Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joakal | Hacker News Reader

Want to boost IP creation by creators and make distributors beg? Have copyright return to creators after 20 or so years after they've been transferred via whatever contracts. Lots of renegotiations will mean lots of money for Picassos!

After all, everyone says the aim of stronger copyright laws is to protect "creators" (those same laws that implement near perpetual copyright terms, extraditions, $100k+ fine and 5+ years jail that can easily be applied such as sharing a picture to your parents)

View on HN

Sometimes it amazes me how naive some people are.

All this will accomplish is that contracts will then include a waiver of this right.

There are rights that cannot be waived. Ultimately it's law, not contracts, that is supreme. Although this is under attack, such as the proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses, and the unwillingness of courts to invalidate them.

This is not so much a waiver of a right than a transfer. As such, I know of no instance where transfer of ownership like this has been made illegal insofar as the ownership itself is not in doubt.

A 'transfer' means the party the rights were transferred from no longer has them, so from their point of view, it's not much different than a waiver. And there are numerous rights that cannot be transferred or waived. For example, California limits non-competes. For a closer example, there are moral rights to copyright, that in many jurisdictions cannot be sold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

> In the United States, moral rights are not transferable, and end only with the life of the author. Authors may, however, waive their moral rights if this is done in writing.

So does this confirm that what you're claiming is not applicable in the US?

Non-competes are a different animal from transferring ownership over IP. Even so, CA does not stop an employer from raking an employee over the coals if they provably stole IP that did not belong to them.

> So does this confirm that what you're claiming is not applicable in the US?

In the US, yes. But there is no reason similar laws couldn't be enacted in the US.

> Non-competes are a different animal from transferring ownership over IP.

They're an example of a right that you cannot waive or sell. So an example of the law annulling a private contract, meaning that there is precedent for this proposed change - the law could be written so that simply selling this proposed new right is impossible, just as you cannot sell your right to work at a competing business.

I'm more interested in rights specifically relating to IP (with emphasis on the 'P' as in property), rather than rights in general - I agree that there are many cases in which the latter are inalienable or considered immutable in the eyes of the law. So the 'moral rights' idea is a good counterpoint, but non-compete is not.

There are already laws forcing copyright reversion in certain circumstances regardless of what a contract states.

Search the term "copyright reversion" if you want to know more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com