this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1130 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

66465 readers
4589 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can't have both.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So these companies are against what you call draconian, but you also disagree with these companies? Everyone here is so fucking short sighted, it's insane to me.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The fact that you can't distinguish between being against something vs. being against a double-standard is insane to me.

[–] Greyfoxsolid@lemmy.world 1 points 36 minutes ago

I just know where the future is headed. Gotta be realistic about it.

[–] Rainbowsaurus@lemm.ee 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I'm in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span--it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we'd be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.

5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Exactly! That's what we had originally in the US, and I thought that was more than fair. I would add that the renewal should only be awarded if they can prove they need more time to recoup R&D costs and it's still available commercially.

So yeah, something in the neighborhood of 10-15 years w/ a renewal sounds totally fair to me. Let them keep the trademarks and whatnot as long as they're in use (e.g. you shouldn't be able to make a new entry in a series w/o the author's permission for the marks, but fanfic that explicitly mentions it's not original/canon would probably fall under fair use), but the actual copyright should expire very quickly.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You don't have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it's just you won't have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

how about: tiered copy rights?
after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?

it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We'll just having some copyright look like?

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.

Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn't just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I suppose it would encourage George Martin to get a move on. Otherwise you could set stories in his universe before he finished writing the third book. I still think 5 years is too short though.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?

I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it's still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.

[–] xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago

i left it open ended like that because there’s a lot of options….
i’d probably start with selling, like after 5 years people are welcome to copy it and distribute it but not sell it…
but i mean, a lot of variations are possible….

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

And how do you think that's going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?

The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

Just because corporations abuse it doesn't mean we throw it out.

It shouldn't be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.

Or maybe 5 years unless it's an individual.

Edit - think logically. You think the corps are winning now with the current state of copyright? They won't NEED to own everything without copyright and patent laws. They'll just be able to make profit off your work without passing any of it to the creator.

[–] codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don't force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?

Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I'm sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Those are problems with the shitty enforcement, and allowing corporations to run rampant.

It needs to be refined, not removed.

Without copyright, you could write a novel, and any corp or person could just start publishing it without paying you a dime.

Just because something isn't protecting well enough doesn't mean you get rid of it.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

If you actually believe this is still true, I've got a bridge to sell ya'.

This hasn't been true since the '70s, at the latest.

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

So you believe there is no protection for creators at all and removing copyright will help them?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That's long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it's irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I'm currently living off the royalties).

The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.

Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it's no longer available commercially for a "reasonable" price. As in, if I can't go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago

Absolutely. Finally a reply with some sense. This would work well, or at least better.

The "copyright doesn't protect anyone so let's remove it" people are just playing into the hands of big corporations.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 10 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I'd obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I'd like to see compulsory licensing applied to all written work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can't stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it's in the public domain.)

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Thanks that's very insightful and I'll amend my position to 15 years 5 may be just a little zealous. 100 year US copyrights have been choking innovation due to things like Disney led trade group lobbyists, 15 years would be a huge boost to many creators being able to leverage more IPs and advancements being held in limbo unused or poorly used by corpo entities.

[–] Shadowfax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago

Send This comment To the top

[–] zenpocalypse@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there's hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don't have to stop selling when it becomes public domain, people sell books, movies, music, etc that are all in the public domain and people choose it over free versions all the time because of convenience, patroning arts, etc.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hard to compete with the megacorp that publishes all books on a 5 year delay and rebrands it as their own, because there's no rules with public domain.

Well, except trademark and fraud. But there are plenty of workarounds to that.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

I think 5 years is a bit short.

[–] helopigs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

the issue is that foreign companies aren't subject to US copyright law, so if we hobble US AI companies, our country loses the AI war

I get that AI seems unfair, but there isn't really a way to prevent AI scraping (domestic and foreign) aside from removing all public content on the internet