News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by kemotep on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @02:20PM (#38785489)
Additionally if your concern is that artists and authors aren’t being paid, a 14 year copyright term is nothing. A corporation would just contract you to make a work, complete whatever minimum release is necessary to get copyright, then wait until it’s public domain to wide release a remastered version that they no longer have to pay royalties on since it is public domain.

Despite how many negatives the current copyright regime has, having to wait 70 years after the death of the author is far too long of a timeframe for that strategy to play out.

Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by surgical_fire on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @02:21PM (#38785501)
> A corporation would just contract you to make a work

In that case, by definition, the artist was paid.

Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by kemotep on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @02:24PM (#38785522)
The last round of strikes by the writers and actors unions were about royalties.

Being paid for a spec or a per diem while making the movie can be peanuts. Big name actors and writers make percentages on the backend.

Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by ProxCoques on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @02:26PM (#38785540)
I'm not concerned about that. And if I was, why should artists be treated differently to anyone else who chooses to charge for the product of their efforts? Copyright didn't exist before 1710. Art sure did though. A protection of 7 years seems fine by that measure. Go make some more art after that expires. Or even before!
Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by tanseydavid on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @03:16PM (#38786172)
>> Copyright didn't exist before 1710. Art sure did though. A protection of 7 years seems fine by that measure.

This seems utterly arbitrary. I fail to understand your logic here.

Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by ProxCoques on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @03:31PM (#38786356)
Please accept my apologies. I mean that the ostensible reason for copyright is to protect and thereby incentivise the production of artistic work. By extension, without copyright, artists would not create anything. But artistic work existed before copyright was created in law in 1710. Ergo, protection of 7 years would seem more than generous when, for example, builders are not paid every time somebody enters their buildings, or lawyers are not paid every time somebody reads the contracts they wrote.
Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by kemotep on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @02:32PM (#38785603)
Well if I can get your art for free after a few years of waiting why would I ever pay? Shortening copyright so much has secondary effects.
Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by ProxCoques on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @03:35PM (#38786412)
By secondary effects, do you mean artists would cease to create art? If so, then artists living in the many hundreds of years before copyright existed in law would disagree. Or do you mean there isn't enough music, or film or literature, etc. in the world? Spotify doesn't have an input problem as far as I know.
Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by kemotep on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @05:48PM (#38787804)
No the secondary effects would be people no longer having to pay for art. Including corporations like Spotify and Netflix.

Artists would still make art but would have to either have patronage or find an alternative income source to make a living.

Re:'A business model based on mass copyright infringement' by salawat on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @08:30PM (#38788937)
Easy fix: corporations can't hold IP. Only people can.

There. Fix't.