A lengthy amount of time until something is well received isn't something that needs to be considered. If it's not well received at it's release then it's a commercial failure, due to the product straight up sucking, poor marketing or what have you. Stillborn ideas shouldn't make money. The ability to make money off the reanimated corpses of ideas that sucked long after the fact is not something that needs to be protected. After five years they become public domain and if they then become popular/successful, great. The only thing that changes is that nobody makes money. If you couldn't make money at it in the intervening five years you didn't deserve to.
Copyright is not and should not be a system designed to guarantee financial success, only one designed to benefit the creator (for a limited time) in the event of it's success. Commercial success requires three things: a product people want, an ability to deliver the product in a timely manner, and an attractive price point. RIGHT. NOW. A law protecting the right to attempt breathing new life into a failed project every few years, ad infinitum, is counterproductive and only encourages laziness. It's government sanctioned INSURANCE, paid for by a society that has no monetary stake whatsoever in the outcome, and the currency it's paid in is freedom. At gunpoint. At the behest of modern day robber barons.
The only things encouraged by criminal laws are criminal behaviors. When they're encouraged by the State they bleed and soak into every aspect of society. Until this one is fixed there's no hope that America can pull out of it's death spiral.
Mr. Khanna's supposed "great reduction" in copyright term is at best questionable in it's generosity. 46 years? Blech. As an entry point for negotiations it sucks balls. He just sounds like another corporate shill.
The original 14 year duration was set in place as a reasonable amount of time for the content creator to earn a reasonable return on a single work. It was based on a distribution model that involved horsedrawn coaches, barges and sailing ships delivering mostly handmade products to widely dispersed customers. Distribution methods are hundreds of times more efficient, manufacturing processes are hundreds of times faster and potential customers are literally stacked atop each other nowadays.
And that's just requirements for physical goods. Digital goods are even easier to reproduce and distribute, with consumers no farther away than the nearest computer monitor or smartphone.
Hollywood expects to make the bulk of it's profits on a movie in the first year. Music sales? The same. Print? Software? Everything after the first year is gravy. When did mandated gravysuck orgies become an expected part of dress-down Fridays? And why do we cater to these entitled pigs?
Two year initial copyright for corporations would be more than fair. Allow a three year extension exclusively for individuals creating content- artists, musicians, writers, etc. And since the big companies would make the lion's share the first two years, advertising and distribution via their website on behalf of the artist for the final three should be required, with 100% payment going to said artist. If a corporation isn't involved, the whole five years should go to the individual. End of story.
To fulfill the stated purpose of encouraging creative works while at the same time benefitting society at large modern copyright should last much LESS than the original 14 years, not more. Right? It's supposed to be for the good of the people? That's what they always say, isn't it? Oinkoinkslopslurp? Anyone?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by wickedevilmojo.
Re:
Let Freedom Wring.
Re: Re:
A lengthy amount of time until something is well received isn't something that needs to be considered. If it's not well received at it's release then it's a commercial failure, due to the product straight up sucking, poor marketing or what have you. Stillborn ideas shouldn't make money. The ability to make money off the reanimated corpses of ideas that sucked long after the fact is not something that needs to be protected. After five years they become public domain and if they then become popular/successful, great. The only thing that changes is that nobody makes money. If you couldn't make money at it in the intervening five years you didn't deserve to.
Copyright is not and should not be a system designed to guarantee financial success, only one designed to benefit the creator (for a limited time) in the event of it's success. Commercial success requires three things: a product people want, an ability to deliver the product in a timely manner, and an attractive price point. RIGHT. NOW. A law protecting the right to attempt breathing new life into a failed project every few years, ad infinitum, is counterproductive and only encourages laziness. It's government sanctioned INSURANCE, paid for by a society that has no monetary stake whatsoever in the outcome, and the currency it's paid in is freedom. At gunpoint. At the behest of modern day robber barons.
The only things encouraged by criminal laws are criminal behaviors. When they're encouraged by the State they bleed and soak into every aspect of society. Until this one is fixed there's no hope that America can pull out of it's death spiral.
Mr. Khanna's supposed "great reduction" in copyright term is at best questionable in it's generosity. 46 years? Blech. As an entry point for negotiations it sucks balls. He just sounds like another corporate shill.
The original 14 year duration was set in place as a reasonable amount of time for the content creator to earn a reasonable return on a single work. It was based on a distribution model that involved horsedrawn coaches, barges and sailing ships delivering mostly handmade products to widely dispersed customers. Distribution methods are hundreds of times more efficient, manufacturing processes are hundreds of times faster and potential customers are literally stacked atop each other nowadays.
And that's just requirements for physical goods. Digital goods are even easier to reproduce and distribute, with consumers no farther away than the nearest computer monitor or smartphone.
Hollywood expects to make the bulk of it's profits on a movie in the first year. Music sales? The same. Print? Software? Everything after the first year is gravy. When did mandated gravysuck orgies become an expected part of dress-down Fridays? And why do we cater to these entitled pigs?
Two year initial copyright for corporations would be more than fair. Allow a three year extension exclusively for individuals creating content- artists, musicians, writers, etc. And since the big companies would make the lion's share the first two years, advertising and distribution via their website on behalf of the artist for the final three should be required, with 100% payment going to said artist. If a corporation isn't involved, the whole five years should go to the individual. End of story.
To fulfill the stated purpose of encouraging creative works while at the same time benefitting society at large modern copyright should last much LESS than the original 14 years, not more. Right? It's supposed to be for the good of the people? That's what they always say, isn't it? Oinkoinkslopslurp? Anyone?