151–160 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do get started! You can't just leave hints like that and not give us the full scoop!
:) Let's just say that one day I found myself in the Tate Gallery with a Mondrian that needed some work... tech consultancy takes you into the most interesting places.
As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.
It's always funny seeing these threads, when it's about AI these people defend copyright to the death. Then when it's about a private IP owner holding onto their IP, it's "death to copyright"
As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.
I would argue that in a digital world, copyright should be inversely scalable to the size of the creator - that is, individual works by independent artists intended for exhibition rather than reproduction should receive more favorable terms than movies or games created by huge conglomerates intended for mass reproduction, licensing, and sale. Or more simply: if you’re not selling it presently, you don’t get copyright…
I fundamentally disagree to only for one example in a thread here have a copyright of 5 years for a Book Author. Many book authors could never finish their series without their first books becoming public domain or so.
On the other hand Everything created by corporations i.e. where a corporation not a single human holds a copyright can get fucked.
As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.
Or maybe we have never needed an exclusive economic monopoly on a creative work to encourage the creation of art? Maybe we would all be in a better world were art and culture lived in the collective commons, free for anyone in the zeitgeist to adapt and proliferate? Can we really say commercial production of culture has been truly the best for society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that in a digital world, copyright should be inversely scalable to the size of the creator - that is, individual works by independent artists intended for exhibition rather than reproduction should receive more favorable terms than movies or games created by huge conglomerates intended for mass reproduction, licensing, and sale. Or more simply: if you’re not selling it presently, you don’t get copyright…
This my fundamental problem with some of the propositions on this topic here. I fundamentally disagree to only for one example in a thread here have a copyright of 5 years for a Book Author. Many book authors could never finish their series without their first books becoming public domain or so. On the other hand Everything created by corporations i.e. where a corporation not a single human holds a copyright can get…
This ain’t working for the interests of the public anymore, and AI has exacerbated it (large corps getting settlements, smaller creators getting shafted). We need a new model entirely that addresses these issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I want copyright and patents to be. I could see a case for the initial patent period to go up to 10 years, but more or less operate identically. Make it apply retroactively. Clean, simple, no exceptions, grandfathered special interests, or variations for special industries. This nukes all the exploitative actors in the industry, like the textbook publishing industry, patent trolls, IP hoarders like Sony,…
The only disadvantage I see might be the increase in use of trade secrets if patents no longer look sufficiently attractive. The quid pro quo basically used to be 'tell us your secret sauce and in return you'll get monopoly use for a period. There's a bit of a balancing act. Of course that original concept has been corrupted
Make the incentive "if I don't share my information in exchange for a patent, any of my engineers could leave for a competitor and share all of my information tomorrow anyway." You take the offer society gives, or you get nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Estimate the stream of payments”… how? Like what is the McDonalds tradework worth? What is tbe stream of payments?
McDonald's trademark is not a copyright, so that's a different process. The trademark is appraisable too, but it's trickier because trademark doesn't expire and the stream of payments may not end. You can look at the history of franchise payments as one measure, and consumer revenues as another measure, but you'll need to discount for the actual product. The corporation broadly accounts for the value of the trademark…
But, ok, copyright.
Who exactly is going to do these audits, find comparable works, etc? For every single copyright (500,000-ish registered in the US per year, far more unregistered but real copyrights)?
And you’d need to audit all existing copyrights… that song may have produced very little revenue, but then a big artist covers it, and the composition rights (but not performance rights) are suddenly worth a lot more.
It all seems like an exercise in applying engineering to law, which never goes well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP is next to impossible to appraise, unlike land. It’s pretty easy to ballpark what a lot of house or office building is worth based on comparables that sold recently. IP doesn’t sell that much and comparisons are harder.
This is actually a solved problem. It is self-assessed valuation with compulsory sale at declared value, known as the Harberger Tax.
Should I be forced to pay something every year to prevent some AI company from bidding $1 and taking ownership?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the regime this thread is discussing (in observationist's post upthread), 2037. This seems more than fair to me.
Of course it seems fair to you, it's not your IP that's being stolen before you were able to extract all it's worth from.
Looking past that specific word choice, there's an implication here that only the author would have an unbiased opinion on it. I'd argue that they're just as likely to have a bias that would cause them to argue for a policy that is unnecessarily onerous because by the same logic, they're not the ones who would be missing or on anything from it.
As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.
I can understand some of the arguments for a time limit on copyright, but are you really claiming that you're being "creative" when you cut and paste?