Hacker News Reader

Comment by will_brown | Hacker News Reader

Certainly my points have counterpoints, but I included at least 3 reasons for indefinite copyright protection.

1. Indefinite protections encourages the creation of new works vis-a-vis encouraging investment in new creation/distribution.

2. That just because there is indefinite copyright protection, does not mean people can still create derivative works, engage in fair use, ect...

3. Finally, just because indefinite protection exists would not prevent works from being voluntarily entered into the public domain.

View on HN

The "indefinite" is not necessary in any of your points.

What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die? Copyright is a contract between creators and society: limited protection to encourage the creation of creative works, with the promise that the material will eventually be (unconditionally) available to the public.

Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically, or as it becomes culturally embedded.

>What tangible difference in incentive exists for creating new works if your protection is 60 years or 1000 years after you die?

You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years? No, it is stability that encourages creation and investment.

>Information cannot be permanently locked behind a paywall, especially as it becomes important to study it historically

That is the problem...misconception that copyrighted work is behind a paywall. Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes.

>You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years?

Is this an appeal to imagination?

Yes I do, because I'm going to speculate that most of the income derived from a creative work is extracted in its first 60 years, and going to mention the historical fact that none of the media created 60 years ago was expected to be marketable 60 years later, and was often just destroyed.

So I don't think Disney would invest if they thought they couldn't make money from product 60 years later, it's just the truth. If your view of the issue requires as an axiom that all creativity would stop under a measly 60 year copyright term, it is clearly wrong.

I am being taken out of context, I am not talking about making money I am talking about copy right protection. Disney has a vested interest, whether making money or not on a work, that Joe Schmo does not start reproducing a given work 1 to 1 and selling it as their own.

You may be right most income is derived from a work in its first 60 years, or that media created 60 years ago was not expected to be marketable 60 years later. Though I do not know this to be a historical fact, 60 years ago (1953) there was plenty of evidence to suggest a given work by a US author has plenty of commercial appeal after a mere 60 years of existence (Walden Pond, Civil Disobedience, Uncle Tom's Cabin, almost any Mark Twain novel).

There is no evidence Disney is canning movies because they won't be able to profit from them 60 years from now. They are not thinking that far ahead (because they can't); you are deluded.

You keep bringing up fair use, but that does not apply to public performances.

> You think Disney or anyone else will invest if they lose their copyright protections in 60 years?

Yes, because people did when copyright terms were shorter than that, and virtually all of the income from most things subject to copyright is derived in the first decade or so.

> Copyrighted work is subject to fair use and a number of other exceptions such as academic/scientific purposes.

Academic/scientific purpose is a factor in evaluating fair use, not a separate exception. And DMCA anti-circumvention provisions make it a crime to make it possible to get access to copyrighted material (when it is distributed in particular forms) beyond what the copyright owner chooses to allow even if the purpose of that access is to make use that is covered by fair use or other exceptions to copyright.

>Yes, because people did when copyright terms were shorter than that, and virtually all of the income from most things subject to copyright is derived in the first decade or so.

Yes the terms were shorter, but people were also not investing $200M+ per film. Now you are probably right that any given work, including $200M+ films, are likely to derive all income in the first decade, but the investment for such projects would not happen if they lost protection after a decade and people could simply start reproducing 1 to 1 copies at that point.

note that most disney movies are profitable a few weeks after release. so even of copyright was 1 year theyd still do it .... because profit. its just that now they can enjoy 100y of profit without additional effort instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com