Copyright Reform Poll

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by boe

I would like to see some "middle ground" between copyright and public domain, expanding and better defining what is now called "fair use". For example, I think we should be free to download a movie from 10 years ago or a book from 30 years ago without paying a fee, as long as we are not profiting from it.
Better still: funding and expanding online libraries such as archive.org and enabling them to "lend" many copies of the same work without paying for multiple licenses.

As for the poll, I went for fixed length OR lifetime of the author (if applicable). Obviously fixed legth should be shorter than life, ideally 30-50 years IMO, and should be applied to corporations.

Interesting. I tend to be more focused on availability than cost. I have no problem letting someone keep the copyright as long as the work is available in a format I can use at something close to the current market price. I'm not looking for free, I'm looking for available in a format I can use.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Interesting. I tend to be more focused on availability than cost. I have no problem letting someone keep the copyright as long as the work is available in a format I can use at something close to the current market price. I'm not looking for free, I'm looking for available in a format I can use.

Exactly. I don't have any issue with paying for books, I just want them to be available for me to buy.

Shari

[pdurrant]

Only a few more days before the poll closes. If you haven't voted yet, vote now!

[ApK]

Wow, the poll results are surprising to me!
I figured not everyone would agree, but I'm surprised to see so many folks here have opinions that are wrong.

I kid! I kid.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by ApK

Wow, the poll results are surprising to me!

The results were pretty spread out. The only choice that didn't get any votes at all was perpetual.

[library addict]

I voted life plus a number of years.

Upon reflection I would probably vote "some fixed length, renewable a limited number of times" if I were to vote today.

[pdurrant]

My vote was "Some fixed length, or the lifetime of the author, whichever is longer".

I'd think I'd now vote for a simple "Some fixed length" as that future-proofs it as lifetimes increase.

Copyright , IMO, should be long enough for the author to gain a significant proportion of the revenues that will come in from the creation, but not so long that people who come across it in their youth can't base works on it in their late middle age.

So I'd go for 50 years for the fixed length from publication. So yes, I think that anything published before 1970 should now be in the public domain. And I think that everyone (except large corporations who have bought up copyright) would benefit from this change. ESPECIALLY that vast majority of creative people.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by library addict

I voted life plus a number of years.

Upon reflection I would probably vote "some fixed length, renewable a limited number of times" if I were to vote today.

But is that your ideal, or just what you'd agree as a compromise to try to get corporate backing?

[pdurrant]

I think it is interesting that only six people voted for any of the options that could lead to indefinite copyright.

[issybird]

I wonder how many would change their votes based on the discussion? Which is a sign of a good discussion.

I originally voted for fixed length from publication, and that still seems the best choice to me. It levels the playing field for works which seems the most logical to me; genes plus luck shouldn’t be the determining factor. And I think 50 years is about right, too.

[Bookstooge]

Thank goodness what we voted for was italicized! I'd forgotten which one I'd voted for

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Bookstooge

Thank goodness what we voted for was italicized! I'd forgotten which one I'd voted for

Same here. (And I would not change that choice)

Other surprises: The Fish got 3%

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by theducks

Other surprises: The Fish got 3%

Is that a surprise because it's so many or so few?

[pdurrant]

I would like to argue against basing copyright on the lifetime of the author.

Why should some works obtain a longer copyright than other works? Why should two works published in the same year have different copyright lengths? Is there any benefit to society that this should be so?

Could it be that we're awarding longer copyright to the best of an author's output? This seems unlikely. An author's first works are rarely their best. Why give juvenilia twenty or thirty years more protection than the work an author produces in their prime?

Why add this uncertainty to copyright? The vast majority of works make all the commercial success they're going to make in the first year. A few make money for a decade. A very rare few continue to make money for decades. Surely 50 years is a long enough time to make money from a work, before it's released to the public domain so that others can create new works without worries about possible infringement of something they read decades ago.

I have long felt that lifetime + a term a years was a nonsense. I now feel that any use of lifetime in copyright length calculations is foolish, and we should go to a simple time from publication.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I have long felt that lifetime + a term a years was a nonsense. I now feel that any use of lifetime in copyright length calculations is foolish, and we should go to a simple time from publication.

Of course, this will never happen. But I'm describing my ideal.