• whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days 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.

    • Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days 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
        3
        ·
        22 days 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.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 days 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.

        • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days 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.

          • bss03@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            22 days 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
              0
              ·
              21 days ago

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

              • bss03@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                21 days ago

                I believe that the protection copyright provides is proportionate to how much you can spend on lawyers. So, no protection for the smallest creators, and little protection for smaller creators against larger corporations.

                I support extreme copyright reform, though I doubt it should be completely removed.

                • zenpocalypse@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.

                  I’m not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.

                  Copyright IS about protecting creators; we’re just still letting corporations run the show.

                  • bss03@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    20 days ago

                    Copyright IS about protecting creators

                    No, it isn’t. The intent WAS to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days 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 copyrighted 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
        1
        ·
        22 days 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.