[johnnyanmac]

Pretty much, yes. I didn't care enough about that above post to copyright it. If I did I wouldn't post it at all.

Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright.

What really improves here? It doesn't even benefit open source development.

[throwaway09223]

> What really improves here?

With affirmative registration we can trivially prove/disprove whether a specific work is registered under copyright. It also greatly expands the works in the public domain.

> It doesn't even benefit open source development.

Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

[antasvara]

>Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

Having an easily accessible registry of copyrighted code would make it easy to "patent troll" any open source projects.

The reverse is also true, but open source projects have much less money to dedicate to legal battles.

[throwaway09223]

No, this isn't true at all. Because everything is presumably under copyright already we already have such a database. It's simply "everything"

The difference here is that the vast majority of works would suddenly be free from this system and unavailable for any type of IP litigation.

[antasvara]

What's easier to search: the entire internet, or a database of copyrighted code tagged with the owner of said code?

[johnnyanmac]

I already asserted that this would not expand the public domain. People just won't publicly post as readily as they do now. You have a very charitable interpretation that assumes we would get the exact same code output we do now despite a radical change in how ownership works.

>Code by default is usable by anyone.

"by default". Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losses are that large.

> registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.

Sounds like a good recipe for more Oracle vs Google battles in my eyes. We just have a reference on what NOT to write. Now there will be discretion on if you just happened to write this kind of code or if you took X+1 lines of a code base when X is allowed. Very useless metrics for a productive piece of software, but the kind thst will absolutely be used by courts.

[throwaway09223]

> Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losses are that large.

Huh? It's no change at all for someone who wants to retain copyright. They would just need to file to register.

> We just have a reference on what NOT to write.

You may be confused. This is how it already works. No change.

[freejazz]

Do you realize to bring a copyright action you have to register the work? Your theory is not going to change anything, because it's based on false premises.

[throwaway09223]

No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit.

Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.

Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.

[freejazz]

>No, that's not correct. Registering helps in establishing ownership but it is NOT necessary to bring a suit.

It is. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-cop...).

>Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.

Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.

>Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.

You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.