

Why wait? How Congress could fix copyright now - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/why-wait-six-ways-that-congress-could-fix-copyright-now.ars

======
mattmiller
I think copyright length is the biggest issue, I don't see why it has to be
more than 2 or 3 years. Imagine how much different things would be if
copyright expired that quickly.

~~~
autarch
Personally, I'd like see copyright entirely abolished. However, I think as a
compromise something in the 2-5 year range could work.

This is plenty of time to exploit the financial possibilities of the initial
release of a creative work, and it still allows remixes and adaptions in a
reasonable time frame.

~~~
jiggy2011
Depends on how long people are willing to postpone. If you have a choice
between seeing a movie today for $x or waiting a couple of years and seeing it
for free and legally, what would you take?

The legal part is important , because there would be a good business model in
simply taking all of the copyright expired works and creating a
download/streaming website for it all and charging basically for the bandwidth
and easy UI, not to mention that every TV manufacturer would want to integrate
this.

That would be a _massive_ library of stuff, far more than you could watch or
listen to in your lifetime, would you really be worried about seeing the
newest blockbuster the day it came out?

~~~
jacktoole1
Based on the comments on the iBooks DRM thread, mass media has a very small
tail: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3633839>

I think a lot of people want to keep up with the latest media, and there are
lots of social reasons to do so. The latest TV shows, movies, and books will
be the ones your friends are watching/reading. As xkcd eloquently put it:
<http://xkcd.com/606/>

This points out one more factor: content prices decrease dramatically after
several years. Videogames go from $60 to $10 on Steam; Movies end up in
discount bins; books end up cheap on amazon or from used bookstores.

Books are an interesting example: when they are first published it is
difficult to acquire them at a local library (because lots of other people
want to read the same new book), but after some time (usually much less than a
year), they are easily acquirable for free. _If_ the library model works, such
that authors are satisfied with the profitability of writing books, then
reducing copyright term to a few years is probably reasonable.

EDIT: I personally think somewhere around 10 years is probably more
reasonable, but I think the discussion around a more extreme 2-5 years is
interesting, and the current term length is ridiculous.

~~~
epscylonb
I think 5 years.

I suspect the business model that is most likely to work is an extension of
the current one.

Larger multiplexes with more screens, when you go to the cinema you have a
wide choice of movies to see.

Movies would no longer drop out of the cinema within a week or two.

In this controlled environment it is easier for the cinemas to prevent
copying.

Only after a long cinema run would the film be released on DVD, after which
point the copyright expires and you can copy to your hearts content.

I can even see this business model perhaps working for music as well.

------
flogic
This article is rather light on how these proposals make life better for those
pushing SOPA and ACTA. As it is, it's not a "today" solution since you'll have
to go to war with those folks.

~~~
abecedarius
Taking the offense against those folks is necessary, else you're only fighting
not to lose.

~~~
flogic
I agree but that's not a "today" solution. That's a long hard slog.

