Comment by gwd

Comment by gwd a day ago

6 replies

It's basically a compromise. Many people hate the current situation (90 years for works-for-hire, life + 70 for people), and would love to return it to something like 14+14. But is that realistic? The money behind not doing that is massive, and I think most of the population have been conditioned by forever copyright to a degree that there will never be populist support for it.

But there might be populist support for releasing old stuff that nobody's using. More people would agree, for instance, that it's preposterous that some game from the 80's can't be sold because nobody knows who owns it (but those who think they might own some part of it threaten to sue).

And who knows, once people get used to the idea that copyrights aren't naturally forever, they'll be more amenable to the idea that they should be something more reasonable.

basilikum a day ago

I don't think the problem is most people being against shorter copyright terms but simply them not caring. I don't think a compromise with the devil will change anything about that.

  • gwd a day ago

    Right; so according to your own assessment, for the "14+14 no extensions" thing , you're always going to have have "a minority of opinionated geeks" on one side, and "a minority of massively rich entrenched interests willing to fight tooth and nail for a gold mine" on the other side. You're never going to win that one.

    Whereas, for the "pay to extend copyright" thing, you have a minority of opinionated geeks and at least a little wider net of people who see the irrationality of not being able to watch a movie from 40 years ago that nobody's making any money off of any more, and politicians seeing a new source of tax revenue that doesn't affect voters; against it you have, "a minority of massively rich entrenched interests fighting for something not making them any money". There's at least a chance of winning this one.

    IOW, the choice is not, "Should we have 14+14 no extensions, or should we have pay-to-extend?" The choice is, "Should we have pay-to-extend, or the status quo?"

    • MichaelZuo 17 hours ago

      Can you write down your actual analysis of the disposition of political capital, factions, interest groups, etc.?

      People aren’t just going to take your word that A outweighs B modulo C, or that B outweighs A modulo C. There needs to be some credible substance.

      • gwd 16 hours ago

        Sorry, did I accidentally wander into a political action group working meeting, and you're mistaking me for the chairperson or something? If you have actual money and people working on this, don't take your cues form some rando on the internet!

        I thought this was a site where we talk about ideas and see what people's perspectives are. @basilikum asked why on earth @mchusma would advocate "pay to extend" instead of "14+14 no extensions". I gave my own personal take. I'd be totally happy to be wrong about the political viability of "14+14 no extensions". If you have actual data, or even just a different take on the situation, I'm all ears.