my copyright reform wish list (US-based):
[ ] copyright lasts 5 years automatically, can be renewed for 5 more years after that, then it's public domain
[ ] illegal to demand a creator transfer ALL copyrights in order to receive payment/awards/work contracts
[ ] if the creator dies less than 10 years after the work is copyrighted, their descendants cannot claim the copyright unless a transfer is stipulated in a will or other contract. otherwise public domain
[ ] Absolutely NO "anti-circumvention" laws. Ideally you'd lose your copyright if you tried to distribute with DRM, a concept I love for how ironic it is!
Sorry, had to add my biggest grievance!
@vickysteeves As a disabled writer whose only income comes from my books, I have very mixed feels on this.
Yes, this will fix the massive corporate abuses of copyright. But requiring renewal may n ot be accessible to disabled/poor creators and I'd much rather see a longer period -- ~20 years has generally been my idea of a good copyright period. If anything happens to me, I know any kids I have will get the book income until they are out of school, no matter how young they are.
I hear this. there's a fair amount of evidence to show the maximum amount of money that one will make on a creative work is in the first 5-10 years, which is why I thought that range is fair. I would support 10 years automatically, with 5 year renewal to get closer to the 20 you propose. the fact that the process to renew is not accessible is another area to improve on :(
@jessmahler That seems way more reasonable. 5 years? It could take 5 years to build a fanbase, if you're lucky. Losing ownership of your own creations if you fail to keep up the paperwork after 5 years would really suck.
Copyright criticism needs to be way more targeted than it usually is if it's not going to end up fucking over small creators in the hopes of killing Disney.
I feel like the second one, about transfer of ownership, is a lot better targeted than the first.
@edheil @jessmahler then there's the question of appropriation, but that's its own topic, and things get really messy if that starts being treated the same way as copyright (even when someone has a valid point).
especially in disciplines where (for better or for worse) there's a whole range of creative elements that are viewed as community property, such as what happens in music around groove or chord progressions, vs. melody.
@vickysteeves I don't believe in reforming the copyright (will bring good). We are living empowering days. Making people:
1. Aware we are creators and live in a creation-empowering time
2. Aware of major Licenses (creative commons, public domain, rights reserved, etc.)
3. Aware that if the person dislikes some copyright material, this person CAN create it's own (competing) material/work. THIS PERSON CAN
Will make copyright material insignificant (for this person, and maybe others)
I disagree COMPLETELY with your premise that "we are living in empowering days", mostly because of the current length of copyright is debilitating for many industries/creators, and because most major companies severely abuse the copyright systems for maximum profit.
take my industry for example -- cultural heritage. I can't preserve most software because the copyright is going to last 100 years, so bye bye to that part of our cultural memory! and that makes me v sad.
@vickysteeves Ok. I'm trying to tell that the modern person should avoid working for copyright companies. I agree that the copyright as it is today, is an abuse of power
@vickysteeves and I AM in an empowering time. This time of personal computer + open standart network (internet) makes me say so
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!