[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1569983373510.png (117.21 KB, 1920x1188, 160:99, Tom_Bell_graph_showing_ext….png) ImgOps Google

Are current copyright terms too long?  How long should copyright last?


I think so. The way it is now, it's just a way for companies to hold on to characters and ideas far longer than anyone originally intended them to. I've heard that it's mostly Disney's fault, trying to keep Mickey Mouse from going public domain. But it's a losing battle that is hurting art and expression in the process. Characters like Batman and Superman, who were created by people long dead and are are close to 100 years old should be in the public domain. People should be able to use those characters who are part of our collective culture and history in their own stories.

I'd say up to the original creator's death. If I created a character that everyone loved, and it because a cultural fixture, i'd be happy to leave that character and world to my fans after my death. Why should other people keep making money off it when I'm in the ground?


Yes. Though I'm personally rather opposed to the concept outside of writing.
Even covers, I'm a tad wishy-washy on.

I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with someone making Harry Potter and the Chamber of Potted Plants, with special guest Johnson from Halo.
As long as they aren't literally just reprinting the original books, I say let people make spinoffs if they want.


But what if someone wants to make "Harry Potter and the Secret that he is a child molester"? Something that tarnishes the character. I'm for the public domain like I said in >>2845, but this is an interesting question.


Don't consider it cannon.
People'll know that Harry Potter and the Secret Child Molester isn't made by the original author, after all.

Do fanfics mess up the reputation of MLP? I wouldn't say so.


File: 1569994267987.png (48.35 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Gardevoir-282.png) ImgOps Google

>I'd say up to the original creator's death.
What if the original creator is a corporation?  What about a movie, where thousands of people are involved in creating the movie?  What if the author of a book has a heart attack and dies right after the book is printed?

Personally, I'd go with a 30-year fixed term after creation.


>What if the original creator is a corporation?
Or a pseudonymous work where the IRL identity of the author is a secret that only the publisher know?


Fanfics can't be published and placed on the shelf next to the actual books with the way copyright is right now.

>What if the original creator is a corporation

Corporations don't create things. People within the corporations do.

>>What about a movie, where thousands of people are involved in creating the movie?

I'd say whoever wrote the original screenplay.

>> What if the author of a book has a heart attack and dies right after the book is printed?

Then he can no longer make any money from the IP, so it becomes public domain.

That said, a fixed term might be an OK idea.


File: 1569995513309.jpg (51.63 KB, 500x500, 1:1, doge-at-desk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Then he can no longer make any money from the IP, so it becomes public domain.
It seems like that would have the undesirable effect of making publishers reluctant to work with authors who are nearing death?


They'd still make all the money from the original work's sales. It's just the IP would then become public domain.


True, but with the development of the internet, the only real difference I see these days is whether or not you can sell them.
I don't think they'd have the effect you talk about regardless.


Being sold is a pretty big deal, I think. On the internet, you have to go looking for fanfiction. It's segregated from anything official. In a store or online marketplace, it's sitting right there next to the original work.


File: 1569998763509.png (43.26 KB, 248x363, 248:363, 382.png) ImgOps Google

>Are current copyright terms too long?  

>How long should copyright last?
60 years.


I'm not really convinced for the 'sitting right next to the original work'. I guess it depends on how you sort things, though. I'd've sorted by author, personally.
As for in the general store, if that's what you're getting at, it seems like saying strollers and dildos are sold right next to eachother, because Amazon sells both products.


Books are usually sorted by category. Mystery, Sci-Fi, etc. Not by author. If you sort by author, you'll have completely unrelated books jumbled together.


They're usually sorted by author within those categories, though.
You go to the fantasy section, and your books by one major author tend to be together, A-Z. At least htat was the case at the last store I went to.


>Are current copyright terms too long?
>How long should copyright last?
If I have to come up with a number, um...25 years.  I think that would cover most of the profit creators would earn, and if the goal is to ensure creators earn enough to justify creation, exerting legal resources to protect a trailing trickle of sales makes little sense.  True, some things gain a cult following long after their release,  but I'm not sure that factors in the economics of creative efforts.


Just do away with copyright.  In the modern age of piracy I'm not sure it's even working.  At most of say we keep a short limit on selling an absolutely identical copy of things, and perhaps add a law to make the source of what you're selling really obvious. JK Rowling's name should be prominent on her books, but absent from someone else's, who should instead have their name clearly labeled on the cover.


>Just do away with copyright.  In the modern age of piracy I'm not sure it's even working
It doesn't prevent people who want it for free from pirating it.  But it works pretty well at ensuring that people who DO want to support the creators give their money to the right people.  Making movies costs money, and I'm not sure how they would be funded without any copyright protection.



Hmm, maybe.  I'd give the limit five years, then.


Yes. They're very much too long. I think about 30 years is pretty reasonable. It leaves enough time for publishers to make money off the process so writers can still effectively work with publishers in a workable time frame, but doesn't leave us in a draconian state we're in now where copyright is a joke that nobody even takes seriously because it's over a fucking century now. Funny part is, these companies make most of their money on opening weekend anyway, and then another bump once the dvd is released, so it wouldn't really hurt these giant publishers much at all.

The way it is now is basically the result of corporations having free rein over the legal system via lobbying, and with the internet making information fast and free, nobody right now has any respect for the 110 year bullshit current copyright law. They'll do what they can to avoid legal ramifications, but nobody, not even the corporations, are looking at the century-long copyright rule and saying "yea, that seems reasonable".




It's anti-freedom and anti-competition to have such long terms.

Rather than a way to promote innovation, it is a way to stifle and stabilize society, producing less competition, in an age where technology rapidly advances.

Really, it should be the other way around - copyright should be getting shorter with advances in technology.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]