Slashdot Mirror
There Is No "Next Great Copyright Act", Remain Calm
Lirodon writes: A YouTube video has gone viral, particularly around the art community (and the subsection of the art community populated by the same type of people who tend to spread these around to begin with), making bold claims that a revision to U.S. copyright law is being considered, with a particular focus on orphan works. Among other things, this video claims that it would require all works to be registered with a for-profit registry to be protected, that unregistered works would be "orphaned" and be usable by "good faith infringers" and allow others to make derivative works that they would own entirely. Thankfully, this is all just hyperbole proliferated by a misinterpretation of a report on orphan works by the U.S. Copyright Office, as Graphic Policy explains.
Random Youtube video found to be distorting facts and be less than insightful. I never saw THAT coming.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"Thankfully, this is all just hyperbole proliferated by a misinterpretation of a report on orphan works by the U.S. Copyright Office"
Why 'thankfully'?
If you don't register a work you can never receive monetary damages from infringers, only an injunction.
No. If you don't have the work registered, you can only go for the injunction, and for your customary rates/invoicing on the work in question. What having the work registered does is allow you to take the infringement case to federal court, and to seek punitive damages.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
but if it doesn't make that back in 14 years, is it ever going to?
If I were able to reshape copyright law myself, I'd do three things:
1) All new works are copyrighted for 14 years plus a one-time 14 year extension that you must file for.
2) All non-commercial infringing (i.e. no profit motive - and, no, ads don't count) would carry a penalty of $100 times the market value of the work. For example, get caught distributing 500 MP3s? Your fine would be around $50,000 (500 * $1). Still high, but not "bankrupt you for life" high.
3) All existing copyrights would phase out gradually. (This would be a concession to businesses.) Starting with the oldest material, five years' worth of material would enter the public domain every year until all material was under the new copyright length. This should give companies plenty of time to plan for the public domain.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It's called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Extends the copyright term to 120 years, eliminates fair use as a copyright infringement defense, and institutes extrajudicial legal proceedings that allow copyright holders to seize your property if it is being used to "infringe."
No, if you haven't registered the work, you're only able to get actual damages (which is something like your 'customary rates' but it depends on what you can prove) rather than statutory damages and attorney's fees. Actual damages are close to what you said, but statutory damages are not "punitive" damages at all.
But don't take my word for it, read the actual law on the subject.
Oh, and it so happens that you can register just before filing suit, but a registration that isn't timely doesn't have the same presumption of validity that it would if you were registering long before there was a lawsuit close on the horizon.
Some francise-oriented work goes on for 14 years. Not a lot.
And they aren't going "well, this first one bombed, but we'll go ahead with the other 6 anyway".
The first one makes a jillion, then they go ahead with #2. And sometimes, if #1 is a really huge hit, they'll go ahead and film #2 & #3 at the same time, particularly to make the movies cheaper and retain the characters at the same age. If #1 bombs, the rest don't ever see the light of day.
The VAST majority of the money received for 99.99% of all movies are received in the first couple of years after the movie is released.
Past that, for movies, music and books, it's a lottery ticket. Every once in awhile, it winds up being popular for longer than that, or it comes back into vogue. Basically a fluke.
Nobody OK's a movie based on the financial returns of a 90 year copyright term. They go ahead if it projects to making a good profit inside a couple of years. After that, it's straightup gravy.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
"... because the typical person does not benefit." Utter bullshit. Anyone creative enough can obtain a copyright, patent or trademark and benefit from it. If someone writes a book, without copyright protection the first lazy moron who comes along can take it and publish it as their own.
"People get paid by the fact that only they can create a particular piece of art or item, up against true competition." This time shallow bullshit. Without protections, the moment any creative item is available a *corporation* could simply abscond with it, out produce the individual and take it from them.
Same old screed from those who can't create - "I want access to yours for nothing."
This is how copyright should be changed: give every 'work' ten years of free protection - plenty to understand whether it is making money or not. And beyond that, allow for infinitely repeatable five-year terms, paid for at a progressive rate. That way everyone can be happy: basic protection is in place for free, and anything that is valuable can be protected up to its economic value but not beyond.
Copyright owners can be happy: they finally have their infinite copyright - or at least as it makes sense economically.
The public can be happy, as older works will eventually fall into public domain.
The government can be happy, as copyrighted works become a steady source of income.
See, everybody is happy!
So what is wrong with the first lazy slob coming along and copying it?
I just don't see why book writers won't continue to write books but do it for free or little return.
I also believe in ditching capitolism entirely and moving to pure communism. The kind where there is no money or class system, and everyone works for free but also gets everything provided for free such as housing, food, education, healthcare, clothes, transportation, and everyone gets the same amount of it.
Pure communism has never existed but it is the best most advanced form of socialism. And better than capitolism. Capitolism is an enslavement system, where people with egos get to think and live that "we are better than everyone else" when they really aren't better than anyone.
Then why should it get a benefit of a monopoly rent and free government support at the expense of free expression?
For the same reason that you get it, when it comes to your own works.
What kind of a reason is that? It sounds like you're saying that we should just set limits based on whatever the greediest want -- after all, it means it applies to everybody, so it must be fair, right?
There's a phrase for that: tragedy of the commons. Our shared culture, of which creative works are a large part, is being gobbled up and locked away behind effectively infinite imaginary property laws. Just because anybody can do it doesn't make it right or acceptable.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)