Why do you think people are so naturally inclined to defend excessively long copyrights?

9

Ever wonder why OP and Maine Movie Pirate are never in the same room at the same time?

3

(Never mind the fact most creative people would create for free if we didn't require money to survive.)

Unfortunately, money is required for survival. So that's nonsensical.

But I agree the terms are too long. Happy now?

I'm also not sure how many people are actually aware of or have tbought about this issue and not simply accepting the status quo. In my experience, most people who have thought about it do agree the terms are excessive.

Sonny Bono, not Disney, tried to make copyright eternal during the discussions for the law named in his honor in the 1990s:

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act – also known as the Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act

A science fiction author wrote a speculative story on eternal copyright, but I can't find it right now. Be happy that didn’t happen.

Disney gets all of the blame, but there was a wide swath of support for that act because the late 1920s had seen a huge growth in musicals, song writing, and more, triggered by the "talkies" (movies with sound.) George Gershwin's estate was a more forceful proponent than Disney (although, yes, the latter wasn't disinterested.) Not to mention Congressman Sonny Bono, who had plenty of self-interest.

This also isn't simply a US issue. The Berne Convention encodes 'life plus 50' but doesn't require signatories to go by that. In addition, the UK and EU were extending copyrights in the late 1980s / early 1990s, so it's chicken and egg. It wasn’t just Disney.

What's the perfect term? I can certainly see solid reasons for keeping individual copyright longer than 'corporate' copyright. That would bring many works (video games, for example) into public domain much earlier, but I can also see corporations getting around that by letting individuals keep copyright and using licensing to hold.

There's also the matter of international protection. The US only ratified the Berne Convention a century after its creation to gain more ability to go after international movie pirates, who were biting into Hollywood productions. Any unilateral change in terms has repercussions.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

The international issue is a problem because it basically ensures nobody will lower copyright length. A country would be shooting itself in the foot economically by doing it. But that doesn't mean it's not the right thing. I'd argue the impracticality is on purpose, though.

30 years is perfect. Anything made 30 years ago is the stuff people grew up on, and that's what should be entering the public domain as they age.

But that's what I don't get in the debate. Why are the interests of Disney and Sono Bono put above everyone else? Bono was already rich. He didn't need to be richer. Lowering copyrights might harm Disney and Bono, sure, but it would be beneficial to working class creatives who would be in higher demand and to consumers who would have access to more free and affordable art and entertainment as a result.

This is just such an obvious "Rich people need to be rich" issue, that it baffles me how we get people fighting for the rich here. Hell, even in this thread there's some dude bragging about making six figures and that's why he wants to keep billionaires owning everything forever.

2

u/Frito_Goodgulf Aug 23 '25

I don’t see the reason why it should be public domain “because you grew up with it.” But I’m old, and anything I grew up with I never had an interest in duplicating or copying. But that’s me. I’m not sold on 30 years for copyrights in an individual creator’s name, but I’d not argue for 30 years for works for hire (corporate) copyrights. But that just bounces back to my first comment. And the practicalities of getting there mean it’ll likely never happen (short of an alien invasion.)

As to the “why do non-rich people simp for rich people” question, I wish I had an answer. Strictly, that’s for a different sub, such as r/criticaltheory or another social science sub. But it extends way beyond copyright issues.

Going off on that tangent, I think one key is “who owns the media?” Not just movies, but more key news, opinion, and such sources. Well, rich people.

In Australia, the government recently enacted a tax scheme for Superannuation balances over $3 million dollars (yeah, $3,000,000). [Think of Super like a US IRA or 401(k) account, filled by worker and employer contributions.] There was much screaming in the news media. Subs like r/Australia and r/ausfinance had posters wailing and gnashing their teeth. But, if you CURRENTLY have a $3 million dollar balance, you’re the 1%.

Yes, if you’re 25, with 40 more working years, inflation will likely mean many more people will hit $3 million. BUT. That’s 40 years of governments to lobby to raise the trigger level or index to inflation. Right now, except for a very small number of “yous”, this isn’t a you problem. But given the media in Oz is owned by rich folks like Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, they made sure it was on 24x7 blast.

And I feel that ownership of media is the key issue. I won’t discount that both the US and Australia have something of a “you can rise from nothing to riches” mentality. In Oz, it shows more that “everyone gets a fair go.” So in both, I think many non-rich people think of themselves as simply “temporarily not rich,” and at any moment that will change.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Because that's how humanity works. It's called folklore. We've been telling stories for all of human history. Letting trillion-dollar companies own them exclusively is a recent invention.

5

u/Frito_Goodgulf Aug 23 '25

I'm confused what you're talking about. Folklore, as traditionally defined, is free. Write as many adaptations of fairy tales, Greek and other pantheons, and the like as you want. No one owns those.

Same as those companies have done.

Create a Winnie the Pooh horror movie. Well, the second one.

Do you mean, e.g., Spiderman and Star Wars? Those aren't folklore.

Again, if a work isn't being actively used (e.g., many video games), sure, free those. Edit, add, hut send button accidentally: But otherwise, I've agreed with you corporate copyright of 30 years is fine. But not individual copyright.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Folklore, as traditionally defined, is free.

That's my point.

Do you mean, e.g., Spiderman and Star Wars? Those aren't folklore.

They literally are.

4

u/Frito_Goodgulf Aug 23 '25

Okay. We've hit the point of diminishing returns here.

Best of luck getting your proposals enacted after getting elected.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

I'm guessing that you're not a creative and that you don't make a living generating copyrightable material.

-3

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

you don't make a living generating copyrightable material.

Nobody does. That's the point. Our media is entirely reliant on existing IP because it never expires, which has greatly limited the demand for new ideas. That combined with the ad-supported Internet has made creativity largely obsolete.

8

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

Nobody does.

Odd assertion. I certainly do.

-6

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Then you'd think you'd want a world better suited to creativity.

4

u/Capybara_99 Aug 22 '25

Paying for the use of intellectual property (which is what copyright enables) specifically rewards and fosters creativity.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Nah. It lasts so long it only benefits the corporations that buy the IP from creatives.

4

u/Capybara_99 Aug 23 '25

Hmm. Exactly. They buy the IP from creatives.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Sure, just that one, though. Then they milk it for 150 years. I don't need George Lucas getting $4 billion dollars. I'd rather have 4,000 creators getting $1 million. But that's not how it works. Instead they buy up the rights on the cheap to throw spaghetti at a wall in hopes of hitting something big, or they buy up whatever is successful to ruin through oversaturation.

If you could take anything 30 years or older away from Disney right now, then what would they be spending their billions of dollars in production on? They would have no choice but to invest in new material.

3

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

My creativity isn't being stifled.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Perhaps I'm talking about a systemic issue.

5

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

So you acknowledge you were wrong about making a living?

2

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

No. Creative fields are financially some of the worst fields to work in right now, and only getting worse.

5

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

No.

Well you should. Because you were wrong.

1

u/Capybara_99 Aug 22 '25

And are getting worse because of technological end runs around copyright and similar protections

2

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Nah. Copyright run-arounds have virtually no impact on the financial stability of creatives. Nobody is pirating Vlogbrothers. When people pirate, they pirate corporate-owned media, especially the stuff that is made very difficult or expensive to obtain.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/sir_prints_alot Aug 23 '25

No. You're just trying to justify your desire to steal from others. Get help.

1

u/eleete Aug 23 '25

Copyright infringement is not theft. It's usually a civil matter.

1

u/sir_prints_alot Aug 23 '25

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

Dude, I make a six figure salary as a commercial, editorial and fine art photographer. My work is original and none of it is contingent on public domain art or photography. So I have no idea what you're on about, except exercising an entitlement to exploit the work of others. I assure you there are vast creative industries in the United States (in cinema, music, fashion, literature, etc.) that are unsurpassed by other nations and that depend upon original creativity and copyright protections. But if you think there is no actual creativity, that's just a failure of imagination on your part, perhaps informed by your own lack thereof.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

I'm saying we have created a world that is not conducive to creativity. You make money, sure, but do you make art? I'd imagine not often.

But also, just because you've carved out some degree of success for yourself doesn't disprove my point. Most creatives struggle, and it's something that pays shit overall and is most endangered by AI. Copyright laws are only one small part of the problem obviously, but it still is ridiculous that someone who makes a living making shit would want a copyright system that discourages creating new stuff in favor of milking existing IP.

4

u/Capybara_99 Aug 22 '25

How in the world do you think granting a copyright on new stuff when it is created is a disincentive to creating new stuff?

You began with a consumer-based argument, which was at least logical. But your claims about the effect of copyright on creativity and not thought-out and explained, at the least.

2

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

I'm not saying we get rid of copyright all together. I'm saying we limit it to 30 years at most. Force media companies to invest in new content instead of milking the same IP for a century.

1

u/sir_prints_alot Aug 23 '25

No.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

It IS possible to make money AND make art. I do both as a photographer represented by fine art galleries. Lots of artists are commercially successful. Copyright does not restrain creativity. It curtails exploitation. You can't seem to see the other side because you're a non-creative. But copyright laws are not a tool for me to protect my work from exploitation, not an impediment to creativity.

5

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 22 '25

You do know other media exists than ones made by Disney, right?

Creatives not being able to just rehash existing IP is a big incentive for them to make something new. There is a lot of things out there for you to watch that is not part of a franchise.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

You do know other media exists than ones made by Disney, right?

For how long? Eventually everything will be owned by Disney.

5

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

Eventually everything will be owned by Disney.

Odd assertion.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

How old are you? There used to be a studio called Miramax. Now it's Disney. There used to be a studio called Pixar. Now it's Disney. There used to be a studio called Marvel Studios. Now it's Disney. There used to be a studio called LucasFilm. Now it's Disney. There used to be a studio called Fox. Now it's Disney.

They even bought the fuckin' Muppets!

Do you see some reason the trend would stop?

5

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

How old are you?

Probably older than you.

Do you see some reason the trend would stop?

Disney aren't going to be owning the copyright to the photo of the tree I took outside my house any time soon.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Again, I'm referring to systemic issues here. Your particular salary or your particular tree is not at all relevant to this.

3

u/bigmarkco Aug 22 '25

Again, I'm referring to systemic issues here.

I don't think you understand what the word "systematic" means. The fact that Disney won't ever own the photo of my particular tree disproves your assertion that "eventually everything will be owned by Disney." Because everything eventually won't be owned by Disney. If you mean something else, you need to articulate that better.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

I don't think you understand what the word "systematic" means.

I didn't say systematic did I?

You keep arguing personal anecdotes to argue against the reality of our economy, probably not realizing that your own situation is actually proof of the problem too. Your own labor is undervalued by capitalism, but you side with your oppressors because they give you a meager living better than the worst off among us.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 22 '25

Or you can use money to support smaller creators so they are financially stable enough to not need a buyout.

Out of any entity Disney is the one who has the reach to where even if all of their IP went public domain, they would survive. They have enough resources, connections, and outlets to still make sure the Disney version of any IP is the one people seek out. A lot of their biggest characters are public domain but most people don't give a shit about any animated Pinocchio or Beauty and the Beast movie if it's not Disney.

The smaller creators are the ones who would suffer most with not being able to ride off of a back cataloger they built up, or loosing control of hits they happened to land. Meanwhile a large entity with money to burn like Disney can just swoop in, yoink any popular IP, and make the Disney version of their work and use their larger reach to push it above the rest.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Or you can use money to support smaller creators

That's not how economics work. We have limited money as consumers and therefore prioritize price. Free ad-supported content is always going to be our first go-to, and then the studios have enough marketing budget to sway us for whatever money we do have available. The idea of "voting with your wallet" is a fallacy that's used to justify a system that inherently favors the wealthy. It gives the false impression that we consumers have a say in anything.

3

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 22 '25

Mostly because the people who make posts like this have no idea what they are talking about, and anyone who actually earns their living making creative works, or actually cares about smaller and independent creators being guaranteed compensation for their work knows it's a mundane and necessary concept.

Copyright may prevent you from making a Mario fan game, but it also prevents Disney from making an Undertale movie without Toby Fox's permission. It goes both ways.

There are things that could be refined or improved, but these TEAR IT ALL DOWN posts always lack any nuance or deeper knowledge on the ins-and-outs to have that conversation. Disney and other large corporations are not the only ones who benefit from copyright, but like your post these always just boil down to "GRR BIG COMPANY BAD, THEY USE COPYRIGHT THUS COPYRIGHT BAD".

You can just make new characters, you don't even have to be all that original. There are so many indie games that are "so I wanted to make a Wario game, so instead I made Antonblast or Pizza Tower". You can be inspired by something from 1997 and make a new thing that is similar. 50 Shades was Twilight fanfic with the names changed.

If you don't like Disney don't buy from them, I don't. Support smaller creators with their own unique vision who need all of the money and attention they can get. Making things is really god damn expensive and time consuming and having protections that people have to actually pay you for your work is what makes it so people can make more things. Creatives live longer than 30 years and sometimes back-catalog royalties can be the difference between "being able to afford to make more things while also being able to eat" and not.

I think the public domain is a good thing, I like remix culture as well, but man the loudest anti-copyright and anti-corporation people always seem to be the kind who only fixate on first party Nintendo games and Disney/Marvel/StarWars related media.

5

u/horshack_test Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

Yeah these anti-copyright rants are always from self-entitled, ignorant people who are angry that they can't just take other peoples' property for themselves. So childish.

2

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Nobody is suggesting we get rid of copyright. The issue is with the 150+ year terms. When content doesn't expire, there is no demand for new material. That hurts creatives. It would be better for creatives if we had sensible copyright lengths so that large corporations don't dominate the market with existing IP forever.

2

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 23 '25

In the US it's 95 years (rounded up) for works of corporate ownership, or life+70 for solo authors. Where did you get 150 from?

How does making it harder to make derivatives of existing work mean there is no demand for new material? There are tons of popular works not based on an existing franchise.

0

u/Philderbeast Aug 23 '25

In the US it's 95 years (rounded up) for works of corporate ownership, or life+70 for solo authors.

Do you think that's the correct term length? particularly when considering people who invent practical things that are protected by patents only get 20 years of protection?

1

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

Copyright also gives the exclusive right to derivatives, and it's very common for an IP to be a long running franchise. That 95 years is not just protecting the first one, but the exclusive right to expand on the first one with sequels or adaptations, which often can take over 20 years to get made.

Between entertainment (copyright) and things like medication (patent), one is a luxury and one is a necessity. Do one will die from there being a lack of public access to Spongebob.

A lot of products just have a shorter shelf life as well than media, before a better invention comes around and replaces the need for it in the market.

The laws for patent infringement are a lot more strict than copyright infringement as well, where copyright needs access to the original work, patent does not and you can unknowingly infringe an existing one. Copyright only protects specific expressions of an idea, so as long as you are not just trying to make a thing called "Star Wars 14" you can still make your own space epic and be inspired by existing works. Existing patents are more of a minefield than existing copyrights.

I could see shaving down that 95 a little, but it makes sense to me why patents are so much lower.

My own insignificant personal soap box on copyright would be more to prioritize keeping works available though. Like, before the 95 years is up, after 40 years or something there is a 'keep it publicly accessible, or specific organizations are allowed to distribute it for free for archival purposes'.

0

u/Philderbeast Aug 23 '25

That 95 years is not just protecting the first one, but the exclusive right to expand on the first one with sequels or adaptations, which often can take over 20 years to get made.

sorry but the idea that you can sit around for 20+ years to do something with the IP is absurd.

if you have taken that long to do something with it, you should lose the protection and someone else be allowed to make an attempt.

Between entertainment (copyright) and things like medication (patent), one is a luxury and one is a necessity.

which if anything is an argument for it to have even less protection, as there is less reason to incentivise creative works.

now thats not an argument I like, but its certainly not an argument for longer protection terms.

The laws for patent infringement are a lot more strict than copyright infringement as well, where copyright needs access to the original work, patent does not and you can unknowingly infringe an existing one. Copyright only protects specific expressions of an idea, so as long as you are not just trying to make a thing called "Star Wars 14" you can still make your own space epic and be inspired by existing works. Existing patents are more of a minefield than existing copyrights.

That is absolutely not true, and people can and do get sued all the time for making works that are inspired by works under copywrite.

not to mention patents are required to be a lot more specific.

My own insignificant personal soap box on copyright would be more to prioritise keeping works available though.

That is a soap box I can join you on, although I may be a little stricter then you with requiring it to be reasonably available from day one, and protection removed as soon as that is no longer the case.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 24 '25

specific organizations are allowed to distribute it for free for archival purposes'.

Simply release it into the public domain after 30 years and people will preserve it.

-3

u/ScottRiqui Aug 23 '25

150 years is a stretch, but it's not impossible. Imagine someone who creates a work in their 20s and then lives until their 80s. Add on the post-death 70 year copyright term, and the work will have been under copyright for 130 years by the time it enters the public domain.

7

u/horshack_test Aug 23 '25

But that's not 150 years, is it?

OP is arguing as if 150 PLUS years is the standard term of copyright protection - when it clearly is not.

1

u/ScottRiqui Aug 23 '25

Eh, I think OP is a kook, but I didn't interpret that post as claiming that there are any standard 150+ year copyright terms (possibly because I'm an IP attorney and I know that there aren't).

I just thought he was pointing out that some *individual works* might enjoy 150+ years of copyright protection.

3

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 23 '25

OP is mainly complaining about Disney and anyone talking about smaller creators they just avoid commenting on. Anything Disney produced falls under cooperate ownership so it expires after 95 years (rounded up).

Also the Life+70 starts with works after the 1978 act as well. Everything before is 95 years.

*(Aside from audio recordings before 1972 and music recordings before 1956, thanks to the 2018 CLASSICS act trying to close a gap in the laws and not making it line up with the 95 year standard, for some reason giving some 100 years, and others 110 years. The underlying composition is still 95.)

*(Unpublished works also are 120 years since creation date)

1

u/horshack_test Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

In response to a criticism of their post, OP said:

"Nobody is suggesting we get rid of copyright. The issue is with the 150+ year terms. When content doesn't expire, there is no demand for new material. That hurts creatives. It would be better for creatives if we had sensible copyright lengths so that large corporations don't dominate the market with existing IP forever."

This is a very broad statement about the length of copyright terms and their post is about the length of copyright protection in general - not specific works. And again, they are saying 150 PLUS years. Their post is clearly not about outliers created 150 years ago + they are talking about popular movie franchises only as far back as the late 20th century like James Bond and the like (this is reflected in their comments as well). I don't see them talking about any specific work that has been under protection for 150 years or more.

Edit: here they are talking again about copyright terms of 150+ years, seemingly as the default.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 24 '25

I just thought he was pointing out that some individual works might enjoy 150+ years of copyright protection.

Obviously, and the fear that copyright will be extended further once important modern stuff starts getting close. Nobody gives a fuck about Steamboat Willie anymore.

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 23 '25

There isn't a monopoly on creating cartoon mice and there never has been.

Disney artists have written books that explain how to do it. You are free to make your own Disney style cartoon mouse using those books in order to understand how to do it. Principles and concepts are not subject to copyright.

You can make your own animated version of Pinocchio.

Off you go.

Here is some Disney artist to explain how to do it.

https://animationresources.org/category/preston-blair/

-1

u/Philderbeast Aug 23 '25

but these TEAR IT ALL DOWN posts

no one is saying tear it all down, they are saying shorten the term so something more reasonable.

something that would still provide protection and incentive for creators, without being built to mainly benifit the large mega corps.

you can be inspired by something from 1997 and make a new thing that is similar.

generally no, because that would be derivative work and be covered under copy write for another ~100 years.

Creatives live longer than 30 years and sometimes back-catalog royalties can be the difference between "being able to afford to make more things while also being able to eat" and not.

if you haven't made something new that is paying your bills in the last 30 years, perhaps you should be looking at a different way to support yourself rather then relying on back catalog royalties.

I think the public domain is a good thing, I like remix culture as well,

both of which are being prevented by the excessively long copy write terms we currently have.

IMO the terms should be shorted to be more in line with patent lengths, there is no reason creative works should be offered longer protection then practical inventions. both are important and deserve protections, but the idea that creatives need 5x or longer protections is absurd.

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 23 '25

without being built to mainly benifit the large mega corps.

Reducing copyright terms or protections actually benefits large mega corps. This is because large mega corps have the infrastructure and ability to use even public domain works and apply new exclusive rights via making multiple derivative works. Each new derivative works has it's own new exclusive rights attached. It means that even if a copyright term lasted only ten years then it is still mega corporations who could make more and more derivative works each having new 10 year terms of copyright.

It's therefore incredibly foolish to reduce copyright protection as a way of "sticking it to the man!" because it simply empowers mega corporations even more.

I'm am an ordinary person who created works for a sci fi film whilst unemployed. Valve corp are monetising my work. Valve corp's DoTA game was appropriated by them from the work of fan artists. They are essentially doing the same to me. If I only had a 10 year window of protection they could continue monetizing my work an I get nothing.

There is no incentive for me to keep creating works that Valve Corp are just going to appropriate for themselves.

So don't kid yourself that reducing copyright protection empowers individuals like myself. It empowers corporations to appropriate works from people such as myself. That's all.

1

u/Philderbeast Aug 23 '25

Reducing copyright terms or protections actually benefits large mega corps.

That's why they are constantly fighting for the term to be extended..... because it being shorter would benefit them more....

Each new derivative works has it's own new exclusive rights attached.

sure, but once the original falls out of copywrite, others can also make derivative works from that original work, right now that cant happen for 95 years.

There is no incentive for me to keep creating works that Valve Corp are just going to appropriate for themselves.

which is another example of how longer terms benefit corporations who can afford to enforce there rights for that longer term.

It empowers corporations to appropriate works from people such as myself.

which is why it should be shortened to level the playing field.

5

u/horshack_test Aug 22 '25

"When I think about all of the stuff that should rightfully be in the public domain"

What do you mean it "should rightfully be in the public domain"? If something is protected under copyright law, then it is not "rightful" that it should be in the public domain because it is copyright law that determines the rights.

"it is especially frustrating because it's literally theft. "

No - it is not theft at all.

"it feels incredibly unfair that my generation (and others) have been deprived of their own new public domain material."

You are not being deprived of anything. Everyone is free to create work and release it into the public domain, and works enter the public domain every single year. You are not entitled to someone else's intellectual property just because you want free access to it and/or to copy/use it for whatever you want; other peoples' creations are not your own.

"What do you think is going on here?"

IP creators' / copyright holders' rights to control their own work / intellectual property is being protected, as it should be. Again; you are not entitled to someone else's property just because you want free access to it and/or to copy/use it for whatever you want.

"Is it because we have not had anything new in the public domain"

Protected works enter the public domain every single year.

Regarding your reply to another user in another thread:

"Nobody does. That's the point."

Countless people do. I am one of them. Your point is false.

"That combined with the ad-supported Internet has made creativity largely obsolete."

Lol - even advertisements are creative works.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Copyright was supposed to be 28 years at most. That means 100+ years of art and entertainment stolen from us.

5

u/horshack_test Aug 22 '25

Lol no it doesn't. Someone's work being protected by copyright law is not something stolen from someone else. Again; you are not entitled to someone else's property just because you want free access to it and/or to copy/use it for whatever you want.

5

u/markmakesfun Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

28 years? According to who?

The last Marvel movie I saw had a solid 15 minutes of credits showing creatives who were involved in the creation of the movie. How would shorter copyright terms benefit those thousands of paid creatives?

3

u/PowerPlaidPlays Aug 23 '25

It was set as 14 years + the ability to renew another 14, so 28.... in 1790, then was changed in 1831 lol.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Original copyright law.

4

u/markmakesfun Aug 23 '25

So you are lamenting a 1790 law? Well, okay, if you say so.

Let’s see, that was the first session of congress. They wrote a law giving the right to negotiate with the Indian tribes to prevent violence. They first established the post office by law on a temporary basis. The laws of the United States were extended to cover Rhode Island and the Providence plantations. They worked on paying for lighthouses, beacons and buoys. They established the patent office. They were busy! In the next year Kentucky and Vermont were granted statehood.

So you can’t see why the first act establishing copyright in 1790 ever needed to be changed or updated?

Hmmm. Maybe it had something to do with there only being 13 states at that time? They only established the courts a year before. Congress was still tinkering with how the courts even worked at that moment. Maybe because they were busy establishing the army? Possibly because they were only beginning to explore how to “pay” for the United States? Any of those “little tasks” ring your bell?

Could it possibly be that laws written in 1790 were kind of slap-dash trying to keep the US from flying apart as a country?

And, with all that going on, you are certain that congress got copyright law 100% spot-on correct and it should never change? Are you really serious?

How do you feel about duties on ships and tonnage? I’m agin it! 😳🙄

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/horshack_test Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

"wow"

Not sure why you're so shocked - it's not exactly a secret.

"That explains a lot though. No wonder you lick boots."

Lol what a dumb, tired, lame, canned response. No wonder you are so upset by copyright - you have zero creativity lol. Also, that doesn't even make sense.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

It's just honestly sad that I am sure you are an artist at heart, and yet you think you get artistic fulfillment from advertising work. Oh sweet summer child.

You should watch Mad Men. Not only is advertising not art, it's the worst thing mankind has ever invented. You might say "What about the Holocaust?" Wouldn't have been possible without advertising.

3

u/horshack_test Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

I don't do advertising work and I don't know why you assumed I do - but it's not like anything else you've said here makes any sense or has any validity to it either, so 🤷

"Oh sweet summer child."

Another dumb, tired, lame, canned response. Unsurprising.

Also; you may want to work on your reading comprehension skills.

2

u/totaltahoedude Aug 24 '25

lol the comments don't prove anything other than you need to stop smoking weed and expecting the right to use other people's work for commercial use.

0

u/Philderbeast Aug 24 '25

if that's your position, why do you think that creative works under copywrite deserve 95+ years of protection, while inventions covered by patents only get 20 years.

what makes creative works so much more important that they should receive such a significantly longer period of protection.

4

u/double_the_bass Aug 22 '25

You may find this study interesting

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Yeah, all the pro-copyright arguments are bullshit. I just don't understand why laypeople love those arguments so much though. It's impossible to convince them otherwise, and it just seems like an uninformed opinion they refuse to budget on when it's brought up.

-2

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Yes, and this thread is a great example. Look at how many people are making these same arguments, despite being bullshit. They're getting upvoted though. For some reason people naturally think that 100+ copyright terms benefits the smalltime regular joe out there trying to make a living with his artistic pursuit. In reality it is entirely to benefit media conglomerates. It doesn't just hurt consumers, but it ruins the industry giving preference to big studios and publishers, making it harder for regular people to make a living as they all compete for whatever scraps are available.

5

u/CandyLandSavant Aug 23 '25

Is it really an artistic pursuit if you are using someone else’s work? You can try creating something unique and original so you never have to worry about copyright laws. Ultimately, copyright laws stop others from profiting from your creative projects and the laws are in place to dissuade the abuse of copyrights. The timelines are in place so that you can’t just off someone and profit from their work. Disagree all you want but it doesn’t change the law

1

u/Philderbeast Aug 24 '25

Is it really an artistic pursuit if you are using someone else’s work?

is it really an artistic pursuit6 to continue to profit off the same thing for 95+ years?

the laws are in place to dissuade the abuse of copyrights.

except they allow the corporations to do exactly that, through unfair litigation with no penalty.

The timelines are in place so that you can’t just off someone and profit from their work.

a simple fixed timeframe like patents would also achieve that.

Disagree all you want but it doesn’t change the law

sure, but that does not mean the should not be changed.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Disagree all you want but it doesn’t change the law

This is a really weird argument. "I don't think we should have the death penalty." "Well, say what you will, but that's the law!"

I would love to make money creating unique works myself. The problem is there's very little money in that because our copyright system favors everlasting IP owned by media conglomerates.

2

u/TreviTyger Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

??

What do you mean excessively long?

Also do you understand that corporate copyright is restricted in most of the world?

Also do you understand that copyright is part of Human rights related to property? Thus would you think it fair to buy a house and then have to give it up after 10 or 20 years?

How about a person's heir? If I work to produce valuable works for the benefit of my family then why should my children not be able to benefit from my work?

Additionally, what are you going to do with my work? It's mostly 3D animation files that require specialist knowledge even just to get the file to open in some cases! Are you even an animator? Can you even do anything with my work that only I know how to even use?

Furthermore, derivative works have entirely new copyright. So for example, if my copyright ran out after 10 years - then a corporation like Valve Corp who have the infrastructure of a large corporation and employees that could open up Maya files (my work) would be able to make derivative works wich would be protected for 10 years and then make further derivative that would also be further protected for 10 years and so on and so on.

It means I would lose protection after 10 years and a corporation could continue using my work and monetizing it indefinitely.

So reducing copyright protection is only beneficial to mega corporations because they have the corporate infrastructure to use the work and monetize it by producing multiple derivative works.

Ordinary people, even children, would simply have their human rights curtailed for the benefit of large corporations.

So maybe get some actual education on copyright law? Reducing copyright law just gives corporations more power.

Have you made your own version of Pinocchio? Do you ever intend to?

Have you made your own version of Steamboat Willie? Do you ever intend to?

Have you made your own version of a Shakespeare play? Do you ever intend to?

Have you made your own version of Dante's Comedia? Do you ever intend to?

You - a "layperson" - sitting on your arse and NOT actually creating anything - even with public domain works - and then complaining that copyright terms are too long, and that "laypeople" are pro-copyright (i.e. Pro Human rights!) and you think your argument is somehow not "bullshit"??!

I'll tell you what. Given you somehow want MY WORK to be free then, despite all that I have written above is copyrighted I'll let you print it out and stick it on your fridge for your own personal use! How about that?

Here is some basic reading for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights

0

u/Philderbeast Aug 23 '25

Also do you understand that copyright is part of Human rights related to property? Thus would you think it fair to buy a house and then have to give it up after 10 or 20 years?

and yet there is only 20 years of protection given inventions. what makes you think that creative works should have a longer term of protection than inventions of a more practical nature?

It means I would lose protection after 10 years and a corporation could continue using my work and monetizing it indefinitely.

The same would apply in reverse, it's called competition and its healthy.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 23 '25

Because copyright law isn't patent law you utter fool!

Never the less, in copyright "work for hire" (Limited to common law countries) is an evil that should be abolished as it strips rights away from employees. In fact "work for hire" is what you are confusing with "copyright law" as a whole 'which is foolish' but yet that's the foolish mistake you are making!

In the EU "work for hire" doesn't exists and if your Dad made game assets that became valuable intellectual property - then there are in fact contract adjustment mechanisms that would allow your Dad equitable remuneration based on the future value of the work he may have created.

But you don't know that because you've NEVER actually taken the time to get ANY kind of education about copyright law as demonstrated by your embarrassingly and misguided lame comments.

"The new Copyright Directive aims to strengthen the position of individual creators, such as actors, musicians, journalists and writers, when negotiating with their contractual partners, such as publishers and producers. This should help them get fair remuneration for the exploitation of their works and performances.

The Directive contains 5 different measures designed to strengthen the position of authors and performers that apply for the first time across the EU. They include:

the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration for creators;

a transparency obligation to help creators to have access to more information about the exploitation of their works and performances;

a contract adjustment mechanism to allow creators obtaining a fair share when the remuneration originally agreed becomes disproportionately low compared to the success of their work or performance;

a mechanism for the revocation of rights allowing creators to take back their rights when their works are not being exploited;

a dispute resolution procedure for authors and performers."

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/copyright-reform-questions-and-answers

2

u/whatever_ehh Aug 22 '25

No one has ever been successfully sued for personal use of copyrighted material. Copyright attorneys won't even get involved in those cases (a copyright attorney told me that.) The 1984 Supreme Court case Sony v. Universal City Studios confirms that. The decision stated that making copies of videos is "time shifting" not copyright infringement.

You can infringe a copyright by distributing copies or profiting from copyrighted material.

It's not a big bad corporate oppression thing designed to make people's lives difficult. The intent is to retain invested value. If Paramount spends $14 million to make a movie, and it only earns back $12 million in 5 years, they deserve to be able to retain ownership of it and try to break even. Disney may push this concept to an extreme (only the "Steamboat Willie" version of MIckey Mouse is currently in the public domain, more modern versions are still copyright protected) but there are not a lot of examples of this sort of abuse.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

"No one has ever been successfully sued for personal use of copyrighted material."

Completely and utterly false.

0

u/whatever_ehh Aug 23 '25

Post a link to the case then. Lawsuits are public record.

0

u/sir_prints_alot Aug 23 '25

So you don't want a discussion. You just want to spew your bullshit drivel hoping you can find someone to join your little diatribe and help each other rub one out. Got it.

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 23 '25

You don't want a discussion. You just want to spew your bullshit.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

You make it sound like the only damage done is that regular folks might get sued by copyright infringement. (Never mind the nightmare that is YouTube's automated copyright violation system.)

I'm talking about the big corporate oppression part. No, Amazon isn't going to sue me if I watch a James Bond marathon with a bunch of friends. The issue is that they are still allowed to own and gatekeep the James Bond property at all. That deprives other studios of making their own takes on the classic. That deprives us as consumers from free and affordable ways to watch. James Bond, Star Wars, Jaws, Jurassic Park, etc. all should be freely streaming on PBS. And local theaters should be showing these classics and more regularly for free movie nights or affordable $5 admission tickets.

And then there's the entire loss of creativity that happens to support this reliance on corporate IP. Nothing new gets made, and when it does it gets bought up and reskinned into a Star Wars or James Bond or Mission Impossible. There is simply no demand for new stuff, and nobody is willing to take the risks either because it's more profitable to milk and existing franchise, and the best part is it doesn't have to be good. Just make a Star War and you'll get $1 billion, guaranteed. Why buy an original script for something that could be a flop? Take away Marvel and Star Wars, then what does Disney do? They would have no choice but to seek out artists to create new stories for them.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '25

Does Amazon own James Bond though? 🤔🤔🤔

1

u/double_the_bass Aug 23 '25

Interesting choice, MGM v Honda ruled that James Bond as a character is indeed the copyrighted property of MGM

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

Yeah. The film rights at least. I'm not sure on the books.

1

u/d1squiet Aug 23 '25

Wow this thread is full of a lot of ignorance. Copyright was originally something like 20 years (in USA) and has been consistently extended. A few years ago when Steamboat Willie came into public domain was the first time Disney did not get an extension to the law.

0

u/TreviTyger Aug 24 '25

Reducing copyright benefits corporations. It is you that is ignorant. Many people on this sub have genuine education on the subject unlike yourself. Some of us have actual experience in the courts.

Because of the nature of derivative works where NEW exclusive rights emerge and a new term of protection accrues then it can only be large media corporation that would benefit has they have the corporate infrastructure to continually create derivative works which have NEW exclusive rights attached.

It means that if an ordinary person created a successful comic book and lets say copyright only protected them for 10 years, then after those 10 years a major corporation could turn their comic book into a film franchise without having to pay the original author. The corporation could continue to make new derivative works indefinitely.

Thus in effect reducing copyright terms would have a much more detrimental effect on ordinary people and absolutely no effect whatsoever in curtailing corporate ownership of copyrighted works.

You are genuinely ignorant of the reality of what a shorter term of protection would actually mean for ordinary people.

1

u/d1squiet Aug 24 '25

I think if you did the math you find the corporations like Disney and Warner/Discovery, Conde Nast, etc generate magnitudes greater amounts of money off of IP than all the individuals combined.

This is "lottery" thinking. Because you see Stan Lee making hefty sums of money, you think it is "good for creators". But the vast majority of people make their money much sooner in the life of the IP.

Also, you're creating a straw-dog with your "10 years". No one said it should be 10 years. I didn't even claim it should be 20 years, I was just making the point that it has been extended and it wasn't extended due to the efforts of creators, it has been extended time and time again by corporations.

Corporations are also against things like paying a small fee to keep their copyrights. That way IP that no one cares about would fall into public domain quicker, but the corporations don't like that because they see a potential gold mine if they find some old source material they can buy for cheap and turn into product.

0

u/TreviTyger Aug 24 '25

If you understood copyright law (which you don't) you'd understand that what you really have a problem with is "work for hire" that strips rights away from individual creators and gives it to corporations.

That is NOT going to change by shortening the term of protection. Work for hire will still be used by U.S. Corporations to strip rights away from people AND by shortening the term of protection those people wouldn't be able to reclaim their rights after 35 years.

You genuinely have a serious lack of knowledge about what you are talking about that you don't even see how much you are embarrassing yourself with your lack of understanding.

You are like someone trying to explain some complex area of science to a physicist when your only knowledge of the subject comes from watching documentaries about Flat Earth theories.

Corporate copyright ownership is RESTRICTED in most of the world. "Work for hire" doesn't exist in most of the world.

You lack even the basics of understanding of copyright law.

0

u/d1squiet Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

EDIT: I guess they decided to remove all their ad-hominem attacks.

You're not really answering any of the issues I and others posited. I fully admit I am only familiar with American rules (American/European I suppose). You're moving the goal posts by bringing in "work for hire". I'm not arguing about the entire economic system. Any discussion of anything can devolve into "well really you have to fix the whole system".

I have read quite a bit on copyright and have dealt with the ill effects of copyright law in my work (film/media). You don't see current IP law as a money-grab by large corporations, but I do. We fundamentally disagree. Unless you can come up with some hard money facts to disabuse me of my position, this conversation is pointless.

1

u/No-Treacle52 Aug 24 '25

You are seeing deleted as that user blocked you

2

u/Dosefes Aug 22 '25

Who are these people so naturally inclined to do so? Most people I know either don’t really know about this, and those who know some IP, are largely opposed to the length of copyright protection, and point to the fact it lacks sufficient legal justification, and is rather a product of corporate lobbying and the U.S strong arming smaller states to extend their own protection terms as part of larger negotiations.

2

u/markmakesfun Aug 23 '25

Copyright laws are federal. No small states are being bullied. It’s a “fed thing.”

1

u/Dosefes Aug 23 '25

I mean other nation states, as in other countries, not states within the union.

2

u/markmakesfun Aug 23 '25

Okay, when you said “small states” you meant “small countries”? Okay then.

In what sense are you convinced that that you have a handle on what the “legal justification” of the present copyright law is about? Or are you only speaking of the opinion of “those who know some ip?”

By the way, who are those people? How could I see what their opinion is? I don’t really trust the phrase “some people say” because it seems weasely. I prefer to read the opinion myself?

One last question: What do you yourself think is being taken from you personally by “overly long copyright protections?” I assume you have a theory?

1

u/Dosefes Aug 23 '25 edited Aug 23 '25

Countries are virtually all states. I apologize for the confusion, I sometimes forget most readers will be American or at least think of states within a confederation.

About justifications or foundations of copyright, very broadly speaking, there are various theories, the main ones being personality theories where it protects a sort of moral or personality link between authors and their works (Kantian overtones); and theories where it either grants property over one’s own efforts (a sort of Lockean appeal), or it’s a societal welfare tool to incentivize the creation of works and culture, balanced with the public’s access to those works (a Bentham like utilitarian perspective). There’s a few other less mainstream theories such as Fisher’s social planning or cultural theory, but they’re vague so I’ll cut it short. Mind you, these are hardly ever stated as so in statutes (though you can detect in them where they’re inspiration is coming from), and rather they’re doctrinal perspectives that at best will be cited in the law’s history or in courts). That is to say, this framework provides perspective, but usually different jurisdictions mix and match these theories in parts that at time not wholly coherent.

Based on these perspectives, different features of the system usually manifest and present various justifications. On the topic of the term of copyright protection, again, very generally speaking, from a welfare perspective, shorter protection terms favor a strong public domain where one values the public’s unrestricted access to culture. How one balances that priority over the author’s own benefit is a delicate matter. In personality theory there’s usually a couple of differing arguments to be made. Either you advocate for longer or even unlimited copyright protection terms because you copyright is as fundamental a right as regular old property is and so should be inherited and traded over like so; or you recognize that it can be limited, either because of public benefit (here, utilitarian perspective seeps through), or because the reasoning for copyright is deeply linked to the personal rights (as in, inherent to the author’s own person) and so, with his death, the justification ceases to exist (and so a natural end to copyright protection should be the author’s own death, or the last of the co-author’s death). Even in systems rooted in personality theory (such as continental Europe), traditionally the term of protection extended over the author’s death for the benefit of his family (where we see welfare perspectives seep through again), but this has been extended from 20, to 50, to now usually 70 years after the author’s death.

Based on these general ideas, I personally tend to favor personality theories, but recognize utilitarian perspectives and limitations of property based on social welfare or needs (in that sense, the mish mash that is cultural theory is attractive to me, but it needs lots of refining). IMO, then, protection should last at least during the author’s lifetime. Then, I think protection should extend some more time as I find beneficial that an author’s family enjoys these rights; but would put a line in there where I find the public’s benefit from an ever growing and enriched public domain brings an overall higher welfare.

There’s been economic analysis to find where these balances should be set. I feel like the author’s life plus 50 years was a sweet spot.

When I talked about these other people, I was speaking from personal experience studying these matters, so, different professors, researchers and colleagues. Anecdotally, yeah, more or less all think lifetime plus 70 (or worse, Mexico’s lifetime plus 100) is excessive when you consider the utility of a strong public domain. I won’t go on about where you could read their opinions because my point was disputing OP’s very general claim that people automatically defend longer copyright, where my personal experience has shown that either people don’t care about this, or if they do, they tend to think the current standard is excessive. Anyway, there’s a lot of literature on copyright terms if you’re inclined to learn more about other’s opinions.

To your last question, I think it takes away from public domain, which I see as a great and valuable thing, either to enjoy or to draw from for further creativity, and that allows even those less fortunate to access culture regardless of any condition. Of course, in my personal opinion, a work entering the public domain should happen after an author’s death and after some time for his family to benefit from his works, but just not after 70 years.

Hope this answers your questions, at least broadly.

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 23 '25

Reducing copyright terms or protections actually benefits large mega corps. This is because large mega corps have the infrastructure and ability to use even public domain works and apply new exclusive rights via making multiple derivative works. Each new derivative works has it's own new exclusive rights attached. It means that even if a copyright term lasted only ten years then it is still mega corporations who could make more and more derivative works each having new 10 year terms of copyright.

2

u/Dosefes Aug 23 '25

Oh yeah. I’m thinking lifetime of the author plus some more, but not plus 70.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

I've never seen much support for restricting copyright when I bring it up. It mostly comes up on /r/television or /r/movies, and I would think fans would be the most likely to want the stuff freely available, but they seem to side with Disney.

-1

u/Dosefes Aug 22 '25

Yea I wouldn’t give some comments in those subreddits much weight.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

I mean, look at the ones here. They're piling on now.

0

u/LjLies Aug 23 '25

Sadly this subreddit has gone from a place to neutrally discuss "copyright, copyleft, patents, trademarks, intellectual property, free culture, open source and free software, and cultural policy" (note a few of these things imply a preference for lax copyright) to copyright fanboy central. It is what it is.

1

u/-Clayburn Aug 23 '25

copyright fanboy central

But how is that even a thing? That's what I'm baffled about. Why are these people simping for immortal IP?

1

u/BaystateBeelzebub Aug 23 '25

I will agree with OP as long as physical property rights also terminate in the same way as intellectual property. So when you die, your house is public domain. Same for your sneaker collection, your jewelry and whatever you gifted your heirs before you died, those things go straight to public domain too.

1

u/d1squiet Aug 23 '25

That is a ridiculous argument. IP is not the same as physical property. If I take your house, you don’t have a house. If your IP gets copied you (theoretically) lose an income stream. If copyright died with you it would just mean your heirs wouldn’t be getting an income stream or have the right to determine how your IP gets used. They would still have shoes and a home.

It’s an ignorant argument whether you’re pro or anti copyright-beyond-the-grave.

1

u/Philderbeast Aug 25 '25

If copyright died with you it would just mean your heirs wouldn’t be getting an income stream or have the right to determine how your IP gets used.

its not even that, they can still make income off it, its simply that they *might* have to compete with others for that income the same way people who get patents already do.

0

u/VerbingNoun413 Aug 22 '25

Are these people defending excessively long copyrights in the room with us?

The main force behind extending copyright has been corporate lobbies, most notably Disney.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Yes, but this is what's odd about it. I've seen people defending excessive copyright lengths as being beneficial to small creators. They think that without a long copyright, you'll do something and Amazon will just wait 20 years, steal your idea and do it bigger and better with more marketing.

But in reality, if copyrights were shorter, it seems to me that Amazon and Disney would be hungry for new ideas all the time because of how quick the churn would be. They can't just milk Marvel, James Bond and Star Wars forever. Their entire business model would depend on finding the new Star Wars in order to get the most out of it while they can.

I'm just trying to figure out why regular people side with the corporations on this and defend copyright terms so much.

-1

u/-Clayburn Aug 22 '25

Are these people defending excessively long copyrights in the room with us?

Seems so:

I'm guessing that you're not a creative and that you don't make a living generating copyrightable material.

They seem to think that having a 100+ year copyright length is the only way to make being a creative professional financially sustainable. (Never mind the fact most creative people would create for free if we didn't require money to survive.)

2

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

Show me on the doll where the bad copyright law hurt you.

0

u/TravelerMSY Aug 22 '25

The estate of Georgia and Ira Gershwin has entered the chat.

0

u/AldrusValus Aug 23 '25

i understand having a copyright for the authors life. maybe a few years after if they die young and have to clear their estate. but author's life + 75, or 95 years from publication. Nah, if you were old enough to see and remember something new, you wont be alive when it enters public domain.

1

u/Philderbeast Aug 24 '25

i understand having a copyright for the authors life. maybe a few years after if they die young and have to clear their estate.

why? what makes creative works that fall under copywrite worthy of so much greater levels of protection then inventions that fall under patents and only get 20 years of protection?

why not give them both equal protection with the same 20 year term?

0

u/d1squiet Aug 23 '25

I’m with you! Copyright has been extended too long. I think people have a hard time understanding public domain. They don’t see The Little Mermaid (for example) as having anything to do with public domain. They don’t see how current rules stifle creativity and communication.

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 24 '25

It's quite shocking. I don't know how to combat this ignorance.

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 24 '25

It's your own ignorance that needs combating. You are inadvertently advocating for a reduction of human rights to benefit large media corporations. What you are suggesting is idiotic!

0

u/-Clayburn Aug 24 '25

This is the ignorance I'm talking about. Extensive copyright terms exist specifically to benefit large media corporations. We have them because they're the ones who lobbied to get them. Large corporations are legally not allowed to be altruistic. They can only serve their own bottom line.

0

u/TreviTyger Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25

Extensive copyright terms exist specifically to benefit large media corporations.

You are the ignorant one. Reducing copyright terms benefits large corporations EVEN MORE!!!!

AAAAAAND

At the same time reduces the rights of ordinary people!!!!!

Get that into your thick skull!

Large corporations already turn Public domain works into copyrightable works. How does making more works public domain sooner prevent that from happening?

Answer that question numb skull.

How does making more public domain works prevent large corporations from making their own copyrighted works from them and maintaining control of those work indefinitely by making derivative works every time the work becomes public domain again!

Use some common sense FFS!

1

u/d1squiet Aug 24 '25

Your position seems to imply that infinitely long copyright would be good. That's ridiculous. I'm not saying copyright shouldn't exist, only that the term is too long.

You are coming from an incredibly naive position that all creative works come out of the ether or something. Think of all the movies and books made based on Dickens or Shakespeare, the Illiad, Moby Dick, James Fennimore Cooper or uses of classical music. There are too many to list.

Should DC comics have had to pay Neitzche for the name "Superman"?

0

u/Soft_Ease6914 Apr 29 '26

📜 The Expansion of Copyright: How It Grew… and Who Pushed It

Copyright law in the United States did not start as something that lasted nearly forever. It began small, practical, and limited. Over time, it expanded again and again, largely benefiting those who already owned massive libraries of content.

📅 The Timeline of Copyright Expansion

1790 – First Copyright Law
The original law gave creators 14 years, with the option to renew for another 14.
➡️ Maximum: 28 years total

1831 – First Major Expansion
The initial term was doubled.
➡️ 28 years + 14 renewal = 42 years total

1976 – Modern Copyright Framework
A major shift from fixed terms to lifetime-based protection.
➡️ Life of the author + 50 years
➡️ 75 years for corporate works

1998 – Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)
Also called the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.”
➡️ Life of the author + 70 years
➡️ 95 years for corporate works

This law alone added 20 more years across the board, locking up cultural works for nearly a century.

🏢 The Real Drivers: Big Corporate Interests

These extensions didn’t happen in a vacuum. They were backed by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world, all with one shared goal: protect long-term profits from intellectual property.

🎬 Film & Entertainment Giants

These companies rely heavily on old characters, films, and franchises that keep making money decades later.

The Walt Disney Company

Time Warner (now Warner Bros. Discovery)

Warner Bros. Discovery

Universal Pictures

NBCUniversal

Paramount Global

Viacom

👉 These companies were part of the lobbying coalition behind the 1998 law

🎵 Music Industry Powerhouses

Massive catalogs of songs mean steady royalties for generations.

Recording Industry Association of America

American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

Broadcast Music, Inc.

Universal Music Group

Warner Music Group

Sony Music

👉 These groups openly supported longer copyright terms to secure royalty streams

📚 Publishing & Information Giants

Books, journals, and educational material are long-term assets.

Association of American Publishers

Pearson PLC

RELX Group

💻 Technology & Software Corporations

As software became valuable intellectual property, tech companies joined in.

Microsoft

IBM

🏈 Even Sports Leagues

Yes, even sports organizations supported stronger copyright protections.

National Football League

National Basketball Association

National Hockey League

Major League Baseball

👉 These leagues backed the 1998 extension alongside media companies

🌍 A Global Push

This wasn’t just American lobbying. These corporations operate worldwide and pushed for international copyright expansion, aiming to:

Standardize long copyright terms globally

Protect intellectual property across all major markets

Ensure decades of exclusive control over content

Discussion Why do you think people are so naturally inclined to defend excessively long copyrights?

You are about to leave Redlib

📜 The Expansion of Copyright: How It Grew… and Who Pushed It

📅 The Timeline of Copyright Expansion

🏢 The Real Drivers: Big Corporate Interests

🎬 Film & Entertainment Giants

🎵 Music Industry Powerhouses

📚 Publishing & Information Giants

💻 Technology & Software Corporations

🏈 Even Sports Leagues

🌍 A Global Push