How do they have a right to it in the first place? Copyright is only given on condition of it becoming public domain later. And now they are trying to undermine it becoming public domain. Which in turn, should mean they are trying to undermine their own right to it. That's how it should work, if the original intent of copyright is followed.
Do you think we'll see Mickey Mouse enter the public domain? (And even if it does, Disney still owns the Trademark.)
I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Older content is a very long tail, but the vast majority of revenue is with new art. It's perennially refreshed and relevant to new audiences.
How will your company producing good copyright content be financed?
Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. I'd go for much shorter terms 7+7 years (7 years automatic right, 7 years paid), and make various other changes (deposit non-DRM copies or you don't get copyright at all, things that can't enter the public domain can't be copyright protected; also the copyright term is set at the start, and can't be retroactively extended).
You might be able to create a "fair recompense" right or something (those exploring works have to pay a fair amount to the original author) but it would still be a form of copyright I think?
> Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid.
Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.
Yes, but if the term is 0 then the main beneficiaries will also be the publishers, only then the creators will get nothing. At least with a copyright of some form they have chance to make a recompense rather than losing _all_ the financial value of their creations to the Capitalists.
I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major brands and copyrights under one studio.)
Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes.
By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same thing.
I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't need to cost so much.
And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made to play nice.
I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from soaking up all the benefits.
I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.
I’d argue that copyright does have its uses, but it’s been extended too many times that it stifles innovation now. I know I’d be scared of demoing my product to a company if they could just copy it with no repercussions.
Copyright on unpublished works is typically more extensive than on published ones, because it overlaps with a sort of privacy right. In the U.S., many unpublished works are copyrighted up to 120 years after creation. The E.U. doesn't have that, but they have something called editio princeps rights, where a first publication of an unpublished work gets 20 years or so of copyright protection. Not out of line with what's happening here, so I'm not sure that there's much to complain about.
