Solving the copyright dilema
p2p news view / p2pnet: At the moment copyright has a fixed time limit on how long it lasts. Some companies out there are constantly trying to get these time limits extended because they’re still making money out of their copyrights. But many companies aren’t.
There are even companies that are long gone, but the copyrights to their old products are out there somewhere, years or even decades later. I think the whole concept of a set period of time is simply not good enough. It’s just too restrictive. So here’s my idea:
Essentially, copyright will last for as long as the owners can demonstrate they’re actively engaged in selling products or services based on the copyright, AND that they’re also making a profit from doing so. If either of these two tests fails, the copyright lapses and becomes public domain.
The elegance of this solution is that it allows a company such as Disney, who’s still making money out of their rodent, whose name starts with M, to keep their ownership of said rodent but only while they still make money out of him/it.
As soon as he stops being profitable, Bang! HYe becomes public domain. Also, I believe patent trolls would cease to exist as they’d have to prove ‘they had a product or service based on the copyright and were actually making money out of it.
If not, no more copyright.
Companies would no longer having to fear breaching some patent troll’s obscure copyrights, that only covered a tiny percentage of the product anyway, and would probably be much more willing to engage in development of new products and services. So I’m convinced that the vast majority of businesses out there would benefit if copyright laws introduced this “use it or lose it” clause.
But ‘m thinking there has to be a catch to this, because it just seems so simple and yet so effective, at least in theory.
Of course, the usual gang of suspects would make all kinds of noise about this without even reading any of the detail simply out of principle or lack thereof. But even they would benefit either by having to start selling their old back catalogue of material, much of which probably wouldn’t even attract royalties these days, in the process actually getting some extra revenue. Or they could free up resources by simply tossing the whole back catalogue into the public domain.
Of course, we all know how reasonable and open to new ideas they are, so I’m sure the squeals of protest at this idea will be long and loud and go all the way to Washington.
But I think it would benefit them, even if by virtue of the fact they’d never having to worry about keeping track of old copyrights that are still in existence.
The only losers I can see are the copyright lawyers whose job is to keep track of old copyrights and their expiry dates. But I’m sure they could easily find a new job. Of course this idea could apply to all forms of IP, not just copyright.
Anyway, I’m curious to see what people think of the idea. I’m sure it’s been proposed before, but now I think is the time to start pushing it to your local representatives as an easy and fair solution to copyright expiry dates.
[The author of thye above is frequent comment poster Tony who says, "I'm still prepared to publicly admit to being an Aussie, in spite of successive Oz governments apparently trying to make us all ashamed of that fact over the last few decades. I'm a totally unashamed Computer Nerd and I'll readily admit to playing D&D for over 20 years as well. I first discovered p2pnet when a story on the site was linked to by a gaming news site a few years ago. I kind of lurked and made the odd comment as a 'Readers Write' but eventually registered and I've been hanging around treading the fine line between troll and regular ever since. ;o ]
Digg this story.
==================
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
June 12th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
.
The rape of the cosumers in this country by copyright holders needs to stop.
RETURN copyright to default, as the founding fathers had it.
The current copyright laws, pure sewage, the copyright holder as it stands now contribute nothing to the common good of this country, which in turn make them a parasite.
You want to let these copyright holders use up the usefulness of their copyright and toss us the garbage. NO WAY!
June 12th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
So what your essentially saying is if an artist who is just getting their bearings in the free market and isn’t making a dime from their work will be screwed because no profit == no copyright. But if the same artist a few years down the road makes money off of the one thing they’ve created –> profit == copyright for that thing (until ofc they are no longer profiting from it). By introducing the method you advocate you realize you’ll be screwing the little guy and the ones who abuse copyright will continue on in perpetuity and in fact your idea makes it easier for them to profit.
Btw copyright isn’t just about profit it is also about having a say on where and when your work is used and how.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
I agree with the post.
Additionally with the proposed system the cartels will have an incentive to do all possible so that the work of those that have not assigned (give away is more like it) their rights to publishers (which includes the larger records companies) are not used, after the works go into public domain.
As a result of the proposed method, creators will have an incentive to give away their work to record company that are also publishers so that their works do not enter the public domain dead music vault.
A better way: Eliminate copyrights, socialize art and pay artists from taxes based on a ranking system, where the more the work of an artists is used (recorded, if songs), the more they are paid by society. To each according to their contribution to society. This is inevitable as the cost of reproduction becomes zero.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 12th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
I guess i should have mentioned the creation of copyright in the article. I agree there should be a period of time when copyright is guaranteed to allow you to get started, so in the US for example, go back to that 5 year period mentioned in the constitution, then apply the use it or lose it test every year afterwards. I mean i realise small businesses often take years to get going, but i haven’t specified a minimum level of profit have i? As long as they’re making some profit they’re in the clear. If they’re not making a profit, they won’t last long anyway.
What is a copyright abuser anyway? So what if Disney gets to keep the copyright on their rodent forever? If they can keep convincing (conning) ppl into paying out for products based on the rodent good luck to them. As for patent trolls, like i said they have to prove they’re doing something with the IP or lose it, and they’re the only abusers of copyright i can think of.
As for having a say on where and when your work is used, what kind of work? A song you wrote 30 years ago? If ppl are still buying it you would still have copyright on it. If noone’s bought it in 15 years you’ve lost your copyright on it, tough. Just release a greatest hits and if enough ppl buy it you’ve still got the copyright on it.
Ok that means that the muzakbigbiz will go insane creating greatest hits and recompilations of everything in their back catalogue to try and retain ownership of it all, but hey, if noone buys it, it won’t matter will it? No profit, no copyright.
The thing is the use it or lose it clause would force companies to give up copyright or other IP that they have no intention of making anything out of and simply want to sit on in case someone else violates it so they can be sued or whatever. I think it’ll be good for most businesses and more importantly good for consumers in the long run.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Why shouldn’t the creators of something be allowed to “use up the usefulness of their copyright”? I think your main beef with copyright is that too often it’s not the creators or authors who get to retain copyright but middlemen like the cartels.
I think i’d amend my article by adding that copyright should be prevented from being bought and sold. The record companies would own nothing. They’d only have exclusive distribution, marketing etc agreements with the owners of the copyright. Which would be the bands and songwriters.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
But those record companies and publishers would need to ensure they’re still making a profit out of the work. If they’re not the work would become public domain anyway, and the artists might have given up a huge percentage of the potential income in the process.
Also i’m now thinking that copyright should be changed so that creators can’t sell their copyrights even if they wanted to. This would stop the muzakbigbiz from ripping off emerging artists for example.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
As i’ve mentioned in a couple of my replies i also believe that IP should not be transferable. That is the creators of copyrighted works should be unable to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of that copyright to someone else. Why? Well to stop the muzakbigbiz from ripping off their artists for one. Bands don’t own the music they play, songwriters don’t own the songs they write, they just get some royalties. Since the muzakbigbiz is trying to get songs reclassified as “work for pay” so they won’t even have to pay royalties, something must be done to protect the creators of music at least.
Also i’d add the original period of time for guaranteed ownership of copyright mentioned in the us constitution, to allow newcomers to get up and running. After that period which i believe is 5 years, the use it or lose it tests would apply every year. The profit test doesn’t specify how much profit, but i’m thinking it should be at least 1% of the gross revenue.
The only thing i’m not sure of is derative works based on public domain works. Take the Disney cindarella movies. Apparently even though the original story is public domain, Disney have the attitude that noone else is allowed to make movies of the story, because they’ve made 2 movies of the story. I don’t see that they should have this kind of ability to lock ppl out of making competing derivative products based on a work in the public domain.
I think anyone should be able to make a movie about cindarella, even cartoon movies. Disney would obviously own the copyright to THEIR cartoon movies, as long as they’re still making a profit, but would have no options to stop others from making their own movies based on the original story. Simply arguing that it would confuse ppl is not good enough and insults the viewing public.
But it would only apply to works that are based on works that are themselves in the public domain. So noone could just whip up their own version of star wars episode 3 for example unless it’s a parody, until the original becomes public domain. Then everyone would be able to.
I guess the use it or lose it clause sounds like it would encourage copyright owners to keep rereleasing their works in order to retain copyright on it all. But isn’t that a good thing? It’s not like you’re going to be forced to buy the new releases, and if you wanted to be able to buy something that was relegated to the back catalogues decades ago, now you’ll be able to.
Also, these “updated” versions of star wars that are coming out. I don’t consider them to be rereleases. They’re derivative works based on the originals. As the copyright holder George would be allowed to do this, but unless he rereleases the original works unaltered, he would eventually lose copyright on the original works. So he’d be allowed to tinker with them all he wants, but if he’s not making any money out of the originals, so would anybody else.
This article isn’t set in stone, i’m simply presenting what i believe is a good way to improve the state of copyright and IP ownership in every country in the world. Comments and criticisms are welcome. Not that i could stop them anyway ;o)
June 13th, 2006 at 12:01 am
“but i haven’t specified a minimum level of profit have i? As long as they’re making some profit they’re in the clear. If they’re not making a profit, they won’t last long anyway. ”
yeah like the music cartels wouldn’t fnd a way to make this perpetual:
“look we sold ourselves 1 cd for $1.00 more than it cost to make, therefore we made a profit.” Nothing would ever enter the public domain.
I like the idea of a min set number of years or a min number of income… ie 5 years or $1,000,000 whichever comes first (that’d be $200,000/year, even an artist should be able to live off that). And that would income from sales, and would not include income from tours etc.
June 13th, 2006 at 1:19 am
The problem with the dollar amount is which currency, a million Aus dollars simply isn’t worth as much as a million US ones. Also it’d be much harder to come by because theres only 20 million Aussies compared to something like 300 million Americans.
I agree that the accounting methods of the cartels would have to be looked at carefully, but what’s new? Worldcom and Enron aren’t the only companies engaged in “creative accounting”, they’re just the biggest to get caught at it so far.
June 13th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Copyrights and Patents are two very different things.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-copyright-trademark-and-patent.htm
June 13th, 2006 at 2:51 am
“But those record companies and publishers would need to ensure they’re still making a profit out of the work.”
Yes, but the record companies that are also publishers (all the big record companies want to pay the songwriter royalties to themselves, so they have made themselves publishers too) would only insure that only the songs they own as publishers make a profit, leaving the independent songwriters out in the cold, royalty wise.
The idea of prohibiting the takeover of songwriter works by publishers is plain common sense. Record companies should also be prohibited from being publishers too, just as movie companies should be prohibited from having a monopoly over a novel for an unlimited time.
BTW, under the proposal, what would stop book publishers to band together (that is the purpose of the associations) to use only works in the public domain. Then the works that are not in the public domain make no money and then become public domain, at which time the book publishers publisht the works without paying the author anything. How is this prevented?
Basically I believe that those creators that have the talent to create art or literature that may be distributed through publication should somehow be paid for their work, or else they will not produce. The problem is that sometimes, with the way the publishing industries work, who gets and does not get published has little to do with the quality of the work but with what connection the author has, where he lives, how much kickback is paid to someone, or what is peddled/promoted by the publishers and what is profitable. Capitalism, the corrupted kind, is always at work. This is what must be changed.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 13th, 2006 at 5:52 am
The idea being that if the creator can’t be bothered paying even $1 to keep their copyright, it obviously isn’t worth anything to them and should be made public domain.
So the creators get 10 years to exploit their work and at the end of that period, they register (or reregister) their copyright and pay a $1 fee for a one year extension. And so on and so on for however long the norman copyright term is (which should be shorter too).
This could even work with Tony’s idea – pay your $1 fee AND show evidence to prove you’re actually using your copyrighted work.
June 13th, 2006 at 6:38 am
“Additionally with the proposed system the cartels”
Ahh but your myoptic view (and that of the original poster) isn’t accounting for painters, sculptures, writers, programmers, photographers, film markers etc etc. So in your self interest to stick it to the cartels – you also want to stick it to the small fry who are trying to eke out a living on their work?
June 13th, 2006 at 11:55 am
The follwing questoins are not hypothetical. They are real situations involving music whose copyrights are owned by my family and are administered by our own company/publisher.
1. I am planning the making an opera based on the compositions by my father. We own the copyrights. This is a major undertaking that may cost us perhaps 50,000 dollars or more, depending on who we hire to do the work, just the making of the the libretto and the musical arrangents. What if we get no one to produce the opera for 10 years…. will the rights be lost under your proposal? Would it make economical sense what we are planning if your proposal was in effect?
2. There are currently over 75 records with about 40 different songs being sold (in USA terrotory only) with songs we own which are not licensed or that have never paid us or our father any royalties. The result of record cmpanies in general not respecting the law. Woulf these 40 songs, never having made any profit for the owners but making profit for record cmpanies go into the public domain per your proposal?
3. We have hundreds of songs we cannot get anyone to record because some music publishers “stole” them (registered them) and because there was a double claim in the past and one of the past claimants publishers is very fast in filing lawsuits. As a result our music is boycotted. All radio station in Puerto Rico have a black list of composr’s whose music should not be played, and Guillermo Venegas is on the top of the list. And record companies so not record music that cannot be perfrmed on radio because its composer is blacklisted. Since we cannot profit from our songs because for the stated resons, would we loose our copyrights too if your proposal was in effect?
4. There are about 20 songs comosed by my father that may be owned by a music publisher which we sued for several reasons including non performance. In the past the publisher did not want to promote or even publish the songs because it did not want those songs to generate royalties because that would provoke controversy with my father and that could provoke the audit of their books. At least we are the beneficial owners, but we will not make money off the songs if the publisher does not want to make money. About half the songs have never been licensed by the publisher so as to generate royalties. Would these publisher mismanaged songs also fall into the public domain per your proposal?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 13th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
“Ahh but your myoptic view (and that of the original poster) isn’t accounting for painters, sculptures, writers, programmers, photographers, film markers etc etc. So in your self interest to stick it to the cartels – you also want to stick it to the small fry who are trying to eke out a living on their work?”
This raises important issues and questions:
Can a fit all sizes copyright law be made and turn out to work?
Of course not. The copyrights laws that apply to a movie not be the same laws applied to digital photographs produced by an amateur photographer who just pushes a button and either produces a worthless work or a beautiful photograph of the statue of Liberty that is identical to that taken by a million other photographers.
Then there are the various industries that make and/or exploit the works covered in the copyright law. Different rules for the exploitation of works under copyright are need for each industry. Again, the one size fits all is nonsense.
The reason there is a one sise fits all copyright law is because the law was not really written by the legislators or their aides, who hardly know anything bout the music, phtography, movie, art business, but rather by the lobbies of the major publishing (books/music) industries.
My opinion.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 13th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
1. Well if you own the copyrights to what the opera will be based on i don’t see the problem. Noone else would be able to make an opera based on those works without your permission anyway. In any event, you’d have 5 years grace to get up and running. If that’s not long enough start selling individual songs from the opera or something similar. As long as the opera is making money in any way you’re laughing.
2. With the changes from my updates, that company would never have had any right to distribute your music in another country without a contract with your father. They would never have been able to claim ownership of the music since copyright isn’t transferable. The only problem is that you wouldn’t be able to either as your fathers copyright wouldn’t automatically pass to you. Then again i never said copyright couldn’t be inherited, just not sold, so maybe you would have them. In any event your father would have owned all his works and the music industry would have had to settle for distribution/marketing contracts and their associated fees. Not ownership or even any ability to claim ownership.
3. In that case, they’d have never been able to register the songs as being owned by them, since your father would have had them all in his name, as he would have owned them all. This is exactly one of the things the ideas were meant to prevent from happening. Also even if they somehow convinced a judge or similar that they did own them, as soon as the 5 years was up they’d have to show they’re making money or the songs would end up in the public domain. Then anyone could record them.
4. The publisher would never have had ownership of those songs, your father or the songwriters would have been the owners. So the issue wouldn’t have come up, but if it had then yes those songs would fall into the public domain.
I guess there would need to be more details in the ideas relating to how to resolve disputes in ownership of works. For example several people who may have collaborated on a single work and then got into dispute over how much each person “owned” the song etc. As well as who would resolve the disputes, what avenues of appeal would there be, what kind of remedies would be available etc. But the main concept of my ideas would have been to try and prevent your father from losing control of his songs in the first place. I’m not sure if my idea mentioned inheritance i don’t think it did, and to my mind, i don’t think it should.
This sounds unfair i know, but your father would, or should, have had the chance to benefit from his work personally, and he’d have made money from them himself. So you in theory would have inherited any money he had left over from the profit he made on those works anyway. I just don’t think copyright should remain in place once the creator of them dies. Of course this means Disney would be in major trouble since i’m sure all of the creators of their rodent are long gone.
But since a company created that rodent as long as the company still exists and is still making money out of him then they’d still keep their copyright. So your father would have needed to set up a small company of which he was both owner and employee thus the company would have owned all his works, and then he could have passed the company onto you. I hope this makes sense it’s pretty early in the morning where i am.
I guess the response from the cartels would be to try and claim that all recording artists are simply employees of theirs and thus have no ownership of anything they’ve done. However the fact that they’ve paid royalties would imply ownership and thus should stop them doing that, hopefully. Their next step would be to force all new artists to become employees of the company instead of becoming contractors. I don’t think this would help them too much, but i guess that would need to be looked at and resolved somehow.
I hope this helps answer your questions ;o)
June 14th, 2006 at 3:49 am
i diagreed with this paper at ‘make profit’ i say we share all ideas
ideas cant be owned not by math . thats y bush and the runners of other capitalist institutions fight so hard becuse their fighting againt the universal law of the universe.
shaire fair.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 am
What an absolutely stupid concept.