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

[doctorbadwolf]

How did you pay any of the artists or editors or other contributors, or support yourself while you made it?

With money, generally.

You know that Creative Commons isn’t public domain, right? Depending on the specific license you can retain exclusive commercial use, or allow any use without restriction other than accreditation and the use of a similar license when publishing derivative works.

 

[Cadence]

With money, generally.

You know that Creative Commons isn’t public domain, right? Depending on the specific license you can retain exclusive commercial use, or allow any use without restriction

I was going to ask which check boxes you checked, but then missed a "my will" in the second phrase! They kind of change things. Sorry about that!!

So, which check boxes?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was going to ask which check boxes you checked, but then missed a "my will" in the second phrase! They kind of change things. Sorry about that!!

So, which check boxes?

I haven't finalized those decisions, yet. I'm still researching how they interact with different platforms and such. But, my preference is the attribution-non-commercial-share-alike license, because it is how I think copyright should work anyway. All non-commercial use should just be fair use.

Should I manage to make real money from the IP, I will eventually go CC0 before my own passing. I'm not exactly planning on that, though.

I'm also researching other options, but it seems to me that stuff like open gaming license is great for big well known games, not so much for small indie games.

I think that's about as far in depth as I want to go derailing the thread, though. lol

 

[see]

The core problem here is that adhering to Berne is an obligation of TRIPS, and adhering to TRIPS is a condition of WTO membership. Theoretically, WTO conditions can be renegotiated; in practice, that is a huge pain in the rear, given nearly 200 countries have to all be brought into agreement.

In addition to that, the US is party to a whole host of other trade treaties that have IP provisions specify minimum terms of either life +50 or life +70. In principle these could all be renegotiated, sure . . . but in practice?

Blowing up the whole framework of modern international trade by unilaterally abrogating all those treaties is something that the US could do, sure. But absolutely every US company that exports anything -- and their workers -- will flood the offices of Congress with noise if a bill that would do so ever gets anywhere, because it'll threaten their livelihoods.

So, existing copyright terms are not going to be reduced (Berne prohibits it), future copyrights will not be for any duration less than life +50 years (Berne/TRIPS/WTO and a whole pile of other trade agreements), and future copyrights will most likely be life +70 years (additional trade agreements).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You haven't established any benefit to society from it being set up the way it is.

The benefit is self-evident: IP creators have more ability to benefit from their work than ever before. More forms of IP creation are viable ways of making a living, thriving or even actually becoming rich than at any prior point in human history. And some of those who have done exceedingly well have used their wealth to lift others up. I can think of several, but one of the best examples is Dolly Parton. If- like McCartney- she were deemed by some to have been “compensated enough already”, there’s literally millions of people who would be worse off.

Besides, if shifting bargaining power from businesses to workers is a desirable goal, strong protections for IP creators is a good thing.

OTOH, you haven’t provided any viable alternative.

Sure. When I publish my own IP, very soon, it will be under a creative commons license, and my will will include the release of that IP into the public domain, because I believe that it is actively unethical to do otherwise.

Great! Such is your right. But not everyone is you.

Sting is worth somewhere around $500m, last I checked, and he’s stated that he has no intention of leaving his kids much if any of it in his will.

Personally, if I had an IP-based fortune like that, there would definitely be some charitable donations. But the first people in line to benefit from my estate would be the friends and family that enabled me to create that IP in the first place.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The benefit is self-evident:

Oof. Never trust “self evident”. Nothing is self-evident.

IP creators have more ability to benefit from their work than ever before. More forms of IP creation are viable ways of making a living, thriving or even actually becoming rich than at any prior point in human history. And some of those who have done exceedingly well have used their wealth to lift others up.

Great, and they still would if their IP protection were limited to their lifetime, and to 20 or 30 years if sold to a corporation.

I can think of several, but one of the best examples is Dolly Parton. If- like McCartney- she were deemed by some to have been “compensated enough already”, there’s literally millions of people who would be worse off.

Not under any proposal I’ve made.

Besides, if shifting bargaining power from businesses to workers is a desirable goal, strong protections for IP creators is a good thing.

Can be, are not now.

OTOH, you haven’t provided any viable alternative.

I sure as heck have, you may have missed them, but that isn’t on me.

Great! Such is your right. But not everyone is you.

Sting is worth somewhere around $500m, last I checked, and he’s stated that he has no intention of leaving his kids much if any of it in his will.

Good for Sting. Has nothing at all to do with anything I’ve said.

Personally, if I had an IP-based fortune like that, there would definitely be some charitable donations. But the first people in line to benefit from my estate would be the friends and family that enabled me to create that IP in the first place.

Great. If the copyright on your works ended with your passing…that hypothetical fortune wouldn’t magically disappear.

What on Earth do you think I’m proposing? Because it seems thoroughly divorced from the actual statements I’ve made.

 

[Bohandas]

I hope this law passes, although it sounds too good to be true

 

[Bohandas]

strong protections for IP creators is a good thing.

Good for them maybe, and for whoever's publishing them, but it's actively detrimental to literally everybody else.

EDIT:
We need sweeping reforms to make it harder in general to monetize things. All the helpful and bonhomous artists and hobbyists that used to be around have been either replaced by businesspeople or corrupted into businesspeople, and they've strangled the community that used to exist on the internet; sacrificed it in the name of Mammon and the Almighty Dollar

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good for them maybe, and for whoever's publishing them, but it's actively detrimental to literally everybody else

Well, kinda. The current set of IP laws largely suck, and a lot of work for hire and the like is fairly predatory and benefits the artist less than just getting a job at O’Reilly Autoparts and doing art as a hobby would.

However, exclusive right to commercial use during your own lifetime is fairly sensible. I’d be fine with “shorter of the creators lifetime or 75 years”, but I’m also fine with “creator’s lifetime, plus 20 years for familial or documented heirs who gain ownership upon the creators passing, but only 30 years for IP owned by an organization, after which rights revert to the specific creator or creators of possible, and if not reverts to public domain”.

But some degree of exclusive commercial use rights is perfectly sensible.

IMO creators have no moral right to control non-commercial use of an IP.

 

[Bohandas]

Personally, if it were up to me, I wouldn't let businesses ever own IP at all, at most they would be allowed to non-exclusively license it from the creators.

And I'd limit it all to 20 or 30 years. It seems to me self-evident that whatever a generation grows up watching is rigntfully a part of their shared culture by the time they grow up.