[stego-tech]

I would argue that in a digital world, copyright should be inversely scalable to the size of the creator - that is, individual works by independent artists intended for exhibition rather than reproduction should receive more favorable terms than movies or games created by huge conglomerates intended for mass reproduction, licensing, and sale.

Or more simply: if you’re not selling it presently, you don’t get copyright on it. There, abandonware and lost media rights are solved, and we can all move on.

[mastermage]

This my fundamental problem with some of the propositions on this topic here.

I fundamentally disagree to only for one example in a thread here have a copyright of 5 years for a Book Author. Many book authors could never finish their series without their first books becoming public domain or so.

On the other hand Everything created by corporations i.e. where a corporation not a single human holds a copyright can get fucked.

[stego-tech]

Exactly. This is something I’ve chewed on constantly for nigh on 20 years, and this is the best compromise I’ve been able to come up with. Smaller teams or individual creators need more copyright protections than large corporations, but the law doesn’t reflect that - and it’s why copyright is so widely abused as a result.

This ain’t working for the interests of the public anymore, and AI has exacerbated it (large corps getting settlements, smaller creators getting shafted). We need a new model entirely that addresses these issues.

[freejazz]

Corporations don't create copyrighted work. Authors do and assign their rights over. I continue to think that people pontificating on this space would be well served to inform themselves about how the business is generally conducted, as I see so many comments made from assumptions about principles and not actual reference to actual copyright law.