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

[Cadence]

How about 20? Or 10.

10 or 20 seem atrocious to me.

Under 10 years, the Last Wheel of Time book comes out and the first one is free a few months later, and the Dresden Files is out before being close to done.

Under 20 years Song of Fire and Ice is already out there without being finished.

I think people who make their money on creativity and artistry deserve incomes too. Even if its a cult classic that doesn't kick in for decades or they're a small timer who needs a lot before they add up.

---

I sometimes wonder about a thought experiment where everyone checks either "IP abider" or "No IP Laws". If you pick the former you have to abide by them forever even if those who check the later don't. If you check the later, then nothing you ever make ever is protected by them and no company that checked the former can hire you.

 

[Staffan]

Two things:

1. This is a poorly conceived publicity stunt that would not be workable for reasons like international treaties and such.

2. That said, current copyright law is far too unbalanced in favor of "creators", who are mostly corps. I put "creators" in quotes because in an enormous majority of cases, the rewards of the current copyright regime are reaped not by the actual humans who create things, but by corps who control market access and demand enormous tolls by creators before they can access the markets.

If you could get all other things to work out, I think a reasonable copyright term would be something like 30-40 years. But that would require reworking society so that aging human creators would have other financial safety nets than their long tail of royalties, and that seems hard to do, and a significantly bigger project than copyright reform. A more reasonable compromise term would be something like 70 years, which should suffice for almost every human. Some suggest life+X years, but I don't think it's a good idea to incentivize people to shorten other people's lives to make things hit the public domain sooner.

I would also drastically expand the definitions of "fair use", to cover basically everything that doesn't compete with the original product or is a direct translation into another language or medium. For example, diegetic use of a work in another work would be fair use, such as having a poster on a wall in a movie, or someone listening to music in passing. Things like using screenshots with funny commentary ("memes" or reaction gifs), reaction videos, or gameplay videos? All fair use. Creating things to be used with another thing, such as coffee capsules to be used with a coffee machine, or an adventure or sourcebook for use with a game? Sure, go ahead.

 

[Rabulias]

Under 20 years Song of Fire and Ice is already out there without being finished.

I think people who make their money on creativity and artistry deserve incomes too. Even if its a cult classic that doesn't kick in for decades or they're a small timer who needs a lot before they add up.

While I absolutely agree with your sentiment, I must admit there is a selfish inner voice that said to me: "Hmm, with a 20-year profit horizon looming, maybe GRR Martin would have finished the books by now!"

 

[dragoner]

Won't happen, not that I think it should, I am fine with the IP laws the way they are.

 

[Staffan]

Can you explain how? Do they stop people from trying to tell Cinderella stories, or is it only their own exclusive work that is affected?

I'm not sure what I think about this law. I don't know that I, in particular, need to be able to use someone else's narrow creation (Mickey Mouse, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) 50, 100, or 200 (well past when I think whatever law the US has in effect today will matter) years from when the creator invented them. Why am I not creating my own inventive work.

Because sometimes, there's value to be had in retelling a story or basing a story on another one.

Since you used Sherlock Holmes as an example, one of my favorite "mainstream" TV shows in reasonably recent years was based on a modern-day Sherlock Holmes. No, not that self-indulgent thing with Benedict Cumberbatch. I'm talking about Elementary, the show that moved Sherlock Holmes to New York and had Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu in the main roles. It was awesome, and would never have happened if Sherlock Holmes had still been copyrighted.

Lots of people have also enjoyed the EX series of D&D modules, which take place in Wonderland. Those could not have been done without Alice in Wonderland being in the public domain. But we'll never be able to make a similar visit to Narnia, or Middle-Earth, because those are locked behind seemingly perpetual copyright.

Neil Gaiman wrote a story named Snow, Glass, Apples, which is a retelling of Snow White with a pair of twists: it's told from the Step-Mother's point of view, and Snow White is a vampire (or at least something very similar). That could not have been done had the actual character and story of Snow White been under copyright. Notably, while people can do things with Snow White herself, they can't use the Disney names for the dwarves because those come from the movie which is under copyright.

 

[Ryujin]

I sometimes wonder about a thought experiment where everyone checks either "IP abider" or "No IP Laws". If you pick the former you have to abide by them forever even if those who check the later don't. If you check the later, then nothing you ever make ever is protected by them and no company that checked the former can hire you.

As a sometime professional photographer, I come down on the side of the IP holder. Not necessarily the next 5 generations under them. I have enough trouble tracking illegal use of my IP "because it's on the internet, so it must be free" is how everyone thinks. So much so that I had to make my watermarked thumbs free under CC, no edit/emix license, because I simply couldn't keep up. I've had people build complete websites using my images. People have sold calendars that used them thinking that I would be "honoured to be included." One guy was writing a weekly real estate newsletter, in which he used a few of my shots every time. (Really don't get that one, because I shoot motorsports.)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Counterpoint against further limiting copyright:

New Horror Movie Turns Winnie the Pooh Into a Serial Killer

Love indie horror movies? Then you'll probably love Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey, an upcoming indie movie that turns the beloved children's character into a gruesome murderer.

gizmodo.com

In all seriousness though, I think that since companies with great big franchises have the most to lose here, I don't think the bill has a chance. Nor do I believe for a second that the bill isn't motivated by punitive intent.

Not that it isn't a nuanced issue. For every instance where a corporation has profited off of the actual creator's characters while barely acknowledging their contributions, there's one where I can think of countless worst-case scenarios without an estate to safeguard certain intellectual properties. It's like, how horrible would a sequel to Lord of the Rings written by someone else be?

 

[Ryujin]

Counterpoint against further limiting copyright:

New Horror Movie Turns Winnie the Pooh Into a Serial Killer

Love indie horror movies? Then you'll probably love Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey, an upcoming indie movie that turns the beloved children's character into a gruesome murderer.

gizmodo.com

In all seriousness though, I think that since companies with great big franchises have the most to lose here, I don't think the bill has a chance. Nor do I believe for a second that the bill isn't motivated by punitive intent.

Not that it isn't a nuanced issue. For every instance where a corporation has profited off of the actual creator's characters while barely acknowledging their contributions, there's one where I can think of countless worst-case scenarios without an estate to safeguard certain intellectual properties. It's like, how horrible would a sequel to Lord of the Rings written by someone else be?

Pretty bad.

 

[Staffan]

It's like, how horrible would a sequel to Lord of the Rings written by someone else be?

In all honesty, probably not worse than the Hobbit movies.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personally I think copyright should be good for ones lifetime or something like 50-100 years. Long enough to exploit if you invent something but not perpetual.