ya ya I know crazy person should not post TL:DR stuff...but meh.... ====================
At one point and time copy right or rather copyright was a societal agreement or right given by government to the copy right creator, giving them absolute control over the right to copy their creations for a limited time frame of life of the creator plus 20 years.
Decade after decade as copy right law is minced and rehashed and baked it?s skewed more and more to not the creator of content but the owner of content. Little bovine creators are herded and culled as seen fit by those with money to reel them in and enslave them into a system where they get little if their creations sale and less if not indentured servitude if it does not sale.
The publishers will say they have to make money, that might be true but they do not need to own the IP rights and live like kings while most artists struggle to survive.
So what?s the answer? In my own train of thought from my own musings I believe that what we create we have an inherent right too, but how to balance that so that it lifts us all up and allows creative people to make a living at same time. By focusing on the monetary flow around distribution (links,indexing,infoamtion to get you to the file in question) you can weed out illicit services and make it so IP creators are supported by the overall system.
But that is just not enough it helps the consumer not be encumbered by doctorial publishers/IP owners and their death squads.
So we see one small part of copy right to fix now let?s look at ownership, expiration and public domain.
There should be no copy right owner other than the copy right creator, period end of story I am sorry but allowing IP conglomerates has turned radio from a broadcasting network of music to a caned boxed of en triplicate approved tunes handed down by someone not out of city, not out of state but out of country. This is not good for the public the artists or society in general it just engrains static unchanging choices for the public to choose from.
So first off all copy right moving forward the IP creator owns the IP and cannot transfer those rights, they can transfer profit rights temporally. For 1, 5 and 10 year period all publication, profit, ect rights to a single IP can be transferred. The terms of which they are transferred cannot be less than 30% of all profit made off that IP while that IP is in the red IE not paid for all publication and other costs associated with getting that IP to market. At the time when the IP gets in the black the IP creator gets 60% of all profit. It goes without saying mutli creator IPs they still get the 30/60 split but when the profit right contract is wrote up all members must agree to how the profit is distributed if they are unable to come to an agreement a 3rd party arbiter who is not part of the media industry will decide who gets what cut based on total input to the IP. This is the basic default rule to protect the IP creator from the obvious abusive system of modern media.
Expiration of an IP comes in 30 years after time of first sale, at which time anyone may use the IP but no one shall be allowed to make trademarks off public domain characters, images, ect. If an IP creator dies in contract that contract may be renegotiated one time at a maximum of 10 years by the closest living relatives or how their will is written out.
Now we come back to dealing with CP/IP distribution itself, is distribution outside the chain of legal purchase only a crime or infringement? I would say no, you have to look at monetary flow around that distribution, if it seeks to try and make any money it cannot do no harm. This means any information that directly directs you to IP/CP items/files cannot have any connection to donations, ad/link/click generated revenue and unlicensed sale, if it does its illegal if it does not it?s not worth the time or effort to police it.
Fair use would be partly unchanged(tho updated with changes above in mind) and would have fundamental rights of copy protection circumvention, archiveing/backups and transcodeing that cannot be over ridden by any law(with the small caveat of if its outside of your network you have limited rights of access dealing with others networks).
England was lobbied to increase copyright length. The industry will crush any movement that tries to be a bit fair. The industry feels the only fair use is listening to the music or watching the movie.
Originally posted by Mez: What are you talking about Zippy???
England was lobbied to increase copyright length. The industry will crush any movement that tries to be a bit fair. The industry feels the only fair use is listening to the music or watching the movie.
Well overhualing copyright(setting limits to right's contracts,hard time limits, allowing mroe fair use)
But lol thats true, but still merely pointing out a way to utopia, tho once there humans will screw it up they always will. LOL
Originally posted by ps355528: life of creator.. full stop.. WHY should somebody else continue to profit from a creative work after the creator is dead?..
Accidental death and other unforseen circumstances, the train of thought is to allow the family or will to transfer profit rights for a temporary time frame.
