[Coco] Copyright

[gene heskett]

On Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:28:21 pm Allen Huffman did opine:

> On Jan 15, 2011, at 9:07 PM, gene heskett <gheskett at wdtv.com> wrote:
> > Chuckle.  But I wouldn't ask corporate for advice on that Allen, as
> > they have no intention of ever letting a copyright expire. :(
> 
> My understanding of intent was that copyright would protect someones
> creation so they could make money off of it, then expire to encourage
> new ideas to have to be developed.
> 
> Fine and dandy. Does a grandkid have the rights to live off of something
> they had nothing to do with creating? Big question.
> 
Not without 'paying their dues'.

> Disney continues to use Mickey Mouse. Without that, the company would
> become less and less since following creations mean less and less in
> the modern fragmented media world. So should it have released sometime
> after Walt Disney passed away? If it's still actively being used, maybe
> not. If it's collector dust (orphanware) maybe...
> 
> Its a mess, long term, but at least during the creators lifetime they
> should have the Right to specify who cab Copy their works. Seems fair.
> 
I would, if I had the power, set its duration back to the original 7? 
years, first registration by an individual being free and renewable 
thereafter, every 7 years for a fee of $100 + 3% of the realized income 
from that copyright over the past 7 years.  That way, a money making 
copyright could be maintained, in perpetuity by the company the author 
founded to exploit it (Disney et all) that actually owns the copyright.  
That way a profitable copyright could be maintained.  I would raise that 
fee however, if the copyright has changed hands away from the original 
authors copyright, either by the company being gobbled up, or the original 
author _and_ owner of the company has passed so that no one involved with 
the creation still exists.  In that event, the renewal fee would be $1000 + 
6%.  Company copyrights, where the creation is a group effort and not 
assignable to a single person as responsible creator in the registration 
form first submitted, should be the $1000 up front and the 6% fee for the 
subsequent renewals.

That would encourage un-profitable copyrights to fall into the public 
domain fairly quickly.  And Disney et all could afford to keep their very 
real and valuable stuff until such time as the boardroom looks at the P&L 
for Mickey and decides not to renew.  I don't see that happening to Mickey 
Mouse in the foreseeable future, given all the trinkets they sell in his 
name at the parks even if they never make another movie.

That sounds fair to me.  Serving the vested interest of both the Disney's 
and the public good.  It might even generate enough income to actually run 
the registration office and maintain a central clearing house of just who 
the heck does own this stuff.  Right now I'd guess that 99% of the stuff 
below the top 1000 money makers, no one has a clue who owns it until 
somebody steps forward with prior art they can prove the provenance of in a 
court of law.

But just because it makes sense, we will have flying pigs to throw 
snowballs at in hell before that happens. :(

Sigh.  I want my country back.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Because the wine remembers.