? If you were selling rights to the song, wouldn't that count as "commercial use."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A publishing problem
Hmm. If the goal is to obtain limited monopoly (copyright) but not do anything with it, is the monopoly useful? I'd say if you get limited monopoly and literally don't do ANYTHING with it, something doesn't seem right. If your given monopoly status on something and spend $100 marketing your product over a 10 year span, and gross $70 doing it, is that being a good steward of resources? Problem is that the people who need copyright are artists, and my experience is that artists are notoriously bad with running businesses and making business decisions. What a problem to get your head around...
But I like the idea of seeing copyright as literally a "Tax on limited monopoly". Sometimes describing the problem in different words makes you think of it differently.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
Yes, copyright abolition is a far better idea, but it'll be a few years yet before a significant number of people call for it.
However, forcing people to disclose source code is a very bad idea. Are you going to send thugs round to arrest little Jimmy because he released a binary without providing source code?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I think the whole problem is basically what is stated in the US Constitution. It states that Patents and Copyrights are to be granted for a limited time. Copyrights should have the same time upper-limit as patents. Limited, to me anyway, should be able to fit within a person's lifetime. 70 Years after death for the expiration is certainly not "limited"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: A publishing problem
Isn't that the whole part of the renewal process every 5 years is for? So that when someone creats something and they want it copyrighted, but they don't want to lose it they can just renew for the copyrights. Instead of proving that they were putting forth an effort to get their product out in the streets for the consumer. The copyright owner wont have to worry about that until the 5 year period is up for close to ending.
Really what you should be saying is, and it think that this is the way that you are going with your thought process is. That if the copyright owner is out there selling an item(s) that they own, and they are making a profit from said products they shouldnt have to worry about a renewal process every 5 years. They can show that they are making a profit. Which is something that I can agree with. As long as the person(s) is making money on a item they copyrighted in the first place then they shouldnt have to worry about it. Is another thing that I can agree with. When that product drops below a certain revinew percentage over another item that they might have copyrighted as well then that product should be renewed if they wnat to keep the rights to that work. IF the fail to renew that then it should be dropped into public domain for someone else to try and make it work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
The key here is that you wouldn't _lose_ the right to do anything. You can still sell or perform the song to your heart's content. The only thing that changes is that now so can anyone else.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
Really? GPL seems to be doing pretty darn well, as a good idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wii Virtual console
Use it or lose it would have screwed over Nintendo's virtual console. Many of their older games were no longer commercially released for many years, and yet some are re-released later.
IMO, I agree with use it or lose it, but you have to account for such things as un-orphaning later when technology makes something else more feasible (like Nintendo selling the games digitally, which they couldn't have done until recently).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Individual copyright vs. Production Rights
as an artist I want to retain my ability to show up and play shows, however I don't want to be required to play shows all the time. I also want to make sure my work is not abused by other parties. I don't mind the idea of orphaned work, but I think the person who actually wrote it should have say in how it's used. And if I retire from my 9 to 5 and decide to play music in my local bar, I want to have the ability to monetize my product again. And that might be well in excess of these 5 year limits we're talking about. What about when I write songs for some one else? If they stop playing does that mean I have to start playing just to make sure it's on the market for five more years? even if I only plan on playing it again when I have the time or talent to be successful as a musician only?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
No, it would entirely voluntary copyright, not mandatory.
You would have to apply with the government for software copyright.
So if little Jimmy released binary of his software, he wouldn't be arrested for not disclosing the source. His binary would be public domain though.
That's being said. I am content to let copyright holders have whatever they want. If they want royalty, super long lifespan, they'll get it. I would let economic take its course in confidence that these copyright holders will eventually lose out to better competitors.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Use It or Lose It
So if I create something for my personal / family enjoyment (I.E. I'm not making money) I'm supposed to loose control of it so that someone else can make money off my work ???
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wii Virtual console
It would not have prevented Nintendo from releasing official Nintendo versions of the game just as they did. Most of those games would still be trademarked because of sequels and such so the authenticity would still be intact. Plus the added value of being on the Wii.
If you're not going to use it for 20 years than it has lost it's commercial value. Nintendo just added more value by letting us download the nostalgic games onto the Wii.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Use It or Lose It
What wrong with somebody making money off your work if in the end that it benefit the public?
You are for economic welfare of society, no?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
I'm quite happy with the way the GPL neutralises copyright, but it remains important to respect the natural right to privacy.
I do not believe a compulsion to disclose source code is necessary in the absence of copyright.
After all it would be strange if those lovers of freedom said that they'd rather have copyright and the ability to use it to compel disclosure of source, than no copyright and everyone to have the liberty to freely copy and derive software from published source code. After all, who would would buy binaries given they could be freely copied? You'd only pay for source code improvements as these would be the only things worth buying. The binary would be used to demonstrate that the source code did the job prior to selling the source for money.
Free as in speech, not as in beer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FCC currently does this
Yeah, this idea may have some feet! What many don't know is that the FCC has been running with this model for years. Radio Stations, cable cos, satellite companies, telcos all are supposed to operate in the public's best interest, need to renew their licenses every 5 or so years. During which part of the review process is review of complaints and such.
Seems there are too many distribution methods and not enough real breakthrough ideas being put forward to the public because of copyright and IP issues. This may be a good idea that balances it out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
That's an interesting and compelling economic reasoning.
I distrust monopolies and the government in the regulation of the free market. So I'll be willing to play along with no copyright for software unless it can be shown that it is necessary to have something like GPL copyright law.
Of course, such anarcho-capitalism might even sprout GPL-like contract all on its own. That what make free markets interesting.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Frankly, I find it very frustrating that public thinks they should have any right in my work, or to use my work without my permission.
Yes, I understand copyright - very well. So does my lawyer.
If I want my work used freely, I'll publish it as free for use(and have done so with some).
Allowing others to make money off someone else's work does nothing to further new work, only recirculates the old. (like, how many times are we going to get a new king kong movie? I'll take the original over all the others any day.)
You also can assign your copyright to someone else, who then is considered to own the copyright - you can do that when you die also, by stipulating the copyright to whatever as part of your estate to be left to your heir(s).
I inherited some of my father's copyright work, and I still maintain it - whether it's offered for sale or not should be my choice, not someone else's (like the general public or the copyright office).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Use It or Lose It
You should be able to license it out while you still have ownership. If your good at doing that, then renew your work and collect royalties.
I don't know about you, but see a problem with the current system when Walt Disney is dead and the Disney company has shown no effort to expand on his work-- bring back Mickey, Donald Duck or any of the original characters. Copyright shouldn't just be a monopoly protecting $35 T-Shirts at Disneyworld.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Firstly the expiration of copyright "upon the death of the creators" is definitely a point worth looking at. If you do see copyright as a pension etc then there is no reason for it to continue beyond death - with the possible exception of being until your spouse is dead as well. And anyway, why should pensions be different compared for you compared to anyone else? Here in Australia when you work for a company a part of your income is automatically deducted and invested with an investment firm (specifically called a "superannuation" firm) of your choosing. If when you reach retirement age and cease to work your superannuation + other assets aren't enough to support you the government pays you a minimal allowance to allow you to survive. Why should this be different for songwriters etc? (And in fact really it isn't, you just get a bonus "asset" of copyright that most others do not have.)
If instead we want to equate copyright to some sort of a property right we need to establish where the root idea behind the granting of property right and a copyright comes from, back long ago - both being a legal construct.
Say you come up with the idea to start selling a new product in the marketplace, at one time this would have been coffee. You set up a store that sells it in raw form and as drinks. Now you can stop someone from stealing your stock by force of arms if necessary (the root of your property right to the stock). However you can not normally prevent someone who buys from you from setting up their own coffee shop, or indeed copying the idea and sourcing their own supplies, perhaps using tea instead - unless you steel their stock etc which leads back to their property rights to prevent this. Instead you go to the Monarch (king/queen etc) an ask (and generally pay) for a monopoly. Now you are legally the only coffee shop in town.
Lets now look at how this works with a song. While it is still in your head (like previously the idea of opening a coffee shop) or written down in your keeping (like the stock of coffee) there is no way for someone to get at it without using force etc which you can again naturally prevent (essentially you have a property right to the song at this point which is well and good). When you sell a copy of a song to someone - either by commission or a previously created work there is nothing you can really do to stop them reselling it (like the coffee sold, possibly with developing a coffee substitute for an analogy to making copies of the song) or hearing it and making something extremely similar - even almost exactly identical (like the idea of the coffee shop) so you again go to the monarch and ask (and pay) for a monopoly.
Nowadays you will automatically get your monopoly, now called a copyright but the coffee shop owner would be fined and possibly jailed if they succeeded in getting theirs, and people are generally supportive of the outcome in both cases. Can you explain how there is a difference between the two?
And no the creative effort is not necessarily the differentiating factor, the idea of setting up the shop is no more the finished product than for you idea of making a song about the evils of war is (for example - I have no idea what sort of music you write, it is not meant to be offensive or dismissive). The coffee shop owner researches coffee, you war and its detrimental effects, he (or she, but he by convenience and literary convention) develops different products and establishes supply lines, you develop verses and a chorus (presumably?) and work to coherently link them together and finally you both have to promote and sell the end result. You both expend time and creative effort, and if anything his capital investment is more than yours so it could even be argued that he deserves his monopoly more than you deserve your monopoly (your copyright)!
Also please don't accuse me of being totally separate from this issue, I am currently studying at university hopefully to enter the computer games industry which is traditionally very reliant on their monopolies (copyrights).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Agree in principal, but...
This adds a double requirement to keep your works copyrighted. How does the "use it or lose it" help small creators with the distribution of their works? It adds an extra accounting detail that can be met by any number of scrupulous means by big content companies. You could offer all of your works as licensable for one day use for a small or large fee.
If your works are not viable in the first five years you'll be thinking twice about renewing your copyrights anyway. If you believe that your works will stand a better chance in the next five years due to a different environment - due to technology advancement, politics, or economy - you will file again. Why exclude you because you didn't loophole around the system?
Almost all works can be put in some widely disseminable format for internet sale, but I don't believe that the culture is ready to adopt these on a broad scale. As such it will hinder creation for many people as they will find that the system is more complicated than they feel like dealing with, while still believing that it must be used.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: As a songwriter, I'm not sold on this
Yikes there were a few responses to that post before I submitted my response, perhaps I should have asked for a monopoly on replying to it, looks like I ended up with a bit of competition. [/sarcasm]
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Proposal
Feel free to criticize this but constructive criticism please.
To make a time limit on copyright we must think of not only the little guy but the big guy as well. Why would a company like Disney back this new copyright idea? Why would the one man songwriter back this idea?
I propose:
Copyright will initially last for 7 years (to match the IRS profitability requirements) on the condition that:
The product is commercially available. By available I just mean that it has to be available if someone wants it. No one has to buy it but it must be available. By commercially I mean that it should be of reasonable price. No $10,000,000 DVDs. This part must stay or it won't prevent a lot of the current issues we have with the system.
At the end of the 7 years the copyright can be renewed for a vary small amount, say a dollar (to help the little guy), for another 7 years. This renewal can reoccur every 7 years for as long as the originating creator or company is around (that will make Disney happy).
This way we fix the issue of orphaned copyrights (If the holder of the copyright doesn't think that there is even a dollar value to the copyright than it goes into the public domain) while helping to avoid someone just keeping the copyright renewed without ever doing anything with it (like the patent trolls). This will also bring in extra money to the government that doesn't have to be pulled out of our pay checks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Allowing others to make money off someone else's work does nothing to further new work, only recirculates the old. (like, how many times are we going to get a new king kong movie? I'll take the original over all the others any day.)
You're using your personal preferences as "evidence". And apparently you haven't noticed the multitude of works that incorporate works in the public domain. There are plenty of stories based on L. Frank Baum's Oz books, not to mention Sherlock Holmes novels. There are many more examples available, but your assertion that using previous works doesn't lead to new creative works is demonstrably false.
whether it's offered for sale or not should be my choice, not someone else's
And it is, until the copyright runs out. It then goes into the public domain for the benefit of other creators. It's unfortunate that you seem to have a problem with that, but if absolute control over the work is that important to you, you could always not publish the works.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Am I the only one seeing the loophole here?
No, I doubt that anyone would actually sell a DVD for $10 million. It might be priced at that, but actually selling it?
Therefore, another stipulation should be added, like pricing your product out of the market just to say "hey, look, we're trying to sell it" won't be allowed, and copyright would be forreited by the holder if the price was not brought to a reasonable level.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who's gonna copyright the 5-year-copyright idea?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
Contract is not a substitute for copyright just as it is not a substitute for slavery.
Liberty is inalienable.
Its recognition in the form of free speech has been abrogated by copyright. That the state can so contract it away is the only thing that leads people to believe that the right to free speech can also be contracted away by an individual in receipt of an intellectual work.
Without copyright, there is nothing to justify the individual contracting with an artist to non-disclosure and non-reproduction.
So, contract is not a means by which you can engage the state in forcing all those who publish derivatives of your work to also publish their source code.
In the absence of copyright you do not need to compel disclosure of source (it is only forgivable for the GPL to do this in the presence of copyright). An exchange of money for source is the equitable and ethical solution. You only need freedom to the source you purchase or are given, not to the source that you haven't purchased or haven't been given.
Contract upholds your right to receive your money back or the source code you've offered it for. It doesn't entitle you to employ the state to sequestrate the future work of deriving coders. They will want the same right you had, to sell their unpublished source code for money. Slavery is getting someone's work through force or without their consent. That's not exactly cricket. I'd say it was highly unethical.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Use it or lose it??
How about we apply the same rule to your balls?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Proposal
Feel free to criticize this but constructive criticism please.
To make a time limit on copyright we must think of not only the little guy but the big guy as well. Why would a company like Disney back this new copyright idea? Why would the one man songwriter back this idea?
I propose:
Copyright will initially last for 7 years (to match the IRS profitability requirements) on the condition that:
The product is commercially available. By available I just mean that it has to be available if someone wants it. No one has to buy it but it must be available. By commercially I mean that it should be of reasonable price. No $10,000,000 DVDs. This part must stay or it won't prevent a lot of the current issues we have with the system.
At the end of the 7 years the copyright can be renewed for a vary small amount, say a dollar (to help the little guy), for another 7 years. This renewal can reoccur every 7 years for as long as the originating creator or company is around (that will make Disney happy).
This way we fix the issue of orphaned copyrights (If the holder of the copyright doesn't think that there is even a dollar value to the copyright than it goes into the public domain) while helping to avoid someone just keeping the copyright renewed without ever doing anything with it (like the patent trolls). This will also bring in extra money to the government that doesn't have to be pulled out of our pay checks.
========
Sounds good enough to start a conversation! I really like it, Chrono!
Should someone put together a formletter and shall we start contacting congressional leadership?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Making money clause
If a one hit wonder makes an album and in 25-30 years the rest of the songs become popular, they should still be able to collect on the sales of the album. But because of this idea the copyright would have run out 20-25 years ago and they get nothing. I think a better way to do it is copyright it for a few years (5-10), after that time frame restrictions come off where if you don't make money using the copyrighted material in anyway then it is fair game, but the second you make even a penny off of it, roylties need to go to the creator.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: A publishing problem
"Problem is that the people who need copyright are artists, and my experience is that artists are notoriously bad with running businesses and making business decisions."
I agree, the skill sets are very different. Which is why we have the whole publishing industry, to do the business stuff in exchange for licensing copyrights from artists. My question is what happens if the artist has a wish to license their work, but they are unable to sell the license over a 5-year span. Then in seems that, under the proposal above, the work wouldn't be "commercially available", causing them to lose the copyright.
This would create a powerful incentive for publishers to join up and avoid licensing new works wherever possible, thus forcing them out of copyright, and then being able to distribute them without licensing fees. I don't believe that's the intent of the proposal, so I'm curious how it would deal with this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
'Not sufficiently unfair in my favour' does not equal 'not fair'
Glad this has stimulated such vibrant discussion. The terms and details of my provocation are, of course, up for discussion. I happen to like 5 years, but you could make a decent case for 7 (though 10 stretches it beyond the intent of the proposal, I think).
The purpose of this is to reinforce the fundamental basis of copyright: to provide a richer, more vibrant and creative cultural public sphere. Rewarding artists is the means for that to happen - not the end.
This would, of course, transform the political economy of musical works (which always happens when there's a major technological shift - say, from sheet music to recordings on disc) - and I agree that not everyone would be advantaged in the shift.
But I'd have to reinforce here to those who would prefer the status quo: just because a new system is not more unfair in your favour than the previous system - that doesn't make it more unfair in general.
Thanks everyone for giving the idea so much thought.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Use It or Lose It
"Copyright shouldn't just be a monopoly protecting $35 T-Shirts at Disneyworld."
How about the value in allowing a company to protect its own image? If Mickey ends up loose in the public domain, he'll be present on any number of things, which will most likely devalue him-- think of the first time your kid runs into Mickey Mouse t-shirts with him cussing or something.
Consider what happened to Calvin & Hobbes. The author had a valid copyright, and STILL managed to get his shit ripped off. Now Calvin is a ubiquitous pickup truck window decal, probably best known to the majority of folks for pissing on Ford and Chevy logos.
And who really needs more Mickey Mouse anyway? Are you telling me that the public has some great need for more Mickey Mouse works? That our culture is suffering because there just isn't enough Mickey to go around? I'm calling bullshit on this!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wii Virtual console
in the case of the Nintendo it is the characters that are the copyright is on not necessarily the game and all of Nintendo's characters have been in continual use new games etc. in effect protecting the older games.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Use It or Lose It
No, I'm not for the economic welfare of society.
I'm to take care of my family, not other families.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Making money clause
Hypothetical:
1. Company A copyrights an idea
2. Company A can't get idea off the ground
3. Company A lets copyright expire after 5-7 years
4. Company B (and C, D, and E) takes idea, revamps it, and gets it marketable
5. Company A sees this, restocks the original (crappy) product
6. Company A renews copyright
7. Company A sues the hell out of company B (C, D, E).
8. Profit
I think that the idea of "Use it or lose it" and the idea of "once it's lost it's lost" is really important to keep, to prevent the same thing that is happening with the current system.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Proposal
Re #52
I would have to disagree with infinite renewal, for either personal entities or corporations of any sort.
I think a 47 / 52 year max is more than enough. Half that for coporations. And also, completely transferring the rights in any way should not extend these limits. The limits would be set at the time of creation so that a corporation couldn't just transfer it to an individual to extend the duration of validity. Also to prevent it in the other direction, if transferred to a corporation, its limit is reduced so that they can't just have somebody start it, and then take right over.
For the renewal fees, it should be something not too large for people, but something larger for organizations.
Not so sure what numbers could be considered acceptable, but I believe the idea is sound as a previous poster mentioned, organizations will have more money and capital most of the time anyways.
Those are the two ways I would amend your proposal to make it sound peachy keen to my ears.
Sound acceptable? Stupid? Maybe good?
I just think infinite renewal is horribly bad for everyond, and I really don't care what Disney thinks, they lost their right to talk before they started.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Re #55
Do you mean patent the idea?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Use It or Lose It
As am I, and the code I write every day goes into products you use every day.
I don't get royalties, but I write better and better code and better and better products. This also takes care of my family and society in the process!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: In My Lousy Opinion
I think your approach sounds like a reasonable one. It's more of a burden for an individual to keep renewing copyrights, but a corporation has more resources at its disposal. And I think "works by dead people" should probably be opened to the public, anyway, or at least limit to 5 years after their death.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Use it or Lose it
"This should have been a cornerstone of copyright from the beginning."
It was. Prior to 1976, you had to assert copyright (by publishing the word or symbol) and register the copyright, which was valid for 28 years. You could optionally renew it for another 28 years. After that, it was public domain.
The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term to 50 years after the authors death. In 1998, it was extended to life + 70 years.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Great idea
I think this should apply to everything, not just copyrights. If you have something and don't use it for 5 years then anyone should be able to take it and use it. That would open up a lot of buildings, property, cash, and who knows what to being put to productive use.
Guess the same should go for any savings, don't use it then loose it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Use It or Lose It
What your saying is that the government should grant a monopoly that extends past a lifetime to a company who has little intent to elaborate on it?
There are examples of pieces of art that were produced as "Pop Art" only to die, only to come back probably stronger via organic promotion and distribution using subculture.
Have you heard of Rickroll? That would have never been possible if someone called Columbia Records for permission "Uh yeah, I want to prank someone, can I use your musicvideo?" Astley's putting out a new CD because of his newfound fame.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consider Copyright Abolishment
Well. I don't have much to say. I bow to your awesomeness.
BTW, your work on The Bedroom Coder's Business Model is inspirational to me. Among others', it has inspired me to work toward building a business of some sort based on writing free games instead of proprietary games.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fools
Only a total fool or someone who has NEVER created anything of value would support removing or limiting Copyrights like you idiots are talking about here.
Copyrights should be an asset passed from generation to generation or last at least as long as corporate entities are in existance.
I'm a Computer Programmer, have written and published a number of software applications. What gives anyone the right to take my work and do anything with it at any time in the work's existance????????????????