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.
What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?
I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it’s still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.
i left it open ended like that because there’s a lot of options….
i’d probably start with selling, like after 5 years people are welcome to copy it and distribute it but not sell it…
but i mean, a lot of variations are possible….
Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.
Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn’t just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.
Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don’t force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?
Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I’m sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.
The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That’s long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it’s irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I’m currently living off the royalties).
The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.
Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it’s no longer available commercially for a “reasonable” price. As in, if I can’t go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.
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.
how about: tiered copy rights?
after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?
it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…
What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?
I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it’s still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.
i left it open ended like that because there’s a lot of options….
i’d probably start with selling, like after 5 years people are welcome to copy it and distribute it but not sell it…
but i mean, a lot of variations are possible….
We’ll just having some copyright look like?
Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.
Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn’t just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.
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.
Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don’t force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?
Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I’m sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.
The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That’s long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it’s irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I’m currently living off the royalties).
The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.
Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it’s no longer available commercially for a “reasonable” price. As in, if I can’t go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.
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.