SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
It's election season in the UK, and the Green Party's policy document has been coming under scrutiny recently. In it is a desire to reduce copyright term to 14 years (not life + 14 years, but 14 years from publication).
Unsurprisingly, this has received a bit of a backlash from various parties.
There's no chance the Green Party will form the next government, so this is all academic, but is this a sensible idea? Are people overreacting?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Green Party Proposes 14-year Copyright Term - Artists are not Amused
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 113 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday April 24 2015, @05:49PM
I propose that some progress is better than no progress and that as a first move all future copyright durations should be half of what they are now, as a start. We can debate other mechanisms later.
The problem is how do you get this stuff implemented? You will be fighting mega-corps. (Rule of thumb: Max copyright duration is always just a little longer than how long ago Snow White came out.) Either way I wish we could mobilize and get this done, at least for the benefit of mankind.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday April 24 2015, @07:35PM
Not only the length, but there needs to be some "use it or lose it" aspect to copyright so that abandoned works revert to the public domain after a certain time if no one does anything to keep them. Like old software from the 1980s which has been abandoned, but is still under copyright and will not be in the public domain (in the USA) until I am dead or too old to care.
What copyright needs is a term plus a formal renewal by whoever holds the copyright. After five years, or whatever, the copyright holder has to file for an extension. If no one does, then the work reverts to the public domain.
This would allow abandoned software, out of print music, and so on to be in the public domain. Right now, this kind of stuff is under copyright even if the copyright holder can't be identified.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday April 27 2015, @04:02PM
Disney can shell out to have forever copyrights on their old crap like they want. If a property is so good that a renewed copyright is worthwhile then it should be easy to monetize it and renew. If there was a random game/thing/show/book from the 1980s that I loved and it only ever sold 1,000 copies the copyright owner probably doesn't care and it isn't worth renewing so it can go public sooner.
Not my idea but it is fantastic. I don't remember if they said it should be an exponential increase or an exception that the first time be free, but I think it should,
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Friday April 24 2015, @11:16PM
Okay, I like that! Half of 70 years is easy enough to determine... but how do you determine half of the author's life?
;-)
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:53AM
For a 'modest' fee, I can set you up with Guido. With Guido on the job, you can control that pesky variable. ;-)