1) If you're not making any more art 10 years after that 1 hit wonder you don't deserve the 1 hit wonder's money because you squandered it

2) Your kids don't deserve your copyright money, they've not earned it

3) Short copyright terms break up massive monopolies and encourage artists to continue creating.

4) (3.5 but whatever) imagine how much higher your chances of success would be if companies couldn't monopolise art.

5) When your work becomes public domain you *don't have to stop selling it*.

You can market yourself as the original. Sure, loads of people will get the bootleg book, but a chunk will still want the OG hardback

@hiscursedness Patents give inventors a monopoly for 20 years, but they have to pay a fee every year or it lapses. I like the 10 year limit - I can't live off the work I did in my twenties for the rest of my life, so why should artists?


6) you, as an author, gain access to more public-domain works; copyright holders cannot censor your expression, you can use established tropes, characters, stories to build on them, parody them, and translate them for new generations without the fear of legal retribution.

All creative work is derivative:

@hiscursedness I feel this argument is extremely important, and often missed, with most of the debate focused on convincing authors "it's not that bad if the copyright term is shorter", effectively creating the narrative where shorter copyright terms seem always to be at the expense of the authors.

I think it makes a lot of sense to instead focus on what authors and creators can *gain* from shorter copyright terms. They can tap into vast *current* culture and remix it freely.


7) short copyright terms solve the "orphaned works" problem; there are countless works of art (first movies!) where the author is unknown or where it is unclear when the author had died. Which makes it hard or even impossible to make sure the work is in public domain:

Especially with a delicate medium like the celluloid film, this creates a heartbreaking dilemma: copy the original work to preserve it (risking infringement), or not (risking destruction).

@rysiek Fuck I never thought how bad this must fuck with archivists and historical preservation

@hiscursedness importantly, we need to be clear that the copyright term needs to be set from *publishing date* not (as currently) from the death of the author (ha!).

Otherwise we end up in the same legal uncertainty, just for a bit shorter time.

@hiscursedness in this context, consider this: Disney's want for making a profit off of Mickey Mouse a century after its creation makes preserving many first talkies for future generations illegal.

I will go out on a limb here and say that preserving early cinema is more important than protecting Disney's bottom line.

@rysiek @hiscursedness

This component of the recent past is actually very significant today.

Any creative work posted to the "cloud" is potentially at risk of being lost through site close-downs.

There is probably no published physical "thing".

@Algot @hiscursedness yes!

And thus we inevitably end up with the debacle -- tools like that allow us to make "hard copies" that are not beholden to a particular walled garden and its whims.

They are *essential* for preserving our culture.

And create more monopolies. See: the current state of Audiobooks. It would be nice if everything worked in a perfect Utopia, but alas.

@aladar Bearing in mind a short copyright term does not currently exist in Audiobooks, how has a short copyright term created an Audiobook monopoly?

Would, not do - I'm replying to you hyposesizing on what would happen. A look at the current audiobook market in English language should logically conclude this would happen - Amazon has a monopoly on new titles, and also hosting every old title in existance for $8/month would obviously create a complete monopoly. Keep in mind that there are already companies who purposefully wait until authors death to produce their work. Having to wait less time for all the profit would be worse

@aladar And if anybody could publish an audiobook, including for free, do you think Amazon would spend as much money producing them? Do you think that would create a monopoly?

@aladar Especially if, after ten years, anybody can publish Amazon's audiobooks.

>do you think Amazon would spend as much money producing them?

Yes, because they already pay the bare minimum for exclusivity, opening it up wpuld pnly create a race to the bottom. "We have all the newest stuff exclusively for 10 years, and all the other books in existance on public domain,all on one service!"

Remember tht small authors do not actually get paid a simgle dollar for signing their rxclusivity to Amazon right now, theyget locked into it by using their narration sefvices. Now imagine exclusivity on allnew books, and literally every other book inexistance being hosted after 10 years. All for only 7.99!

@aladar Oh no you can also record an audiobook yourself and put it up on Audible, or pay a narrator yourself, you don't have to use their narration services.

Sure, but basically no one does it, because you need to invest in a good enough microphone, and be reasonably sure your narration is good enough. If youre an indy author, that means a lot of money for possibly no return. The only people I have seen narrate their own books have been a few podcasters eho already have the equipment, all the new authors use their narration services.

@aladar So I guess they're getting services in exchange for exclusivity? But the option has always been there for them to not take the exclusivity?

@aladar Like, if the production is free, they're getting that, in exchange for giving away exclusivity.

If they don't like that deal they can still produce it themselves?

And yet they dont. Or, most lf the time, cant. Which means Amazon is getting exclusivity. Which means if they hosted exclusivnew content + all old content + all public domain works + integrated it into the rrst of their services like they do with video and musoc, they have an instant monopoly.

IA is hosting a tiny fraction of art and history, and theyre operating on million dollar deficit each year, after university and state grants. Saying random people can compete is not true.

Not only that, we already have examples of companies that tried to compete by offering public domain works and gheir own catalogue. Audiobooks.com, downpour, scribd. Most of them folded back into Audible, and thats with them having actual sellimg points with exclusive books.

And I'm not even going to go to the obvious stuff like music and movie streaming services that would quite literally make a complete and total entertain!ent monopoly out of Amazon and Disney, seeing as they would integrate *everything* on top of their exclusives. Theres no world where this is good for anyone other than the megacorps.

@aladar Why does this give them an entertainment monopoly. They do not own those products. They can offer them, but so can anybody else

@aladar Now the set of people that can offer the product on a streaming service is: Anybody who can offer a streaming service.

As opposed to before, which was: anybody who can offer a streaming service AND pay extortionate fees to license the content

>Now the set of people that can offer the product on a streaming service is: Anybody who can offer a streaming service.

Exactly. Which is a very small subset of extremely big companies. No one else can afford the space and bandwidth for tens to hundreds of petabytes of data, and we know that consumers want everything at one place abpve everything else. Thus, youre giving the extremely rich even more of an advantage tham right now.

@hiscursedness I personally agree (when I put my revolutionary hat on) but at the same time I'm like: why do estate kids deserve eternal State-sanctioned protection for physical properties but not for intelectual One?

I think more creative endeavours should take from fashion industry experience where remix and rehash is rampant and not frown upon (except for trademarks).

@hiscursedness fun fact, originally copyright (as defined in the Statute of Anne aka Copyright Act 1710, effectively the first copyright law in the world) set the copyright term at 14 years + additional 14 years if the author was alive after the first term expired.

@hiscursedness I'm not saying it should be 28 years. 28 years in the 18th century is a whole different ball-game than 28 years in 2020.

Anything between 10 and 15 years (from first publication) sounds fine to me, and the reason is: it's a bit shy of one generation. An author or creator who was brought up on a particular works of art can translate them and re-tool them for their kids with time to spare.

Language changes, culture needs to evolve with it, without reinventing the wheel constantly.

@rysiek I like that. It's a good point that what was a short time back then is extremely long here. Looking just at the explosion of genres in the last thirty years compared to the 1800s, it's blindingly fast.

@hiscursedness exactly. Everything sped up and yet copyright slowed down. And with how it makes creators into criminals (go see Good Copy Bad Copy, it's fantastic), this is unacceptable to say the least.

@hiscursedness Ten minutes is too much! I need ta keep up with [insert show name here]

@hiscursedness I always say I want my stuff to be public domain when I die. As much of it as is possible, anyway, as of course I don't own the repro rights to all my work.

I mean, I'm sure nobody cares about my insignificant junk XD but if it makes it easier to preserve my comics and games when I am no longer able to, then that's a good thing.

slightly pessimistic response 

@hiscursedness You can't just change fundamental constants. You can't change copyright terms any more than you can change the gravitational constant, Planck constant or the speed of light.

@hiscursedness how about:

set copyright to false 😉

or more to the point: what would convince you that copyright does more harm than good?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit