Re:Willingham Sends Fables into the Public Domain
by brightlancer on Friday September 15, 2023 @05:07PM
(#37529135)
> They might say that, but they're just signing their own death warrant. Those who watch, like myself, will just wait out the 10 years and download it. (Well, not really, I will probably download it the next day).
What does copyright length matter to people who wouldn't respect any of it?
Re:Willingham Sends Fables into the Public Domain
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Friday September 15, 2023 @10:42PM
(#37531529)
My respect for copyright is proportional both to its duration and the propensity of corporations to try to use it to cheat creative people.
They might say that, but they're just signing their own death warrant. Those who watch, like myself, will just wait out the 10 years and download it. (Well, not really, I will probably download it the next day).
It cuts both ways.
> Now - I'd be willing to talk about things like drastically shorting terms for works for hire/copyright owned by corporations and not individuals.
There is no legal distinction here, and there can't be. Even individuals will spin up an LLC which has ownership of that stuff, for tax/bankruptcy/whatever reasons. Do they lose copyright because they were business savvy?
> We might also need to think about not having one term for all things. There's no reason the copyright term for software should be the same as that for a song or a movie or a book. Books, songs, paintings, basically art should probably have a copyright term in the 25-50 year range. Certainly no longer than 50 years.
I'd go the other direction. 18 months, no renewals, and no criminal charges for infringement without proof of infringement for commercial sales.