5 years it should be a law

[AdminAssistant]

Music, on the other hand, is more important to let lapse, otherwise we're going to start running out of works to be made. Most people write works that are influenced by what they heard growing up, and if you extend copyright to the lifetime of the artist, then the majority of what anybody hears growing up will be off the table, utterly stifling the ability of future generations to use their own lives as inspiration.

You can write works influenced by things that are under copyright. Covers and remixes can be (and often are) done with permission. (The briefest glance at the electronica/dance music community will confirm this.) Fair Use covers satire. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

But I believe that a playwright ought to be able to prevent their play from being turned into a Broadway musical or a Brett Ratner film for as long as they're living. I believe that a scholar should have their work cited and respected. Copyright doesn't just cover Top 40 music, books, and movies. It covers academic work as well. And I'll be damned if I bust my ass to write a book, only to be told that I have no control over my own intellectual property.

Copyright laws might be frustrating. I don't like the fact that intellectual works sit molding in archives because the copyright holders don't think they can make a buck off of them. But I prefer that to yanking away rights from the people who created the damn thing in the first place. I mean, you're complaining about not being able to buy Disney movies on demand or tv show episodes not being on DVD. I'm talking about the right to control the intellectual property that a person creates. There's no question there.

[Andara Bledin]

Copyright should absolutely be at least the life of the creator. If someone has created something, then they deserve to 1) reap the financial benefits and 2) control how it is used for the extent of their natural life.

Why? Most of the money from a created work is garnered in the first few years. In the case of writing, adding new works to an existing body would extend the copyright on the entire set. Give it a decade or a dozen years and most authors would have either extended the work or moved on. Music, on the other hand, is more important to let lapse, otherwise we're going to start running out of works to be made. Most people write works that are influenced by what they heard growing up, and if you extend copyright to the lifetime of the artist, then the majority of what anybody hears growing up will be off the table, utterly stifling the ability of future generations to use their own lives as inspiration.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Copyright should absolutely be at least the life of the creator. If someone has created something, then they deserve to 1) reap the financial benefits and 2) control how it is used for the extent of their natural life.

[Hyena Dandy]

I like 12

I think 12's a good number.

You can make a lot of money on 12 years.

[bara]

I like the 'all copyrights expire after x amount of time has passed'. After that amount of time they cannot be renewed.

[Andara Bledin]

Simple. A copywrite can be done forever..but it must be renewed every 7 years (six years with a year grace period to be exact).

That's even worse than the crap laws we have in the US now.

All that would do would be to allow a few IP trolls to amass a ton of copyrights and then just sit on them. Forever. Because corporations don't die, and for the most part, they never let copyrights go. Ever. Because they might be able to force someone to pay them for breaking them, and that's easier than creating new content.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

Simple. A copywrite can be done forever..but it must be renewed every 7 years (six years with a year grace period to be exact). If not renewed..it simply is public domain. No fees for renewing, but can not renew early..ie can only be renewed on the sixth or seventh year.

[jackfaire]

There is a fairly serious problem with this whole idea.

How then would you suggest resolving the issue of lost properties due to no one releasing them?

[HYHYBT]

There is a fairly serious problem with this whole idea. Companies are already pushing hard for streaming distribution and downloadable versions that are either time-limited or encrypted to a specific device. Either way, by the time even a five-year copyright expired, those copies would be long gone. And changing the law to give an otherwise-reasonable time limit takes away the incentive to make hard or reusable copies available at all.

[Andara Bledin]

I have no qualms making copies of works that are not available for purchase in any form. There's just no excuse for it these days.

And screw Disney and their vault. They don't need to take works off the market in an attempt to artificially increase their demand versus supply. However, knowing that Disney will make nearly every work available again, there's no reason to do anything but wait.

^-.-^

[bara]

I can see where you are going with this. How many shows/movies/books etc are rotting away some where because the owner doesnt see them making money.
With digital downloads available the cost of making these shows available is almost free once the necessary framework is put up. Honestly, in my pirating days, which are long past, the only things I would download illegally are things I could not find anywhere else to purchase.
I would scour stores and websites, and if I couldnt find it for purchase then and only then would I pirate it.

[wolfie]

That DMCA "lockbreaking" provision needs to be re-thought. Rather than the current situation ("fair use" copying becomes a crime if the lock is broken in order to do it), why not make it that if someone makes an ILLEGAL copy, it's an enhanced offense if they broke the lock in order to do so (sort of like how some jurisdictions increase the penalties for any crime if a gun is involved, even if its presence is not known to the victim).

Copyright was originally for 50 years after the author's death (or 50 years straight if a work-for-hire). Many of the extensions were bought by the "house of mouse" to protect early works with ongoing characters. A more logical solution would be that for ongoing characters, the copyright owner must classify the work as being primarily a certain class (literature, music, motion picture, etc.), and then have the protection for earlier works (i.e. Steamboat Willie) extended only as long as the body of work was increased by (my initial guess of what's reasonable) 5% per year as measured by something appropriate to the primary class (words for literature, minutes of new material for music and motion picture).

Keep releasing new Hardy Boys books/Mickey Mouse cartoons? The copyright on the old ones stays "live". Rely on what's already been released? Older works start "aging out" of copyright.

[HYHYBT]

Were it up to me, I'd make two changes: 1) make it a bit longer, maybe 10 years (no more than 7 for software); and 2) If nobody else has taken up distribution, you can reobtain the copyright by making it available yourself, expiring immediately when you withdraw it again. (This because sometimes the only copy is one locked away, and otherwise there's no incentive, even if they come across it in housekeeping, not to toss it in the trash.)

Oh, and this supersedes the DMCA provision that makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection even if you otherwise have the right to make a copy. There was never even a plausible excuse for that one anyway.

[Andara Bledin]

There are vaults full of old films mouldering away, unreleased and ignored and hoarded because despite the copyright holders not giving a rat's ass about them, because they don't think they'll make them any money, they're damned if they'll let anyone else touch them.

I, too, am of the opinion that copyright needs a time-limit on the order of about thirty years, a generation or so, then let it go and move on.

The Spider Robinson story Melancholy Elephants is a look at what the natural progression of copyright law as it stands now will eventually lead to.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

I think the lawyers at Disney would like a word with you.