Hacker News Reader

Comment by samwillis | Hacker News Reader

Interesting idea, although I want to understand why do this? What is fundamentally wrong with the current system, I honestly want to know?

Also, this is a tax on unrealised gains is it not?

View on HN

> What is fundamentally wrong with the current system, I honestly want to know?

Consider all those works that are in the public domain and that can be shared freely. Iconic pictures like the Mona Lisa are available to the benefit of everyone. No one owns the exclusive rights and everyone has access to this shared cultural history.

There's also collateral damage with the current copyright system. A lot of lesser known works have little commercial/brand value. But they remain illegal to share. These works are at risk of becoming lost culture. And in many cases the original authors don't own the rights to release the works into the public domain at an earlier time, because they have contracts with publishers.

To add to this, many works are simply unavailable. Works from before copyright became effectively perpetual are easily found. Works from the most recent decade or two are easily found. Anything in-between is frequently lost, with only the outliers remaining.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-m...

> What is fundamentally wrong with the current system, I honestly want to know?

It effectively locks away cultural heritage for more than a hundred years with no tangible benefit to the society.

Disney became Disney because it used works in public domains (Brothers Grimm tales) and expired copyrights (Alice in Wonderland). Current copyright laws effectively blocks anyone from using 20th century works (and some late 19th century works) for ... well, anything, really.

Additionally, great swaths of culture are simply lost because of:

- the fear of potential copyright violations. This affects a great number of orphan works

- copyright holders doing nothing with their properties and others not being able to do anything with them. Can't find it now, but at one point Amazon carried more new books with works from the 19th century, than books with works from the 20th just because of that

But even that isn't the main problem. Copyright was intended to protect the author and incentivize them to create other works. I'm eagerly awaiting Tolkien's new works in 2047 (the copyright on The Fellowship of the Ring expires in 2050).

If there are no gains, the option is to release it or value it as nil and let someone else do it. So it's up to the owner of the copyright and I see no real unrealized gains tax.

Say you own the copyright on an old film you made, but are doing nothing with it (and making practically nothing) but plan to in the future (you have a plan to in say 10 years time). You are projecting that the value of the IP is something based on what you plan to do with it.

So it is 100% a tax on unrealised gains.

I complexly understand why some people will not be sympathetic to this.

I would think that long lasting copyrights stifle innovation and competition.

Where is the incentive to do something new or to allow new players an ability to use works in a new way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com