• nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 days ago

    We need more examples?

    Seriously, though, there are options in between keeping copyright as it is and removing it altogether. Shortening the term is one. Mandatory mechanical licensing is another (that is, allowing people to make copies for a fee set by the government or a nonpartisan board without requiring permission from the copyright owner, who does, however, receive the fee—the trick is setting the fee at a level that makes it reasonable for the average person making a single copy, but still high enough to make it unattractive for corporations churning out millions of them). We also need to overhaul how derivative works are handled, and some aspects of trademark law.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Another option is to not allow copying of digital copyrighted works, but do allow resale/gifting and require storefronts to offer something like that. I can do that with physical goods, and that’s most of the reason I’d want to copy a copyrighted work (e.g. to send to a friend).

      I think trademark law is generally fine as-is, but patent and copyright law are atrocious. My proposal:

      • cut copyright to the original 14 year term (or perhaps 10), and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove financial hardship (e.g. small creators who didn’t get traction with their product)
      • cut patents to 7 years, and allow a one-time renewal of 5 years when going to market (so max 12 years if it takes 7 years to bring a product to market); maybe an exception if the product is stuck with regulators
      • don’t require lawsuits to keep trademark, only require filing of a potential violation with the trademark office; you can sue, but that shouldn’t be necessary to “defend” your trademark