P1

Saw January 1, 2023 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1927 are open to all on Hacker News today. It occurs to me that I hold similar opinion (although almost forgotten recently):

💬 Quote

at the end of the day, copyright is about protecting the ability to generate profit

That’s what is has turned into, but it was never the point. The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. That’s it. The way to do that was making sure that creators had a limited time where they could exclusively profit from their efforts, but the creation or protection of profit was never what copyright was all about.

Are there any studies showing that copyright actually does achieve its goal of promoting the creation of art? Can we show a causal link between copyright and art creation? Can we show a proportional effect where longer copyright terms lead to more/better art creation? I suppose it would be rather difficult. You’d have to find a control group that’s otherwise just like the USA (or your comparable country) but without copyright.

Is copyright really the driving force, without which we wouldn’t have creative output? I have my doubts. People were drawing on cave walls and parchments long before copyright. Would people simply not create art if copyright didn’t exist? And if so, would we really miss that particular art?

The point was to promote the creation of new creative works. That being said, copyright was MADE to help the striving & starving artists to not die and live a life. Just like what NFT was originally CREATED to do. It’s shameful to misuse it simply cuz it’s PROFITABLE (yes, Disney, fuck you). Nowadays most people hear about copyright from the mouse of those VCs instead of the relatively poor artists. It’s just a sheer robbery. Think about GitHub Copilot, NovelAI or chatGPT. It’s not the corporate is an asshole (it is, and it always has been) or cash maker that it gets the jealousy and critic of others. The whole point is that they have nothing in return, aka., the feedback in their respective realm is a big ZERO. C’mon bro, as long as sth. is idiot-proof, it’s not creative any more. To make matters worse, they are even charging based on the creative works of others! That’s not how copyright works, and it’s against it even by today’s problematic standards.

My solution is simple. The copyright is gained automatically and cannot be transferred (I’ll happily observe publishers like Elsevier falling bankrupt and self publishing awaking) and it lasts only 10 years. If the artist cannot make another hit within 10 years w/ the profit, it’s done, and it deserves it. Copyright/Loyalty/Whatever buzzword should only ensures one to have the very limited resources to make creative work, but never abundant enough to abandon art for the rest of its life. Another Publish or perish for artists, but beneficial for the advancement of human beings. Copyright, or intellectual property, if any, should never exist otherwise.

P2

Took another look at the thread, another interesting solution:

💬 Quote

Its the Mickey Mouse problem. Disney doesn’t want Mickey or related works to enter public domain, because it would be a huge knock to their current empire.

Still, this seems rather easily solvable to naïve little old me.

20 year copyright by default, with a 20 year review cycle process an individual/company can apply to ask for extension, on the condition that they can prove harm to newly generated IP, if the copyright is not-renewed. Still using Mickey Mouse to generate new works of non-derivative IP, and copyright of Mickey Mouse isn’t causing damage to any other competing agencies (the way holding IP to a new drug or invention would)? Fine, renew granted.

Why should Disney get an infinite copyright? I think copyright should be limited to natural persons. No one involved in the creation of Mickey Mouse is still alive. Imagine if the Brothers Grimm, Inc. had just kept infinitely renewing their copyright claim? Disney wouldn’t even exist. Disney is a company that was built upon works in the public domain and now is depriving the rest of the world from the very thing that allowed Disney to flourish in the first place.

I’d be fine with the extension path, but in exchange I’d expect a fee that increases with each extension. Almost like a land value tax but for IP.

The idea is brilliant!

To have an exaggerated example, let’s say Disney has copyright on Mickey Mouse for 10 years (side note: in reality, it’s a stupid 95 and probably more in the foreseeable future), and wants to have an extension of 10 years.

• Easy, 10% of estimated IP value.
• Another 8 years (note it’s smaller)? Ok, 20% now.
• Wanna another 5 years? 30% this time.
• Still making enough money to pay a fourth extension? 40% for only 3 years.
• Insanely want to get another one-year exclusive extension? 50% can’t sound more reasonable for Disney’s sheer robbery for the advancement of human kind.

If you cannot make creative works of your own IP in a continued interest, someone else will do it for you when it enters public domain. Oh, and don’t cry in company of my sweet lullaby 🧑‍🎄.