Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimbob45 | Hacker News Reader

The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time.

Of course, the MPAA/RIAA owns our government and has for a while. Not to mention the trade deals the US brokered in the last year made sure to taint the copyright duration of every other country too so this will probably never get fixed until we all decide to practice some Civil Disobedience.

View on HN

No, the root cause is the DMCA. Copyright is good in most cases and while there is room for improvement, and room for discussion for how it might need to evolve in a different information industry, it is copyright that helps protect even FOSS copyleft for example.

When DMCA was passed I remember the arguments being about this very sort of thing, and most of the hacktivist-types I knew at the time railed against it... but they obviously lost and weren't listened to. I think those who opposed DMCA are being vindicated...

This is the problem when you have a "representative" government that actually doesn't represent you at all.

Note that the DMCA isn’t involved here. YouTube has their own system for copyright claims that allow 3rd parties to take down videos without filing a DMCA takedown.

If the claimant filed a DMCA request, the video owner could file a counter-notice which would put the video back up unless the claimant decides to sue. Since YouTube allows copyright holders to take down a video without going through the DMCA, then the video owner loses the right to file a counter-notice, and the copyright holder gets the final word on whether the video is taken down.

Note that this is dead wrong.

Content ID claims can be disputed, and if the rights owner doesn't convert it to a DMCA claim then the content goes back up.

TIL, thanks. Although, based on https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en, it looks like the rights owner can delay the appeal process for up to 60 days, keeping the video down (since you have to file a dispute which gives them 30 days to respond, and then an appeal which gives them another 30).

Yes.

If they choose to take revenue, then that revenue is held in escrow. If they choose to take the video down or demonetize it, then it appears that the video goes back up but is unmonetized during the dispute process.

"If the policy is set to block (don't allow users to view the video on YouTube) or track (allow users to view the video without advertisements), this policy may be temporarily lifted until your dispute is resolved. Learn more about policy and claim basics. During this time, your video cannot be monetized."

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 (click "file a dispute", then "What happens after you dispute?"

> then that revenue is held in escrow

This maybe a translation/different legal point of view, but I really doubt it's being held in escrow.

If it's being held in escrow, google would've provided the other party with the details to check the account with the third party.

I could be mistaken but I really doubt your google escrow assertion. Provide me with a statement of google in which they make that claim and I'll happily retract my statement.

Google holds it in escrow and doesn't give it to either side until resolved.

See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en

Escrow means an independent third party holds on to the money. It's a lot more complex than that, but let's take this simplified position as a starting point.

The things you posted only justified my position. Google holds the money, not an independent party.

If you say you hold something in escrow but actually keep the money for yourself during that time... well, in my region judges really don't appreciate that kind of argument.

Google is independent from the two parties in any dispute. I don't really care about your pedantry about terminology. We're not in court.

OK, I have karma to spare...

Not even google is claiming to put it in escrow otherwise you would've given me a link where they claimed it was.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to say that google holds on to the money... that's fine because they do. But don't claim it's in escrow because you clearly don't even understand what it is.

dang: it's ok to delete my account I'm done with this.

Oh great! Now I get downvoted because I know what escrow means. It would help if those who bothered to downvote me would provide a link where google says they held the money in escrow instead of a link where they said they would just hold on to the money.

dang: It's ok to delete my account i'm done with this bullshit

>> The root cause is that 70+ years is laughably high for copyright to last. It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time.

Sounds like this would just screw the little guy. Warner aren't going to have a problem paying an increasing fee every decade when their works are still bringing in large amounts of money. The people this would hurt are the smaller artists eeking out a living suddenly losing a large chuck of their income.

Maybe the 70 years shouldn't be a fixed number but should vary based on 'sales' each year. Or you lose copyright after a certain 'sales' threshold. That way everyone gets to make a 'fair' amount of money from their works before losing copyright. Easier said than done though.

On the other hand, having to explicitly re-up copyright means no more vaguery on who owns what.

I agree that's a good idea, I just don't agree with the increasing financial cost each time you re-up.

The increasing cost is meant to appease entities like Disney, who can't let properties like Mickey Mouse escape their hands. Thus, there is a system for them to retain their copyright indefinitely, though at a cost.

Yes, that would help with that problem.

If it were up to me I would just abolish copyrights and patents. But, another idea I have seen is that copyright lasts 2 years for free, and then after that you have to pay a fee (of your choice) to the government to retain copyright; copyright expires in 14 years. However, anyone can make it public domain early if they pay the copyright holder 100 times the fee for retaining copyright.

Maybe make it an exponentially increasing cost, such that most people can afford 2-3 renewals, but the cost increases steeply after that. The first $X per renewal could go to the copyright office, and everything above that to the Library of Congress.

> It should be changed to 10 years with the ability to update every 10 years with a higher cost financially each time

So Disney, The Beatles, The Stones (etc) could all afford to stay copyrighted indefinitely, but all my content would enter into public domain (and exploitable by megacorps) after 10 years?

I don't disagree that there are existing issues, but I think you'd just be introducing more.

The financial cost should be exponential in nature with no die off. Maybe the first couple would be affordable like 40 years worth.

    initial         - $         0
    10 year renewal - $        50
    20 year renewal - $       500
    30 year renewal - $     5,000
    40 year renewal - $   500,000
    50 year renewal - $ 5,000,000
    60 year renewal - $50,000,000
     n year renewal - a_{n-1} * 10

Note all of those numbers should be inflation adjusted as needed. Especially considering that most money is made in the first couple of years.

Maybe treat characters and franchises as trademarks instead too. Make it a use it or lose it after the copyright expires.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com