11–20 of 24 posts
Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much of the law today as is (copyrights can apply to more than the original copyright law allowed and are automatically in force even without registering) but change the duration mechanism. For the first 14 years of the work's existence you get a copyright for free…
If there was a time or an issue that Republicans could stand for and actually be pro-market as they keep saying they are (in theory), it's this one. They'd probably get as much support as they usually get from evangelists, which seems to be their core audience these days, or at least that's how they're acting in public.
It's nice that this issue happens to put them on the "right" side.
Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much of the law today as is (copyrights can apply to more than the original copyright law allowed and are automatically in force even without registering) but change the duration mechanism. For the first 14 years of the work's existence you get a copyright for free…
I don't like this because the amount an entity will pay to keep copyright is roughly proportional to how culturally valuable it is. The more Disney will pay to lock up Mickey Mouse, the more we want the mouse to be free.
If there was a time or an issue that Republicans could stand for and actually be pro-market as they keep saying they are (in theory), it's this one. They'd probably get as much support as they usually get from evangelists, which seems to be their core audience these days, or at least that's how they're acting in public.
great... however, a more direct example would be mickey mouse...
Mickey Mouse is also a trademark of Disney. Using Mickey as an example would confuse the issue.
In addition, Mickey Mouse is perfectly legal to use in works of parody etc
Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much of the law today as is (copyrights can apply to more than the original copyright law allowed and are automatically in force even without registering) but change the duration mechanism. For the first 14 years of the work's existence you get a copyright for free…
Simpler: the fee starts at $1 for the first year and doubles every year.
Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much of the law today as is (copyrights can apply to more than the original copyright law allowed and are automatically in force even without registering) but change the duration mechanism. For the first 14 years of the work's existence you get a copyright for free…
Given other issues floating around maybe rather than go to something as restrictive as what was proposed at the end of the article take a half step. Leave much of the law today as is (copyrights can apply to more than the original copyright law allowed and are automatically in force even without registering) but change the duration mechanism. For the first 14 years of the work's existence you get a copyright for free…
I like this idea, but often economics isn't the only thing at play. Imagine for example, after 28 years, Halliburton wanted to make use of a John Lennon song in their advertising (pun not intended). Seems unfair that John (or his heirs) would have to pay to keep it from being used in this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simpler: the fee starts at $1 for the first year and doubles every year.
Here's a bag of dollars. That should be sufficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this idea, but often economics isn't the only thing at play. Imagine for example, after 28 years, Halliburton wanted to make use of a John Lennon song in their advertising (pun not intended). Seems unfair that John (or his heirs) would have to pay to keep it from being used in this way.
This is definitely an issue, however at some point the right of the people to appropriate their culture outweighs the right of the artists to control their creations. I think when your work has been in the wild for 28 years, it's time to let go.