I think it's a lot less clear what the societal benefits of forcing copyrights to expire are. For patents, it's much more clear -- a patent prevents others from copying the invention, so its expiration allows other to use that invention for economically interesting purposes, which have a net societal benefit. So on the one hand, the temporary monopoly allows the inventor to profit from their invention, and costs others their ability to exploit it, and after a certain amount of time, those needs are reversed.
For copyrights, in the purest form, what do you really get from letting it expire? The only really tangible benefit is to allow people to obtain the work without having to pay anyone, and (theoretically) make it easier to preserve and distribute orphaned works without the permission of the creator. It seems like as a lawmaker, it's really not that hard to rationalize saying "I can pass this legislation, extending copyright, or I can directly cause Disney to forfeit X million dollars in revenue".
At least with a patent expiration, you can counterweight that by saying "I can extend the patent, and Boeing continues to get X dollars, or I can allow the patent to expire, and other companies get to use that invention to make Y dollars." The tradeoff is a little clearer.
I would love to see better rules for copyrights moving to the public domain, not so much for the sake of Mickey Mouse, but rather for obscure and orphaned works, as well as simply decreasing the cost for the consumer to improve accessibility. But it's very easy in my mind to see why this is unlikely to happen.
That's an interesting point actually. Maybe there should be multiple stages to copyright expiry, where the opportunities to create derivative works open up over time, without the work itself entering the public domain just yet.
Derivative works are where most off the societal value lies. Something like videogame publishers owning any footage of their game being played is absurd.
> For copyrights, in the purest form, what do you really get from letting it expire? The only really tangible benefit is to allow people to obtain the work without having to pay anyone, and (theoretically) make it easier to preserve and distribute orphaned works without the permission of the creator.
Just as society gained from Disney's being allowed to use the stories and characters of Sleeping Beauty or The Little Mermaid, we would similarly gain from new artists being able to give us new takes on Disney stories and characters.
Or mashups - perhaps your Columbo novel could feature Mickey Mouse...
Let me tell you about it. There are three interleaved narratives.
One is about an elderly actor who played the TV role for so long that he's no longer sure if he's an actor or the actual detective. The second is about a real life police detective called Frank Columbo who is plagued by his identity with the fictional detective and who he resembles in almost every particular. The third is about the actual Columbo.
All three are simultaneously solving different murders, all of which have their exposition up front - in the classic Columbo style.
Just add an minimum annual tax for keeping a copyright. Currently holding copyright on older works has little or no cost once it starts costing money that would change.
It could be a dollar per year past it's copyright. That way there is little to no burden to the holder but lets lesser works free. Therefore abandoned works get released.
For copyrights, in the purest form, what do you really get from letting it expire? The only really tangible benefit is to allow people to obtain the work without having to pay anyone, and (theoretically) make it easier to preserve and distribute orphaned works without the permission of the creator. It seems like as a lawmaker, it's really not that hard to rationalize saying "I can pass this legislation, extending copyright, or I can directly cause Disney to forfeit X million dollars in revenue".
At least with a patent expiration, you can counterweight that by saying "I can extend the patent, and Boeing continues to get X dollars, or I can allow the patent to expire, and other companies get to use that invention to make Y dollars." The tradeoff is a little clearer.
I would love to see better rules for copyrights moving to the public domain, not so much for the sake of Mickey Mouse, but rather for obscure and orphaned works, as well as simply decreasing the cost for the consumer to improve accessibility. But it's very easy in my mind to see why this is unlikely to happen.