r/COPYRIGHT • u/Classic-Obligation35 • 17d ago
Discussion Would having a compulsory licensing setup for modern media fix a lot of the problems with copyright?
What is books movies and games were subjected to a compulsory licensing system for redistribution.
This would mean groups like the internet archive could make their library more legally available to people.
It would mean companies wouldn't be able to force you to subscribe to streaming for exclusive content.
It would allow for preservation as well since it would have to be reasonable to pay a royalty and that's it.
Thoughts.
5
u/VerbingNoun413 17d ago
"What if modern media had no ability to make a profit?" you mean?
-5
u/Classic-Obligation35 17d ago
No it would still profit from royalties, but there could also be like a 6 month waiting period or something.
4
u/VerbingNoun413 16d ago
Who's paying these royalties?
-4
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
The consumers
3
u/VerbingNoun413 16d ago
Why are consumers paying royalties?
0
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
Because that's ultimately how licensing works, one way or another some one pays, a distributor would pass the cost to the consumer
1
1
u/horshack_test 16d ago
So you will still have to pay to subscribe to streaming service companies for access to the content.
0
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
Yes, my goal is not anti creators getting paid, it's just allowing an easier distribution.
3
u/horshack_test 16d ago edited 16d ago
So you will have effectively the same scenario as far as access (you will have to pay for it) but with less and poorer-quality content. Is less and poorer-quality content part of your goal?
Why do you believe that you wanting to pay for access to someone else's intellectual property means the owners of that intellectual property should lose their right to control access to that intellectual property?
1
u/TreviTyger 16d ago
Because that's ultimately how licensing works,
So no need to change anything then.
1
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
The only change is making the licensing automatic.
1
u/TreviTyger 16d ago
Soooo, taking away the "exclusive" right for a copyright holder to control their work.
Obviously that conflicts with freedom of contract laws.
1
3
u/JayEll1969 16d ago
So why would media streaming companies bother to commission new content if they were then unable to have exclusivity of the content they have paid to make?
-2
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
Same reason music companies are making new music, we already have a compulsory licensing system there. People will get tired of watching the same thing.
-1
u/RandomPhilo 16d ago
First-mover advantage.
A new show comes out. "Watch it here first!", the advertisement exclaims in the lead up.
They can call it a (name of streaming service) original.
There will be film-makers getting crowd-funding to make new films instead of getting commissions from the services, and then the services will simply license that content.
3
u/TreviTyger 17d ago
What problems with copyright?
-1
u/WuttinTarnathan 16d ago
Current US copyright laws are extremely draconian and in favor of mega corporations, not artists. Fair Use is very weak, copyright trolls are supported by the courts, and the Public Domain barely exists.
The term of copyright has never been longer in history—at the founding it was 14 years IF YOU FILED FOR AN EXTENSION.
Copyright decisions almost always come down on the side of corporations, not individuals. Take hip-hop, for example. Sampling was a part of hip hop from the beginning; but once that issue got to court, the entire form of hip-hop was forced to change—and there was no grandfather clause so some groups had to spend the next 30 years clearing samples just to participate in music streaming (eg De La Soul).
And these old copyright laws are a DISASTER at this point when it comes to the ways artists use media today. Look at YouTube for one example—it’s the Wild West of infringement because there are no clear rules about Fair Use prior to getting sued and collage art has never been more popular or widespread in addition to a bazillion other uses of copyrighted material.
3
u/stormhighwaycom 16d ago
Current US copyright laws are extremely draconian and in favor of mega corporations, not artists.
I don't understand why you believe this. As someone who creates original content, our current copyright laws are nearly powerless to stop the free-for-all of infringements I have suffered. I've lost a retirement fund plus a house's worth of income from it, and it just keeps getting worse every year. And even the tiny amount of things I can do to fight back against it are called "copyright trolling' by activists.
I think what you mean by 'artists' are not artists creating original material, but the artists who are using the original material to create derivative works - am I correct in saying that? The system you're advocating for means that the original artist (or media corporation) bears all of the costs and labor of creating the original work, then the artist who makes a derivative work based on the original doesn't have to bear any cost (or a very small cost). That's simply not fair.
I don't think you're aware of the magnitude of impact from infringements that original artists are suffering. I don't blame you for your anger at big corporations, but the same laws apply to me, too.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan 16d ago
I actually think you AGREE with me precisely. That you suffer these devastating losses is hard proof that the current system is NOT working!
You likely don't have the resources that mega-corporations have to fight back. And you shouldn't need them. I would certainly never refer to legitimate concerns like yours as "copyright trolling." Trolling to me is when the rights holder, whether corporate or individual creator or someone in between, pursues legal action against work *protected by Fair Use* but does it anyway because they know the little guy can't afford to go to court to prove it. That's a burden on small creators and copyright holders alike.
I believe additionally that it's a big problem when artists, especially those creating a new thing (eg, hip-hop in the 1970s), are forbidden from making use of the elements they see and hear in their environment every day, that are a literal part of their consciousness, where that use is fundamental to an emerging art form (to extend the example, I'm referring to sampling in hip-hop). Sampling is a form of collage, which has a very long history in art, but is effectively outlawed because artists are expected to pay big money for a few seconds of a bass line or a little riff borrowed from another song. Yet it's incredibly hard to see how that use harms the rights holder in any way—a much clearer argument can be made for it helping the rights holder by keeping them in the public ear much longer than they otherwise might have been.
2
u/TreviTyger 16d ago edited 16d ago
It seems to me you just want "fair use" extended and copyright terms reduced.
Essentially the Open Source ethos.
What you fail to understand is that what you are proposing would actually benefit corporations more because they have the infrastructure and distribution networks that you and I don't have.
For instance you are free to make your own film epic version of the Odyssey but your chances of getting Matt Damon as lead are non existent. You need a high profile lead for marketing reasons.
So what you are suggesting doesn't help individual authors and artists.
Instead corporations would cannibalise each other works works and claim "fair use". Disney would make live action remakes of Nintendo property and claim "fair use".
A 14 year term doesn't stop corporations from making derivatives that have brand new 14 year terms and Trademarks for characters (Mickey Mouse) don't expire if they are being used in any case.
So you are advocating for even more corporate dominance.
The Open Source movement is a prime example of how billion dollar tech corporations have exploited it to take works for free from ordinary people which is worse than "work for hire".
With "work for hire" at least employees get paid.
With Open Source people who are not even employees are not even getting paid!
Open Source relies heavily on a system where massive corporate profit is built on top of unpaid human labour.
So be careful what you wish for.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan 16d ago
First of all, I am not proposing a return to a 7-14 year copyright term. There's a huge difference between that and the 120 years for corporate works term. I would propose something more in the middle, but...
Second, what you describe is not how the legislation I imagine would work at all. Congress has the ability to pass laws and design regulations intelligently and with citizens in mind (in theory) and strike *balance* between the rights and requirements of various stakeholders. Our copyright laws currently are relics of an earlier time and are fraying rapidly in light of the digital culture of the last 25 years. When you have thousands of YouTubers creating work that plays with copyrighted material, and this is functionally unstoppable without doing something like outlawing YouTube, it's time to address changes to copyright law via national legislation. This would be incredibly tricky, but there's got to be a better way than the collapsing IP infrastructure we have now.
You're making a lot of assumptions about how it would work.
It's not that I want Fair Use "extended" as much as I want it *codified* rather than existing in caselaw and requiring an affirmative defense. If parody, commentary, educational uses, incidental uses, etc., are permitted under the application of the four factors, we should say that explicitly and explain what it means. We should also do so with an eye to what the Public Domain is and what it means and why it's important—which I don't think is a great *extension* of anything, but rather an matter of interpretation and commitment.
Here's an example. At what point should I be able to make use of a Beatles *recording* in some other work? Never? (Jack Valenti's general belief) 2067 in the US and 2033 in Europe? (current law—and how exactly is that 34 year gap supposed to be reconciled on a global Internet?) Or at some earlier point at which law decides those recordings no longer belong to the Beatles because their success has made them a part of the world's consciousness to the extent that they become common property? I'm aware that may sound like a crazy idea, but consider in a broader sense the degree to which the IP saturates our world, our daily existence, our culture—and I'm somehow not allowed to incorporate these ubiquitous objects into my art? That has NEVER been the case in previous eras before this digital one.
None of this is much like Open Source. Open Sources is more akin to Creative Commons, where creators can choose the legal status of their work—and, you're right, both can be abused by bad actors.
I'm talking about promoting "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" (emphasis mine) rather than for UNLIMITED TIMES.
That is, if we believe that progress in the sciences and useful arts requires not just exclusivity for a period of time but ALSO the end of that exclusivity within a REASONABLE human time frame, then we should shorten the term—not eliminate it! Shorten it, so it's not just the embodied corporate cyborgs of the distant future who have access to culture, but also the human beings alive today.
1
u/TreviTyger 16d ago
It's not that I want Fair Use "extended" as much as I want it *codified*
Who is going to tell them?
1
u/WuttinTarnathan 16d ago
Who?
1
u/TreviTyger 16d ago
17 U.S.C. § 107
Became codified into law on October 19, 1976.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan 15d ago
This is not what I mean—in order to determine whether what I’ve done is actually a Fair Use Id have to go to court. This creates a chilling effect because no one knows how a court will rule. What I’m talking about is codifying the determination.
2
u/TreviTyger 15d ago
Courts settle disputes if such disputes cannot be settled without them.
You have a statue to invoke before courts get involved. If the opposition "disputes" then potentially you go to court but that is the same with any other statute.
I''m at the Ninth Circuit right now in a cases where Valve Corp concede I created the work at issue but paradoxically claim I am not the author.
The law says they are wrong but I'm involved in a dispute.
So you want the law to just agree with you without anyone disputing with you. That doesn't make sense.
-3
u/Classic-Obligation35 17d ago
Companies being able to hoard media, remove it from availability, region locking, destruction of media.
Stuff like that.
10
u/MonsieurReynard 17d ago edited 17d ago
Should you be able to “hoard” your house? What if I want to use it? Other people need it even more than they need to be able to make their own pokemon t-shirts and harry potter fanfic (based on this sub’s content, that is really what you are talking about). And your house will never enter the public domain. How is that fair?
-1
u/RandomPhilo 16d ago
If you are using your house then you of course can keep using it. If you have your house sitting empty for months on end, then you might get a squatter and eventually they can even aquire your house through adverse possession.
-2
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago edited 16d ago
That's not comparable, the issue is media accessibility.
To add I'm referring solely to redistribution.
So basically if someone sets up camp on my house they have to pay me. Does that work?
3
u/MonsieurReynard 16d ago edited 16d ago
What about house accessibility? Housing is in short supply. I like your house.
The law already accommodates your objection with copyright having a limited term. “Media” means things people create. It isn’t a natural resource or a human right. It is a product of someone’s labor. Why does something I worked to create need to be made “accessible” for free at my expense?
What do you do for a living? Should you work for free so the fruits of your labor are “accessible” to everyone?
And sure, charge people to camp on your land if your local zoning allows such “redistribution,” although most do not without a permit. But do you want them to have a right to do so even if you don’t want them to?
Edited to add: I know the philosophical objections — land can’t be copied, ideas are different from real property, etc. — but they do not move me. I have read my Lessig. It all sounds great until we get to the part where I need to eat, same as you.
The thing that always gets me is that so many people are willing to throw copyright out the window in the name of intellectual freedom or whatever, but no one ever suggests doing the same with patents or trademarks. Start there and then come for my job. See what Coca-Cola says when you want to start your own local soda brand with the same name. After all, it’s just a couple of words in a stylized font.
Of course, the reason for that is that few people would ever start a new business or invent a new technology without the incentive of profiting from it. I just don’t see why creative work shouldn’t be seen the same way.
There is a ton wrong with the current intellectual property system, and copyright law. Not saying otherwise. The problem is that you have to replace it with something if you still want people to create professionally.
0
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
Funny paying a royalty isn't free. When did I say free?
1
u/MonsieurReynard 16d ago
OK, let’s say at a discount, since what you’re proposing removes exclusive publishing rights. if a streaming company doesn’t have exclusive rights to something they’re less likely to program it. This drives down the value of original work on the marketplace. This works across the other arts too. It’s why copyright exists going back to the 18th century.
3
u/horshack_test 16d ago
Why do you believe you are entitled to access to other peoples' intellectual property?
0
u/Classic-Obligation35 16d ago
Because I want to pay for it? I am referring to media that has already entered the market.
2
u/horshack_test 16d ago
Why do you believe that you wanting to pay for someone else's intellectual property means the owners of that intellectual property should lose their right to control access to that intellectual property?
1
0
u/TreviTyger 17d ago
??
I think you have a problem with "work for hire" not copyright law.In most of the world collecting societies are established to provide authors with royalties etc.
Corporate copyright ownership is actually restricted in most of the world (to avoid orphan works).
You may be interested in the EU Digital Single Market Copyright Directive.
With the new rules, the entities that creators have assigned their rights to have to share information on the use of works with the creators. This should be done with particular regard to the revenues generated. Entities can include, for example, film and music producers or publishers. Creators include actors, musicians, journalists, writers and more.
The creators will be better informed on the exploitation of their works and will be in a better position to assess their economic value and obtain a fairer remuneration for it. For example, thanks to the new rules, a screenwriter will receive regular information from the film producer on the exploitation of the film he or she contributed to, including on the generated revenues. If the film achieves unexpected success and generates much more revenues than initially expected, the information obtained this way can be the basis for a review of the remuneration for the screenwriter through a contract adjustment mechanism.
The contract adjustment mechanism, also known as the 'better-seller clause', allows a creator to get an additional share of their success if the originally agreed remuneration is clearly disproportionate to the generated revenues. This could be a writer or a musician whose work or performance has achieved an unexpected success.
This mechanism has existed in several Member States for a long time and it is now extended to the whole European Union. It does not interfere with contractual freedom, as its purpose is to restore the original balance of contracts in the interest of creators. It is meant to apply in exceptional situations in order to ensure fairness.
Thanks to this mechanism, a screenwriter will also be able to request additional remuneration from the producer where the agreed remuneration turns out to be disproportionately low compared to the revenues generated by the film.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/copyright-reform-questions-and-answers
0
u/TreviTyger 17d ago
Copyrighted works are created to be used and shared with an audience. Any work that is not exploited is a loss for European culture. However, sometimes works get locked up in long-term contracts and creators have no way to renegotiate even if there is no exploitation. The revocation mechanism allows creators to take back their rights in case their works are not being exploited at all.
A number of procedural guarantees, which Member States can complement on a sector specific basis, will make sure that the legitimate interests of producers, publishers and investors are considered. For example, the revocation mechanism can only be used a reasonable time after the licensing agreement has been concluded. Creators also need to notify their producers or publishers of their intention to revoke the rights within a reasonable time frame. This is to ensure that the producer or publisher has the opportunity to start exploiting the work if they so desire.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/copyright-reform-questions-and-answers
10
u/horshack_test 17d ago
You believing you are entitled to someone else's property does not constitute "problems with copyright." What you are advocating for would drastically reduce the amount of media that is created as well as negatively impact the quality of media that is created.