Copyright Reform Poll

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

We ought to find other solutions. And expecting everyone to join the gig economy isn't one.

The current system interferes with research, with preservation, and with accessibility.

Once we have other solutions, phasing it out should be possible, but until then short fixed terms may be a workable compromise. With anonymous works, collective works, authors disappearing, etc. life of the author was not, is not, and cannot be practical.

How about copyright for a given amount of time? How about 50 years?

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

How about copyright for a given amount of time? How about 50 years?

It doesn't have as many problems as life. But it still interferes with research. And it means people who grow up with a story can't necessarily share their take on the story. See the licensing issues around Star Wars and Middle Earth role-playing games. A shorter interval, 20 years or less, could reduce those issues.

P.S. And for derivative works after that period, a rule that the authors of the original works can re-use characters, ideas, etc. from any derivative works might also help.

[ZodWallop]

I voted Some fixed length, renewable a limited number of times.

[Ntsimp]

I've never agreed with any of the life + N options. It's perfectly okay for my copyrights (these days we all hold some) to expire before I do.

[sun surfer]

I haven't thought about it in awhile and this is one of those things where it's necessary to think about all the kinks. But if I were president/prime minister/king of the world, I would without a doubt shorten copyright from what it is now and set definite limits.

I don't think I'm a fan of "Life plus" because it can be so arbitrary and shortchange the families of authors who die young. For instance, say the limit is "life plus 20". Now imagine two 20 year olds both publishing smash hits the same year. One dies that same year, while the other lives to 120. One would have copyright protection for 20/21 years while the other would have it for 120/121 years. Even with "life plus or a set limit, whichever is longer" I don't like the ambiguity and unevenness of length.

Just pulling a number out of my head that sounds fair while I'm thinking on it today, I'd say I like the idea of 50 years flat copyright. Even if someone publishes a book at 10 years old, they'd still have copyright until 60.

There could possibly be a set number of extensions allowed, but the problem with extensions is that if it's in law to allow say two extensions, corporations and estates would fight to extend it to three, and then four and on and on just like Disney is currently doing, so it's a slippery slope to have extensions.

Nevertheless, I say, in the infinite wisdom of what's floating in my mind at this minute, three extensions may be allowed- the first for 15 years, the second for 10 years and the third for 5 years; and each extension shall require a hefty but not exorbitant fee, to encourage only popular works making money to extend their copyrights. The gradually decreasing number of extension years would also encourage future lawmakers to leave it as it is. If each extension is the same, such as two extensions of 15 years each, corporations/lobbyists/etc. could simply try to add an extra extension of the same into law and it seem normal and conducive to what the law already was. Whereas, with diminishing years, it plainly makes clear that it's meant to definitively end there which would hopefully give more resistance to attempts to alter it in the future.

This would give authors/estates copyright for 50 years basically free or comparatively cheap, and up to 80 years if it's making money and they wish to extend copyright. That would mean every copyrighted work would be in public domain before it's a century old, but still in copyright for most or all of the author's life. Even if an author wrote a bestseller at 15, they could have copyright until 95.

[shalym]

I've always been a proponent of the some period plus unlimited renewals. This allows corporations (like Disney) to keep their crap, and it also gets rid of the orphan works issue, which, to me, is the biggest problem with copyright today.

Shari

[Richwood]

I like the lifetime + 25 years IF the author holds the copyright. If a corporation holds the copyright then it expires after 10 years after publication and distribution ceases. Publication can be printed or in electronic form, Ebook or Audible version. Maximum corporate copyright ends in 35 years from first publication. BTW many items are now public domain, particularly SF and mysteries, due to copyright originally being held by magazines. Once a magazine was published the publisher had no interest in maintaining individual story copyrights.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

To be able to copy something, one needs the original. If it's not published, only the author has the original.

In an ideal world perhaps, but that is frequently incorrect.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

To be able to copy something, one needs the original. If it's not published, only the author has the original.

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

In an ideal world perhaps, but that is frequently incorrect.

And there are legitimate ways to share work without technically publishing.

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Life +20

That should be the prison term for corporate executives and politicians who try to abuse copyright.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I voted Some fixed length, renewable a limited number of times.

I voted that way as well, but truthfully, it's a topic I have thought about quite a bit and I'm not sure if I'm convinced of the best way to reform it yet.

I like copyright, and I want to see its original intention served: Give a LIMITED monopoly to a creator FOR THE PURPOSE OF encouraging them to create FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.

Modern profit whores corporations like Disney ignore all the upper case parts of that.

The limited time with renewals is a bit more like patents, which I think do the intended job more fairly than copyright currently does.

ApK

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ApK

The limited time with renewals is a bit more like patents, which I think do the intended job more fairly that copyright currently does.

ApK

Yeah, mainly I chose it because it seems like the simplest way to deal with orphaned works. If something was published more than X years ago and there is no copyright renewal on file, then it is public domain. No need to search out the recluse author to verify if they are still alive.

[Catlady]

Fixed length, renewable indefinitely. Say, 25 years, with the renewal fee increasing each time. Works that aren't profitable would probably not continue to be renewed; works that are, fine, let the copyright holder keep making money.

[pdurrant]

Nothing to do at home? Have your say in the great MobileRead 2020 Copyright Poll!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Nothing to do at home? Have your say in the great MobileRead 2020 Copyright Poll!

If you like, I can pound the table some more about how my suggestion is the one and only true way.

[doubleshuffle]

But mine is!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you like, I can pound the table some more about how my suggestion is the one and only true way.

No, I just wanted to bump the thread so that people who check in less frequently get to see it.

And I'll agree that your suggestion is correct, so long as it's the same as my notion, which is clearly the best.