New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[Ryujin]

McCartney appears to have been amply compensated when those records were released in the 60s and 70s, and for quite some time afterwards. Does he really need to keep being compensated? I mean, I go to work every day, and get paid at the end of the month, but no-one's paying me for the work I did a year ago. I need to keep working. Why should creative work be different?

Why? Because it is different. When you work a job, day in and day out, you get paid. Creatives can work for decades without making a cent. Being able to bridge the times when they aren't making anything, or aren't even making subsistence level income, is how they survive. Just because someone like McCartney is more successful than most doesn't mean the rules should be different.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Stuff can still be licensed as well, so part of the discussion seems to be wanting to use others IP for free. Circling this back on RPG's, I remember people saying around 2010 or so that Traveller should be taken away from Marc Miller, you know, the guy that retired an insurance salesman, partially because why did he deserve to have a kickstarter that did $300k.

Like I said way upthread, I’d be fine with a multi-tiered system, whereby after a certain timeframe copyright on an IP changes to basically a Creative Commons license, before eventually becoming public domain.

What I disagree with the most is that we need long copyright terms in order for companies to pay a living wage to creators.

 

[Umbran]

See, you're coming at this from the perspective of "What brings the most money to creators and/or owners?". I don't. I'm coming at this from the perspective of "What gets the most creative stuff done?"

The most creative, in terms of quantity, or quality?

We already have more creative works, in quantity, than can be be consumed by the market. And you've not established that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example, is specifically more creative than an original work.

It is important to note that the original main focus of copyright was not fiction. The first copyright law in the US was "The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies" (emphasis mine). And there was a term limit on copyright not to allow creation of new fiction, but to encourage creativity in “science and the useful arts”.

In the sciences, one must base new work on old. In fiction, that's not really necessary. You may like it, but it isn't necessary to be creative.

 

[dragoner]

Like I said way upthread, I’d be fine with a multi-tiered system, whereby after a certain timeframe copyright on an IP changes to basically a Creative Commons license, before eventually becoming public domain.

What I disagree with the most is that we need long copyright terms in order for companies to pay a living wage to creators.

Rules are ideally made to protect the weak, not the strong, using McCartney as an example is ridiculous. Stripping what little protections there are from creators, will not promote creativity.

Personally I find a lot of derivative works to be boring, IP seems to promote more creativity, not less.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Rules are ideally made to protect the weak, not the strong, using McCartney as an example is ridiculous. Stripping what little protections there are from creators, will not promote creativity.

Personally I find a lot of derivative works to be boring, IP seems to promote more creativity, not less.

It doesn’t matter what you find boring.

The rules don’t currently protect the “weak”, and I’m not the person who brought up McCartney, so please keep replies to me relevant to things I have said.

 

[dragoner]

It doesn’t matter what you find boring.

The rules don’t currently protect the “weak”, and I’m not the person who brought up McCartney, so please keep replies to me relevant to things I have said.

It matters to me.

McCartney, and all the big IP seems to be at contention, and the proposed changes definitely don't seem to be protecting the weak. I know as a creator, I have seen things posted that seem awfully derivative of what I have done, except I'm not the one to go after them, I mean, I do not even read all that others write just to know. Also, certainly, like reading good writers, they often call out who they got their ideas from, like Corey, when someone mentioned Sagan with their gates in the Expanse, said they were similar, though, they actually got their idea from Pohl's Gateway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

the proposed changes definitely don't seem to be protecting the weak.

What specific proposals that I have made strike you as not protecting the weak?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So do I, but I bet they differ!

What’s bugging you?

The prevalence (and success) of lawsuits in regard to songs that that do not sample, but "sound" similar.

I am using the term loosely- but for an artist to create new music, it is nearly impossible to create something that is truly new. Now, whether that's because the artist inadvertently used a hook that is "too close" to something in the past, the artist heard it at some point and didn't realize they were using it, or the artist is paying homage (or even copying) is difficult to determine.

But the in terrorem effect of those lawsuits is incredibly high; for example, while were might be able to discuss the actual procedural issues behind the 9th COA's decision upholding the jury verdict, the loud message to most is that if there is any chance of going to the jury, you better settle.

Basically, when it comes to music (and rights holders) you are getting something similar to the patent troll effect, except copyrights last longer.

IMO, etc.

 

[dragoner]

Definitely shortening the time someone holds copyright to their work.

 

[Ryujin]

The prevalence (and success) of lawsuits in regard to songs that that do not sample, but "sound" similar.

I am using the term loosely- but for an artist to create new music, it is nearly impossible to create something that is truly new. Now, whether that's because the artist inadvertently used a hook that is "too close" to something in the past, the artist heard it at some point and didn't realize they were using it, or the artist is paying homage (or even copying) is difficult to determine.

But the in terrorem effect of those lawsuits is incredibly high; for example, while were might be able to discuss the actual procedural issues behind the 9th COA's decision upholding the jury verdict, the loud message to most is that if there is any chance of going to the jury, you better settle.

Basically, when it comes to music (and rights holders) you are getting something similar to the patent troll effect, except copyrights last longer.

IMO, etc.

One of the issues seems to be that there are only so many logical tonal progressions that are appealing to the Western listener. It's basically math. There are going to be repetitions, even in a vacuum, which is why part of the process is to prove exposure to the allegedly infringed-upon work.

Another Experience I've Had:
Back in the early '00s I wrote a piece on motorcycle road safety, for the riding group of which I was a founding member. I took a great deal of time with it and had distilled almost 20 years of what I had learned in my riding experience (both alone and leading group rides), racing schools (8), and ART (advanced rider training; 2) classes. I took no compensation for it because I was trying to help the community, especially new riders. Within a month or two I found it on two other riding groups' websites. That wouldn't have bothered me, given the reason for its creation, but there was zero attribution and I had not received a request for it to be used by anyone. In fact the reason why I found out about it being used by one of these sites, was because someone who was a member of both groups thought that I had taken it from one of those other sites, as they seemed to be claiming it as their own. A request and attribution, and I'd have been fine with it. Ultimately my piece was taken down by them and replaced with pieces that might as well have been spat out by an online thesaurus app.