[thdr]

> copyright should just die with the author

That would have a few undesirable consequences... for example, you wouldn't hire a 70 year old writer for your commercial project no matter how brilliant they are.

The complexity of our legal system is in many cases justified. The problems are often the numbers (duration of copyright protection etc.)

[fn-mote]

> copyright should just die with the author

This makes sense when you’re thinking of a painting or a book.

Who owns the copyright to Windows or MacOS? A corporation. How do you deal with that?

> you wouldn't hire a 70 year old writer for your commercial project no matter how brilliant they are

Commercial projects are works-for-hire and the copyright is not owned by the person who does the work.

The proposal for the limit of copyright needs to be refined.

In the US, the current rule is:

> For … a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation

[wiether]

  > for example, you wouldn't hire a 70 year old writer for your commercial project no matter how brilliant they are

If you hire them, then you own the work you paid them to do, no?

[graeme]

Not in every country, and secondly if you're basing it on life of the author then that does't solve corporate copyright unless you tie it to the live of a particular employee.

You could do "life of author or X years, whichever is longer". Or include a period after death.

But you see how the complexities come in.

[clort]

The complexities are the problem. I've always thought a fixed term is best. Then, you can purchase a work - it says Copyright <dddd> on it. Then, you know that after dddd+term the copyright is lapsed. You don't need to hunt down the author to see if they died. No guessing, just written on the work that you purchased. No, don't have optional extensions - that just means you have to look it up. It should say it right there on the work you purchased when the copyright expires.

It is said that the vast vast majority of works don't earn anything significant after a few years in any case, meaning the only possible reason to have long copyrights is so that a very few people can get stinking rich. But those people already got rich, in the first few years.. society does not benefit from them getting richer.

20 years fixed term is my proposal.

[TeMPOraL]

Either that or if it didn't work, insurance industry would've created a product that makes it work for commissioned works. Nothing happens in isolation here.

[this_was_posted]

Then just make it the rule that the copyright expires after 30 years or when the author dies, whichever comes last.

[delecti]

Why not just 30 years? Patents get a flat 20.

Not that I'm arguing for 30 per se, just that I don't see what goals of copyright would be advanced more by adding an "or until death" complication.

[qwytw]

Well imagine you write a book in your 20s or 30s and it only becomes popular after a couple of decades. The publisher gets to pocket all the money.

Somebody decides to make a movie based on your book? You get nothing at all from it... The movie bit would be problematic even for books that were reasonably popular at the time. e.g the Witcher adaption came out almost exactly 20 years after the last book, for GOT it wasn't that far from being the case as well (at least for the initial volumes). Studios would be incentivized just to wait a couple of years to avoid paying anything.

I think it could be reasonably to have a fixed limit if the rights are held by corporations, though.

[constantius]

This is an edge case. The vast majority of intellectual output loses value extremely fast. If a new Kafka comes along and their writing becomes popular 30 years after publication, they will have 0 issues getting a fat contract for a new book.

Justifications for copyright are always built on edge cases, seemingly moral justifications of an empirically immoral practice. Yes, it'd be nice if a single handicapped mother of 2 coild see her children rise out of poverty thanks to her writing talent after 50 years. In practice, this person doesn't exist and building society around that scenario is not a good thing.

These 'what ifs' have the same value and do the same damage as 'who will think of the children' do for human rights.

[qwytw]

> seemingly moral justifications of an empirically immoral practice

How is it empirically immoral? Historically it was one of the best things to have have happened to creative professional in history. Before it writer could make a living by publishing books unless he was independently wealth or had wealthy patrons to support him.

> Justifications for copyright are always built on edge cases

No they are based on the assumption that humans are generally rational and more likely to create content if they can make money by doing that.

> The vast majority of intellectual output loses value extremely fast.

Well that's great.. but then it means that your argument is mostly pointless since if that content has no value why are you bothered by the author retaining the ownership of it. Who would benefit from it entering public domain?

[constantius]

You're strawmanning, or having difficulty reading.

Whatever my personal opinions about copyright, this whole thread is about copyright set at 2000 years vs 20, so that answers your first 2 points.

For the last one, 'losing value' obviously doesn't mean they can be safely binned, but that the publisher has no return on keeping it in publication. Again, this is what the entire thread is about.

[account42]

So? Imagine you build a house and it only increases in value after you sold it?

Imagine you invent a new kind of computer memory and it only becomes wildly profitable after the patent expires.

The purpose of copyright is NOT to let the original author capture all value of their creations.

And even independently of copyright "with the blessing of the original author" IS a selling point that will give authors ability to market their past works without restricting everyone else's speech. And any new works they create will automatically gain much more attention after their past works become popular - encouraging them to keep creating, just as copyright should.

[qwytw]

> So? Imagine you build a house and it only increases in value after you sold it?

How is this relevant? We are not talking about the author selling the copyright of their work and then someone making more money than they did from it...

> The purpose of copyright is NOT to let the original author capture all value of their creations.

What is it then?

> And even independently of copyright "with the blessing of the original author" IS a selling point

Well that gives way less bargaining power to the author and even if they get paid anything by the corporation profiting from their work it would be much less than if they retained copyright.

> And any new works they create will automatically gain much more attention after their past works become popular

Well if you are happy to work for free while someone profits from your effort for "exposure" that's something you are free to do.

> without restricting everyone else's speech.

How is copyright restricting anyeone's speech? Everyone is free to create original content if they want to.

[DrScientist]

For inventions if you don't make money off it in the first 20 years you are unlikely to ever make any money off it - as the invention space moves on.

That's not the same for a work of fiction or a piece of music. Case in point apparently books sales for the Odyssey are massively up - when it was originally written in 7-8 BC :-)

Also most books etc don't make much, if any money - an publisher/author might rely on a the cummulative effect of a number of revenue streams built over time.

Also the effect of exclusivity is different - for patents you are potentially blocking the area of innovation you have patented by your exclusivity.

That's not the same societal effect as somebody not being able to copy mickey mouse.

So they aren't exactly the same - however I'm not proposing a 3000 year copyright :-)

[delecti]

My personal preference is actually a flat 50 years. I think that if an author writes something at 25 and it doesn't blow up until they're 75, I think that's given them more than a fair chance to capitalize on it.

My real point though is that IMO, whatever duration we pick shouldn't depend on the creator. It would tend to undervalue their later creations, treats corporations differently from people in a way that doesn't seem relevant to copyright, and oddly might lead to the untimely demise of creators.

I find your Odyssey example to be relevant. Homer's death means people today can release their own translations or adaptations. I can find a public domain version from 100+ years ago, or a modern translator can profit from their work so that I can see their take. I can watch the Italian 1911 silent film version for free on youtube [0], or pay for Nolan's modern take. The expiry of copyright gives me options.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbR97hqfG2o

[DrScientist]

Ultimately the existence of the Odyssey doesn't stop you writing your own story - the creative universe is infinite.

This is completely different from IP around an invention - you don't want a single entity owning the rights the wheel forever - that would stymie human progess.

So I don't think it's right to conflate the two.

[account42]

50 years is too long - you should be able to build on your childhood experiences in your lifetime.

[account42]

> That's not the same for a work of fiction or a piece of music. Case in point apparently books sales for the Odyssey are massively up - when it was originally written in 7-8 BC :-)

And it was written without copyright. So why should the rest of us give up part of our free speech rights for longer than 20 years in order to enrich authors, when its proven that we can get great works without doing that?

The question is not whether longer copyright ever lets authors profit more, it's whether society benefits as a whole.

[DrScientist]

> it's whether society benefits as a whole.

There is a big difference between not being able to republish or cut and paste from the works of JK Rowling and not being able to make and sell an electric motor.

ie my point was that in terms of societal benefit there is a big difference between IP protection and copyright.

JK Rowling managed to write Harry Potter series despite it reusing lots of well worn tropes. I fail to see how it's existence is stopping other people being equally creative.

[Ekaros]

I am fine that estate gets to keep rights for whatever period is left. If estate is dissolved ofc rights would also end. So they can't be orphaned. Either someone has them or they are public domain.

[account42]

Orphaning is less of a problem than copyright nondeterminism where someone owns the copyright but no one knows. A good way to solve this would be to also move move works into the public domain if they are no longer sold in some form. With digital distribution costs are now so low that there is not excuse to not at least keep selling something unless you care so little about it that you have no argument why you should retain a monopoly. Perhaps with a short enough term this is less of a problem though.

[allarm]

> you wouldn't hire a 70 year old writer for your commercial project no matter how brilliant they are.

And yet, practically all over the world, 70- to 80-year-old men are being hired for leadership positions to run the world. Regardless of how brilliant they are.