Hacker News Reader

Comment by falcor84 | Hacker News Reader

I like the idea of having copyrights renewable indefinitely, but with the holders having to pay exponentially larger sums.

View on HN

That seems to benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller artists. Either you focus on making money or some large corporation will swoop in the second you can't and exploit your work for their own profit.

Presumably, once the copyright is allowed to expire, it can't be sold and then reinstated.

I'm okay with large corporations pouring their money at the government to keep copyrights for useless things alive, even if it means we can't legally copy useless things for a bit longer.

Wouldn't they then buy it just before expiration ?

Exactly, if the clock is ticking for them to bid on it, to buy it off the small business, it gives the small business power, and should also make it easier for the small business to get decent loans/investments.

Btw, if I'm not mistaken, I first read about this proposal in the book "Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society" by Eric A. Posner and Eric Glen Weyl

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177502/ra...

> Presumably, once the copyright is allowed to expire, it can't be sold and then reinstated.

Derivative works have their own copyrights. The original book is free for grabs but each movie franchise has it's own copyrights. Likely far more valuable and ones the original artist will never see a cent from.

"Exponentially" larger is a very large number. They wouldn't be able to afford it either.

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

doesn't that just favor the 0.1% who can afford it and fk over the 99.9%? I don't see why we don't just put a hard limit on it, they had many years to make a profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com