Title.

  • missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’m all in favor of shortening copyright length, but it shouldn’t be tied to a creator’s lifespan. It’s too variable, and it doesn’t make sense for anything that more than one person worked on.

    I think a reasonable compromise would be 20 years default, after which point you could apply for a 5 year extension twice. Extensions will only be granted if the work is still being made accessible, either new physical copies are being printed or digital distribution is available.

    But I would also include a clause that if a work is no longer accessible, such as being pulled from streaming services, an online game being shut down, software not updated to be compatible with modern platforms, etc, copyright is considered to be in a weaker state where end users are permitted to pirate it for noncommercial purposes.

    • graphene@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      I would shorten the initial term to 15 years instead but keep everything else the same, if the author can’t be bothered to even file for an extension then they probably aren’t earning money from the thing anyway. See below for why 15.

      • missingno@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        That’s fine, the exact number isn’t really important. I kind of went for an intentional highball to pitch this as a closer compromise to how long copyright currently lasts.