
The Pirate Party on Copyright Reform (2010) - allenleein
https://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/the-pirate-party-on-copyright-reform/
======
abdullahkhalids
> But today’s protection times — life plus 70 years — are absurd. No investor
> would even look at a business case where the time to pay-back was that long.

This is something that should resonate with the HN crowd. The heart of the
problem is that the law treats big media and the independent artist the same
way. Instead of the flat 5 year copyright term for every piece of work, I
think a system that works better is that after 5 years, the copyright on an
item can be annually extended by an year using a small fee - say the original
sale cost x 10.

The independent artist can renew the few items he has created easily at this
small price. But Big Media houses, who own the copyright of tens of thousands
of items will have to release any items that no longer sell and do not
directly compete with their current offerings.

~~~
rhino369
And this point isn't even up for debate. Present value calculations
essentially prove that a copyright long-tail provides minimal benefit to a
corporation. Especially since long-tail sales are incredibly rare. So it a
1/200,000 shot at making a classic that will actually sell 100 years from now.
And even for that one shot, the discount rate says a million dollars of sales
100 years from now is worth a couple thousand dollars now. There is no way
100-year copyright incentives art now.

Every 5 years is annoying short though. I'd say 20 years automatically, with 5
year extensions up to 40 years.

I'd probably also allow copyright-lite protection after 40 years. You would
lose protection against direct copying and sales of your work. But you'd keep
protections against derivations. This would allow an author of a long-running
book series to keep his rights to his characters and "universe" for future
works. I'm not sure how long I'd let those copyright-lite rights run for, but
at least 70 years. Maybe with a trademark like a requirement for consistent
usage.

~~~
OscarCunningham
Does the same reasoning also imply that the government should get all physical
property 100 years after its creation? If not, what makes that case different?

~~~
tordanik
The ability to create infinite copies for essentially zero cost changes the
utility calculus significantly.

If we're talking about physical property like, say, a single-family home, the
only question is _which_ family is allowed to live in it.

If the physical world worked like copyrighted creations, we'd be able to give
every family on earth a copy of that home to live in, for free. And while that
would still have downsides for the heirs of the builder (with infinite supply,
they could no longer rent out their own copies of the home for a profit), the
total utility gained by humanity would easily justify that step.

------
segfaultbuserr
The current lifetime + 70 years is overkill. Releasing one's works under CC or
GFDL is surely good, CC-0/PD is better, but it doesn't always
practical/persuasive to everyone/everything. And it requires personal
evaluations and actions.

Perhaps we also need a Voluntary Copyright Sunset Movement. It can persuade
many people to waive their copyright earlier without author's own actions
after its publication:

> Copyright Sunset License

> All Rights Reserved, (C) 2019 John Doe

> An irrevocable, unconditional license is hereby granted: XX years after the
> initial publication of the first revision, the Work is automatically made
> available under the terms and conditions of CC-0. See CC-0. ( _another
> variation can be CC-BY v4_ )

It can be applied to the majority of someone's works without major
considerations. If you are just writing a random essay or taking a random
photo, it's unlikely you still care after, let's say, 20 years. But meanwhile,
you may still want to retain your copyright (and possibly, release it under a
free/non-commercial/proprietary license before it expires, or upload it to
your blog, forget it and do nothing), but no matter what you do, the copyright
sunsets automatically some years later, long before the legal validity.

And I think it can be a fairly influential movement and can persuade many
authors to join: do you really need/want to lock a piece of your random work
for your entire lifetime + 70 years? If the work is special, you may want to
do so, but more likely not, can you waive your copyright earlier to benefit
the public? If so, use this license to publish your work.

The problem of this movement is, of course, nothing would happen during the
first 20-40 years, making the movement be perceived as useless, and difficult
to gain support. Meanwhile, the movement would also fail to solve any of the
changing landscape of copyright issues developed during these years. Who knows
what the world we're living is going to be in 40 years, and there's risk of
our efforts becoming irrelevant.

But I think it's still a big positive move. We can also encourage short expiry
for things you don't care about, such as blog posts or small programs: 5-10
years may be enough.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
An overwhelming majority of "useful" copyrighted works is owned by Big Media.
By useful I mean works that provide large value to society, compared to say
this comment, which is technically copyrighted, but fairly low value to
society. Big Media are the ones who have been influencing lawmakers to extend
copyright terms. They are never going to voluntarily give up their own
copyrights.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Good point. But "fairy low value" doesn't equal to "completely useless", an
example would be the photographs on Flickr, it _was_ the largest collection of
photos available under the CC BY license, and at least Wikipedia was one of
the largest project being benefited from it. Also, I could publish my work
under the Sunset License before I permanently license a copyrighted
book/research paper to a Big Publisher, because the license is non-revocable,
the license can effectively prevent the publisher from locking it up forever,
without some possible objections when using CC-BY or CC-0.

------
zzo38computer
This ideas is good, I think. However, there are some of my opinion:

1\. You should be allowed to waive the right to be recognized as the author.
Also, if someone uses your stuff in the way that you do not like, then you
should not force to remove the picture but are allowed to require to know that
you do not endorse the use of it. Also, should still be prohibited to claim
that someone else wrote something even though actually you did and they didn't
write it.

3\. Possibly, copyright could be shorter for practical works than for artistic
works. I see other comments disagree about what the length should be. I think
twenty years is too long even for artistic works; one possibility (although I
am not sure what is best) might be: For artistic works, five years automatic
and five years requiring payment. For practical works, three years automatic
and three years requiring payment. (But, then, you have to define this
properly.)

5\. Perhaps the ban on DRM should be, instead of a total ban, a combination
of: (a) A prominent warning label is required. (b) Some rules similar to like
what the GPL3 has about DRM is required ;for example, maybe any DRM system
would be required to make available that the user is able to use the rights
that the GPL3 provides for the user (such as availability of source code,
Installation Information, can share the corrected version, etc). (c)
Requirement that the companies do not try to work together to enforce the DRM.

Also, I think patent should be abolished entirely so that you are not
restricted to do some thing just because someone else patented it. (With the
possible exception of "design patents", which perhaps should still be allowed
to exist, but limited to a lesser duration and only applicable to commercial
use, maybe. And it should not apply to screen layouts that do not include
graphics.) (Also, any patent explaining an invention would still be allowed to
be published, although it would have no legal value; it is simply one kind of
archive.)

They also mention, "how should the artists get paid?" I think that, even if it
doesn't restrict you from copying it, does not prevent you from selling books.

------
stesch
Our political systems in the free world are very resistant to change. A party
can be founded to further an important topic but people demand that they have
a broader program and address all kinds of topics.

And then you end up with another copy of some party.

~~~
zzo38computer
Then, you should allow to have more than one party together, so that if some
party is some issues and other party can then make the other issues that they
are more knowledgeable about.

(Maybe the result is that there is no single prime minister, but maybe that
isn't the result; I don't know.)

