[betterunix]

"it seems to me that it's better, or at least more efficient, to assume everything is copyrighted once it has been created rather than requiring everyone to file a form with an associated fee for everything that a person ever decides to create"

More efficient for what, exactly? Because it is much more efficient for me to just assume that nothing is copyright when I creating something new that incorporates the work of others. It is overwhelmingly more efficient to just ignore copyright on the Internet -- our computers are the greatest copying machines ever made, and spending our time trying to figure out if some data is copyrighted is nothing but a retarding force.

[bangin]

I'm all for free works and the Public Domain. The only problem with assuming that some work is free unless otherwise noted is that an entity with more resources can claim the same rights, and therefore profits, to a given work until presented with a significant challenge. A smaller entity can easily placed on a disadvantage.

[Fuxy]

If there's a public database of all copyrighted content they can't just assume without checking.

As far as copyrighting is concerned I think it's fair to require you to put some effort into protecting your works.

However free copyright should only last about 20 years after that a small fee should be required on the 21'st year and that fee should grow exponentially[1] every 10 years from then on.

If it's valuable enough to you you will pay the fee but if it isn't you will release it into the public domain.

That will prevent people keeping thing copyrighted for too long and companies like Disney could keep their stuff copyrighted for at least 100 years before the fees get too large.

If it's no profitable there's no point in keeping it copyrighted and you're just hurting the public domain by doing so.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

[Hannan]

Fair point, and thanks for replying. I was arguing on the supposition that original content creators deserve a right to some time-limited monetary compensation for their works, if truly valuable to society. I'm sure many people would create content irrespective of a monopoly on monetization, but that seems like a step C, where I guess I was suggesting a path from A (current Disney-style) to B (something in between A and C).

Edit: After reading your comment more carefully, I see you were discussing creating something new based on a work, rather than a simple reproduction of an existing work; my apologies. In which case I agree with nthitz's comments in this thread regarding it being transformative, and therefore permissible (in my idealized scenario).