> Most of the profits of games and movies are made in the first few weeks.
This is mostly straw man, it only applies to big-budget AAA titles, it doesn’t apply to indie games & movies, it doesn’t apply to artists or musicians, especially most small-time artists. It doesn’t apply to books or to software or to journalism or to educational or corporate content. Your claim isn’t really even true for Marvel movies or whatever either, box office is complicated and movie profits are now based on global sales and streaming and ancillary rights and merchandising and all kind of things that don’t happen in the first few weeks.
Copyrights might be too long now, but these laws have been around for many centuries, and ala Chesterton’s fence, you seem to be failing to consider the reasons that copyrights appeared in the first place, and the ramifications of significantly reducing or abolishing copyrights. The problem that led to copyrights is IP theft, unscrupulous people publishing work as their own and rent-seeking all the profit they can. This will happen at a massive scale if we cut the period down to 1 decade or less. You might want to consider the possibility that if copyright were shortened to less than a decade or abolished today, it might not really hurt Disney and other big media corps at all, it might just kill independent artists because large corporations can control the internet and legally steal your independent creative work before you can make money from it.
It's really not. It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn't. If it does, it's considered a success. If not, it's a flop. That's how everything I've ever read about the copyright industry puts it. I don't really see a need to complicate this.
Yeah, corporations make additional money from licensing, merchandising and whatnot. Making toys and stuff is fine but this licensing bullshit really should end after a few years once the work enters the public domain. They've already made their money, they're done and it's time for the work enter the public domain.
> The problem that led to copyrights is IP theft, unscrupulous people publishing work as their own and rent-seeking all the profit they can.
And how is the copyright solution working out for them? Days ago I saw someone here posting about how their web game was cloned by someone else. Did they sue? No, it's too expensive. Meanwhile corporations will kill your YouTube videos and steal your advertising money if someone walks by on the street playing a song they own.
You might consider the possibility that this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called "system". They turned it against the very same people it was designed to protect.
> It either makes more money than it cost or it doesn’t.
You moved your own goal post, you were talking about when it makes it’s money, not whether. Your claim was that it reaches that point in a few weeks, which is 1) not generally true, and 2) irrelevant to most creative works. Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too. The amount of time it takes for a movie to recoup it’s costs has no bearing on what copyright terms should be.
> this trillion dollar copyright industry has already coopted this so called “system”
There’s no question terms are a bit too long and that big business is profiting, there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there. I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful. Copyrights do protect many independent artists somewhat, despite your anecdote.
> Copyrights aren’t only serving movies, they’re serving artists and musicians and magazines and websites and many other industries too.
Which is why I wrote "give them like five years of protection" instead of a few months. That ought to be more than enough for most if not all to make their money back and then some. Maybe 10 years at the absolute most.
Certainly not this lifetime plus 70 years insanity.
> there’s no question whether things are messed up. They are, I’m not arguing with you there.
I'm happy you agree.
> I’m just not sure that tossing out the baby with the bath water and raging against the machine is going to be fruitful.
I'm sorry, it's just so hard for me to watch the copyright industry just destroy the computers I love so much because they harm their rent seeking. Every year it's some new DRM bullshit with new ways to usurp control of my computer for their own ends. They have such immense lobbying power they made it illegal to break into and take control of my own system. It just feels so hopeless. I really don't know what else to do at this point.
> five years […] That ought to be more than enough for most
Why? You have not established this. The only example you gave is not valid for most content. Books and art and music frequently make the bulk of their return more than 5 or 10 years later. Why “most” and not all? Have you researched how many people make money on creative output? Personally I’m not very convinced by armchair opinions, this needs more careful reasoning.
What if draconian copyright is today right now having the intended effect of encouraging people to make new work and not remix existing content? What you’re complaining about is the inability to legally copy current work, while there is no restriction on making new things (and you get legal protection if you do!)
Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal?
> Maybe we should talk about what specific things you want to copy that you feel should be legal?
Anything older than 5-10 years should be in the public domain. That means music, movies, games, books, literally anything copyrighted.
Nintendo should not be selling the same NES Mario game to people for the 100th time. They've already made their money like a billion times over. Let it go. This is honestly shameful.
Why? If you’re okay with 5 years of copyright, then give reasons and evidence why 5 years is the appropriate term. This has been litigated for centuries, so I cannot take your opinion as holding any value without at least some reasoning. You gave only one reason so far having to do with movies, which isn’t relevant to copyright law in general, and you have not yet defended your claim that copyright ought to end once you’ve recouped your costs (as opposed to having the opportunity to make a return.)
An invalid reason IMO to shorten copyright is to cite companies that have made profits, small or large. It does not matter if Nintendo has made their money. (And you’re dragging up side-baggage by implying that all their Mario games are exactly the same.) Copyright terms need to be designed for all artists and authors who are not Nintendo, so your anger at Nintendo’s profits are clouding the criteria for designing copyright limits.
I'm not okay with any amount of time. I think copyright should be abolished straight up. Five or ten years is just a length of time that I believe would make copyright tolerable enough not to turn copyright infringement into civil disobedience.
> you have not yet defended your claim that copyright ought to end once you’ve recouped your costs (as opposed to having the opportunity to make a return.)
I never claimed that to begin with. I said 5 years is more than enough to make your money back and then some. If your creation is successful, you're gonna sell enough copies to turn a profit and enjoy a generous protection period. If not, it's a failure and that's fine too.
> An invalid reason IMO to shorten copyright is to cite companies that have made profits, small or large.
Why? The purpose was to incentivize creation. They made profit. Therefore they were properly incentivized. Nothing invalid about it.
The whole point is they should not get these incentives forever. They should be time-limited. Truly time-limited, not this lifetime+70 bullshit.
> It does not matter if Nintendo has made their money.
It absolutely does. The fact they made money means you cannot claim they were not properly incentivized.
> you’re dragging up side-baggage by implying that all their Mario games are exactly the same
Nintendo sells people the exact same Mario ROMs from the 80s every console generation. Not just Mario either, pretty much every single franchise of theirs. Not just Nintendo either, pretty much every game company that's been around that long. Not just the games industry either, pretty much the entire entertainment industry does this.
Obviously if they make new content it's a new copyright but it's been half a century already and there's no reason for works created that far back to not be in the public domain.
> so your anger at Nintendo’s profits are clouding the criteria for designing copyright limits
I don't care about their profits. I care about the fact their works from 40+ years ago are still protected.
> I’m not okay with any amount of time. I think copyright should be abolished straight up.
Well in that case, see Chesterton’s Fence. Do you know why copyright exists? Do you understand the problem that the law was created to solve? What was the problem, can you summarize it? You don’t get to abolish copyright until you actually understand the history that got us here. You haven’t yet managed to acknowledge that some copying is bad, bad for the economy and bad for incentivizing creators. Some copying is done without any intent to add value, it is done purely for private financial gain. Your argument and stated opinions are not addressing the problem of people who seek to simply take value from creators. You’ll need to make a case for why people should be able to straight up steal and sell others’ work if you want to say copyright should be abolished, and you haven’t even begun to justify that position here.
As creator and author, as part-time musician, part-time artist, and full time writer of software, I’m glad copyright exists. I’ve already had cases in my life where people wanted to take my work for free and use it for their own profits. I’d be okay with some reduction in copyright term length, but I’m glad that people who just want to pirate stuff while hypocritically raging about corporate greed online don’t make the laws.
I do understand, which is why right after the part you quoted I wrote about making it tolerable. Since you basically ignored all the other things I wrote and called me a hypocritical pirate, I'm just gonna address that instead of continuing this pointless conversation.
You don't get to call me a "pirate". I've paid for way too much stuff to just allow that. I pay for streaming services of all kinds. I pay for video games, probably over a thousand titles by now. I pay for physical books. I've even paid for art through patreon, albeit anonymously. I paid for fucking Windows Vista.
You're damn right I'm a hypocrite though. Even though I have extreme opinions on copyright, I actually believe in supporting people like you. I unwittingly support the copyright industry despite advocating for its abolishment because right now I can't support creators in any other way. I put my money where my mouth is and actually purchase the works I enjoy. Only to get called a "raging pirate" anyway.
As a programmer and author, I really couldn't care less if someone copies something I've published. I have no interest in ever litigating such a case either. I understand that there is no controlling the information once it is out there. That's why the things I don't feel like sharing I keep secret.
I didn’t call you a pirate, I’m sorry I left that impression. I was talking about all the people who want to copy without paying and complain that they can’t. They are the people your whole argument is failing to address. I don’t know what you mean by “tolerable”, but you said explicitly that you’re not okay with any amount of time. That is, as you say, a very extreme position to take, one that assumes copyright doesn’t solve any problem, and despite all our talking I still haven’t yet heard any justification for it, even if you say you would reluctantly concede to leave a small term in place.
This is mostly straw man, it only applies to big-budget AAA titles, it doesn’t apply to indie games & movies, it doesn’t apply to artists or musicians, especially most small-time artists. It doesn’t apply to books or to software or to journalism or to educational or corporate content. Your claim isn’t really even true for Marvel movies or whatever either, box office is complicated and movie profits are now based on global sales and streaming and ancillary rights and merchandising and all kind of things that don’t happen in the first few weeks.
Copyrights might be too long now, but these laws have been around for many centuries, and ala Chesterton’s fence, you seem to be failing to consider the reasons that copyrights appeared in the first place, and the ramifications of significantly reducing or abolishing copyrights. The problem that led to copyrights is IP theft, unscrupulous people publishing work as their own and rent-seeking all the profit they can. This will happen at a massive scale if we cut the period down to 1 decade or less. You might want to consider the possibility that if copyright were shortened to less than a decade or abolished today, it might not really hurt Disney and other big media corps at all, it might just kill independent artists because large corporations can control the internet and legally steal your independent creative work before you can make money from it.