Comment by ssl-3

ghssds 20 hours ago

>Who do you pay? How do you pay them?

Create a non-government copyright collective[0] that manage copyright unrelated to music (musicians already have their).

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective

Reply View 2 replies

ssl-3 20 hours ago

That's somewhat hilarious.
Last time I looked into trying to get pricing from ASCAP and BMI so I could legally stream some music for a small number of people, I found the following to be true:
1. There is no public pricing. (Why? Because fuck you, that's why!)
2. If I insisted, then the simplest way to get a price is to stream whatever I want and wait for a nasty letter from one or more lawyers that will most assuredly tell me how much I owe.
3. The only safe way to proceed is not to play the game at all.
That's gonna be a "no" on the cartels for me, boss. We might as well just throw all of the money and all of the copyrighted stuff into the memory hole for all the good they do.

Reply View | 1 reply
- gwbas1c 19 hours ago
  
  See if the scheme that BMG / Columbia house still works. (Apparently they would send a check to the rightsholder, and if they cashed it, it was considered payment.)
  (But don't quote me, I'm not an expert.)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

gwbas1c 21 hours ago

That's a good question. IMO:

1: The formula dictates what you pay.

2: The money goes into a government-controlled escrow account.

At that point, the rights holder has a reasonable amount of time (years) to claim the money. Otherwise, if the rightsholder doesn't come forward, the money is forfeited.

(What happens to the money at that point? I think this is a great thing for people to argue about while the rest of us get the kind of copyright reform we need.)

(Likewise, what happens if the money gets refunded to someone impersonating the rights holder? That's also a wonderful thing to let people argue about while we get the kind of copyright reform we need.)

Reply View 16 replies

ssl-3 20 hours ago

Those are great answers.
I'd like to propose the following additions to help tie it all together:
Copyright must be registered. Registration requires sending a digital copy to some officious government body, such as the Library of Congress, for preservation. (It used to be ~about this way; it can be this way again. Disk is cheap. Git and email both exist. It can be figured out.)
This registration will be open and publicly-available to query (online, of course, but also by phone, and mail, and just by walking in the front door and asking), so the question of "Who to pay" is always easily answered.
All forfeited money from licensing goes to help pay for the preservation of the collected works, and for the ongoing expense of providing the registration database. It won't be nearly enough to cover those expenses, and that's fine: This means that the balance always has a place to land.
Copyright should not span generations. It should still time out completely, and do so after a period that is shorter than a normal human lifespan.
If a person saw a film when they were 5 that they really enjoyed, and if they manage to live long enough, then they should eventually be able to walk into the Library of Congress, give them some money, and walk out with a physical copy of it, and be able to freely upload that copy of it to YouCloud for their great, great grandchildren (and indeed, the world) to see, and be able to do all of this without becoming a criminal.
(How much money? Something in the realm of 15 Big Macs worth of dollars sounds about right.)

Reply View | 4 replies
- shagie 20 hours ago
  
  > Copyright must be registered.
  https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm
  Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. However, Members shall not have rights or obligations under this Agreement in respect of the rights conferred under Article 6bis of that Convention or of the rights derived therefrom.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
  Author's rights under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration.
  This would require the country to back out of the Berne Convention and TRIPS (and by implication the WTO). Protection of copyright is automatic and does not require registration.
  Just because I haven't sent the latest batch of photographs to the Library of Congress for registration (so I can collect punitive damages rather than just compensatory damages) doesn't mean that the images that I have created are not copyrighted and protected.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  ssl-3 20 hours ago
  
  I'm aware of the Berne Convention. It can be vacated. Sweeping changes have sweeping effects.
  I can't conceive of a way for any of this hypothetical copyright system to work (ie, to not fall completely apart) without requiring registration.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
shagie 20 hours ago

Which government? Who controls the account?
How do I claim it?
How does this work across national boundaries? (e.g. how does someone in Wakanda license a work created by someone in the US? How does someone in the US license a work created by someone in Wakanda?)
What happens if the government refuses to pay me (or return the money to me after the period of time has elapsed)?
What happens if the government refuses to acknowledge the escrow and uses the money themselves?
---
I would contend that this suggestion puts too much faith in governments and their handling of money, record keeping, and not using financial tools to penalize individuals and countries.

Reply View | 10 replies
- gwbas1c 20 hours ago
  
  > I would contend that this suggestion puts too much faith in governments
  Copyright only works if you have faith in your government to create and enforce laws.
  Otherwise, if you don't have faith in your government, you have bigger problems than a poor system of copyright.
  ---
  Anyway, all of your points are wonderful things to argue about while we get the kind of copyright reform we need. When we argue about details like this, we can assume that compulsory licensing is a good concept overall.
  
  Reply View | 9 replies
  
  shagie 20 hours ago
  
  Which government do I need to have faith in for enforcing the copyright for a citizen of Wakanda who is infringing upon my work?
  The floor of copyright reform is set by TRIPS and the WTO. That's 50 years. If one wants to try to set another floor, it involves every country in the WTO to agree on that. Setting an floor that expires sooner is likely a non-starter given concerns about things getting slurped up into AI models.
  Mandatory licensing is a "no". I should not be required to license my material to anyone. I do not want my works of photography, fiction, or software development to be mandatorily licensed to someone who could then take it and make derivative works that I don't want them to. Consider how many people object to their CC work being included in AI models.
  Much of the suggestions of copyright reform would involve the relevant country to leave the WTO and withdraw from the TRIPS agreement. That is unlikely to happen.
  Resetting copyright to the floor dictated by TRIPS would be a possibility that a country could entertain.
  
  Reply View | 8 replies

[removed] 18 hours ago

[deleted]

Reply View 0 replies