Limited Time´s suggestions for a better copyright

Alright, I´ve made a few posts about our screwed up copyright. "It is how it is, what do you want?" you may have asked yourself after reading it.

Well, well, thank you for asking exactly what I needed to segue into this write up, hypothetical person!  Besides bitchin' and moanin' about our stolen inheritance, I do have some ideas to make copyright not-as-monstrous.  Well here's some of my suggestions.

An Orphan Works Potential Exemption
 
Sometimes a work is obviously not being used, and it's actual owner is not anywhere to be found. It's become a serious problem even for people who'd be willing to pay the license to said works, because they can't actually license it, and can't actually use it and copyright can't actually end within any reasonable timeframe, either. 

Now, there should be a system in place where, with reasonable evidence of non-usage of copyright and innaccessibility to the owner of the copyright, the state itself kind of licenses the work for a small fee, to be payed to the copyright holder should they ever resurface.

Require a fee every 10 years after the first 50.
 
I can't fix the U.S. relationship with the Berne Convention, which is basically an agreement that it made with other countries saying "We're all gonna follow this rules to work with each other's copyright, and whichever country doesn't, we can use their stuff."

One of the agreements of the Berne convention was that copyright should not be shorter than 50 years. So anyone wanting a copyright shorter than that should just skip the local laws and go straight to the International treaty heart of the problem.

However, 50 years is practically reasonable compared to 95 or more, and so, within that, re-registry fees should be brought back. Upon the first 50 years, and every 10 years after that point, there should be a fee required to maintain copyright.


Obviously if the work is "Keep the grandkids comfy" successful, they'll make it a point to pay the fee. If it's not...well if it's that near and dear to your heart, you'll definitively pay the fee, anyway. If it's not profitable and not near and dear enough to your heart then WHY SHOULD IT BE COPYRIGHTED NEARLY 100 YEARS?

Everything made before 1955 should become public domain

The purpose of copyright is quite specific. To promote the creation of new works. It's on the constitution and crud. There's no actual evidence that lenghtening the copyright of works from decades ago does that.

It's kind of surprising to me that the same Americans who would consider "guns" a right  because the second amendment said so, would sit idly by while the very specific "for limited times" and "to foster  the progress of the science and the useful arts" are told to go suck a lemon by a lobbied up congress. I  think while guns are useful to an extent to maintain a society, we have copyright precisely to move forward society. And holding this works back does not move us forward.

There is a saying in my island. "A payed musician does not  play well." The idea being that, if a job is payed for before it is performed, most of the incentive to do the work well is gone. While that's not all true,(as a musician, you'll probably want to be contracted again and again and by different people, which won't be accomplished if you do a half assed job all the time) think about it in terms of copyright. We´re giving this already published, already existing works decades of copyright. Instead of saying "If you find some success once, make more and better inventions. We want that." we're saying "If you find success once, you can license that shit for 100 years, and you don't really need to come up with something new."

There will be no children going home hungry from works whose copyright was extended going into the public domain. What there will be, though, is more children with access and capacity to create based on old works. Prosumers, giving their own take on the 20th century classics, in the digital age. What it will provide though, is a level ground where the companies that held this rights for decades will be forced to compete with each other and with people to decide which version is best, rather than pull legal rank and shut down any competition.

An actual, true way to help you control your own copyright.

Maybe you want your works to go into public domain after you die. Maybe you, prolific creator, feel like you've benefited enough from it. Maybe you want a different kind of creative group to beat the mainstream, such as the time BMI beat the music industry with public domain music.

But that's not actually possible. While the creative commons license is a step on the right direction, it doesn't allow you to actually rescind your copyright. You certainly can't set it on a last will and testament. There's a time limit to licenses that might very well come into play should estates or heirs come into play.

But if copyright is to benefic creators, why can't creators control how much their works are actually protected? Why aren't there any settings on this thing between 100 years and nothing at all?

So for the benefit of all peoples, shorter  copyrights on works should be available, with the lapsing dates obviously available to anyone searching the archives. Like, obviously the Disneys of the world aren't gonna apt for anything under the maximum, but why put a damper on culture's growth just because of them?

In fact, people willingly choosing shorter copyright should be encouraged by throwing it at a smaller fee, with an option to pay the additional fee for the full length should the author desire it. I mean, why not?

Read More