IP and copyright. What is your view?

[HookerChemical]

I don’t own any IP of value. To be pedantic, most of us in the USA own material that is probably technically copyrighted but of little value, and copyrighted material is only a fraction of IP.

I’m pro-copyright, but not as US law stands now. Works need to be protected, but the laws need to be reformed.

The periods are entirely too long and have retroactively been extended. I’m not sure how extending copyright protection to existing works from the 1930s is promoting the creation new works. Nor do I think that 105 years of protection is necessary to insure that creators are fairly compensated.

The enforcement and penalties are too heavy handed by orders of magnitude. The potential penalty of over million dollars for copying a single album is completely out of proportion to the damage done. The penalty should not be more than the penalty for stealing a car worth 1000 times more than an album. If I own an album, I shouldn’t be penalized for downloading a copy (which is illegal) rather than going through the trouble of ripping it myself (which is legal).

Media agencies are far too heavy handed in threatening to go after what is obviously fair use or even licensed use, such as the recent take down of the Hugo awards presentation due to the inclusion of clips of the nominated shows [y]provided by the studios that own the copyright*. The penalties are horribly lopsided. If a person infringes, they are potentially liable for enough to drive the majority of the population into bankruptcy, but if the studios file a takedown notice against every other You Tube video, there is little recourse for action against the studio. (Yes, I know that DMCA takedown notices require that the filer be required to attest that it’s their material, I’ve never heard of somebody successfully going after a false filer.)

Enforcement efforts through DRM have been similarly alienating. Early efforts to prevent CD ripping (a legal practice) rendered some CDs unplayable. A more recent and particularly version of DRM introduced a rootkit if the CD was put in a computer.

Left Hand of Dorkness had a suggestion of shorter duration and less restriction on derivative works in the Pirate Bay Pit thread that I agreed with and I’m going to leave you with.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

My personal preference would be something like a 40-year, unextendable copyright that expires when you do. Create something when you’re 20, and you can benefit from your work for the bulk of your adult life. You can will all your profits to your kids, but once you die, it won’t make them any more profit. Nobody but nobody is gonna say, “Yeah, I’d create some art now, but if I can’t benefit from it in 40 years, I won’t bother.”

I’d also relax the rules on derivative art. Disney made its fortune by taking works in the public domain and reworking them, so that their versions of the story are now as authoritative as Grimms’ were for a previous century. It’s only fair that Disney’s authoritative versions be fair game for modern artists who want to do to Disney what Disney did to Grimm. (If I’m wrong–if I could create a non-ironic version of Snow White in which the seven dwarves had Disney’s names, for example, and not face a lawsuit, I have egg on my face).