• whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can’t have both.

    • Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      So these companies are against what you call draconian, but you also disagree with these companies? Everyone here is so fucking short sighted, it’s insane to me.

      • oyo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The fact that you can’t distinguish between being against something vs. being against a double-standard is insane to me.

    • Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I’m in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.

      • monotremata@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 day ago

        The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span–it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we’d be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.

        5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          Exactly! That’s what we had originally in the US, and I thought that was more than fair. I would add that the renewal should only be awarded if they can prove they need more time to recoup R&D costs and it’s still available commercially.

          So yeah, something in the neighborhood of 10-15 years w/ a renewal sounds totally fair to me. Let them keep the trademarks and whatnot as long as they’re in use (e.g. you shouldn’t be able to make a new entry in a series w/o the author’s permission for the marks, but fanfic that explicitly mentions it’s not original/canon would probably fall under fair use), but the actual copyright should expire very quickly.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        You don’t have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it’s just you won’t have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.

        • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          how about: tiered copy rights?
          after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?

          it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.

              Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn’t just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                22 hours ago

                I suppose it would encourage George Martin to get a move on. Otherwise you could set stories in his universe before he finished writing the third book. I still think 5 years is too short though.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 hours ago

            What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?

            I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it’s still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.

            • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              22 hours ago

              i left it open ended like that because there’s a lot of options….
              i’d probably start with selling, like after 5 years people are welcome to copy it and distribute it but not sell it…
              but i mean, a lot of variations are possible….

        • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          And how do you think that’s going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?

          The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

          Just because corporations abuse it doesn’t mean we throw it out.

          It shouldn’t be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.

          Or maybe 5 years unless it’s an individual.

          Edit - think logically. You think the corps are winning now with the current state of copyright? They won’t NEED to own everything without copyright and patent laws. They’ll just be able to make profit off your work without passing any of it to the creator.

          • CodexArcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don’t force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?

            Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I’m sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.

            • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Those are problems with the shitty enforcement, and allowing corporations to run rampant.

              It needs to be refined, not removed.

              Without copyright, you could write a novel, and any corp or person could just start publishing it without paying you a dime.

              Just because something isn’t protecting well enough doesn’t mean you get rid of it.

          • bss03@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

            If you actually believe this is still true, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya’.

            This hasn’t been true since the '70s, at the latest.

            • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              So you believe there is no protection for creators at all and removing copyright will help them?

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That’s long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it’s irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I’m currently living off the royalties).

            The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.

            Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it’s no longer available commercially for a “reasonable” price. As in, if I can’t go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.

            • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Absolutely. Finally a reply with some sense. This would work well, or at least better.

              The “copyright doesn’t protect anyone so let’s remove it” people are just playing into the hands of big corporations.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I’d obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I’d like to see compulsory licensing applied to all written work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can’t stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it’s in the public domain.)

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thanks that’s very insightful and I’ll amend my position to 15 years 5 may be just a little zealous. 100 year US copyrights have been choking innovation due to things like Disney led trade group lobbyists, 15 years would be a huge boost to many creators being able to leverage more IPs and advancements being held in limbo unused or poorly used by corpo entities.

    • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there’s hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        You don’t have to stop selling when it becomes public domain, people sell books, movies, music, etc that are all in the public domain and people choose it over free versions all the time because of convenience, patroning arts, etc.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Hard to compete with the megacorp that publishes all books on a 5 year delay and rebrands it as their own, because there’s no rules with public domain.

    • helopigs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      the issue is that foreign companies aren’t subject to US copyright law, so if we hobble US AI companies, our country loses the AI war

      I get that AI seems unfair, but there isn’t really a way to prevent AI scraping (domestic and foreign) aside from removing all public content on the internet