Replies

Like everything that comes out of congress these days, copyright is designed to be confusing and non-sensical. Back when copright law was a bit more sane, if you wanted to have a particular work ube put under copyright, you had to send a copy to the library of congress, who would assign a number to it, and ratified the copyright for the work. After 14 years, you had the option of renewing copyright if you so desired for a small fee. If you didn't renew it, it became public domain. I think the best bit of sanity we could hope for from those already bought and paid for by the major media conglomerates would be to re-institute this registration requirement. This way, the perpetual copyright we have now would remain intact for the greedy bastards, but maintaining copyright would require positive action of the copyright holder. Many unprofitable works would enter the public domain, and it would also provide a mechanism towards identifying the copyright holder for those desiring to make use of the work. Right now, for many things, it is almost impossible to identify who owns what. If you could look up the owner of record,it would actually benefit both commerce and the public, some works that would otherwise fade into obscurity might be given a new lease on life.

I'd probably also want a provision that any work that is out of print for more than 10 years would automatically enter the public domain. The point being, if a work is not being used, the public should benefit from it.

I know that some on this forum will call me a socialist for saying that works should enter the public domain as quickly as possible, but they miss the point of copyright entirely IMO. The natural state of all works is to be in the public domain. We, the people, allow the government to enforce a temporary monopoly to benefit the creator

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

I fail to see how assigning royalties to the great grandchild of a dead author promotes "the progress of science and useful arts". This is especially true of the several occasions where congress has increased the length of copyright for existing works. Unfortunately, at this point, the supreme court is of the opinion that eternity minus one day would satisfy the clear "limited times" language in the Constitution.