Copyright extensions mandate eternal soggy potato chips

ONE OF THE raging debates in the IT world now involves copyrights, and its extensions. The problem is that some people, and corporations, want copyrights to be extended pretty much indefinitely. Others want them to expire after a very short period, much shorter than the decades that it now takes. To make matters more interesting, both sides have fairly compelling arguments why the other side is evil, and will bring about the end of democracy, ruin free enterprise, and mandate soggy potato chips. Woe to us.

The pro-copyright people have been winning the day so far, basically extending the length of copyrights a decade or so every time the earliest of things they care about are about to go into the public domain. Copyright foes tend to point out that the original idea behind copyrights were to allow someone creating a literary work to be able to make a decent profit from the work without someone outright stealing it. From the time most books, movies and records are made, the money brought in by them is large at first, and drops off precipitously after a short while. After a decade, the money that comes in is usually laughable, and the pittance that trickles in 20 years later is not worth bothering with.

The pro-copyright people will point out that there are exceptions, lucrative ones at that. Most bands that are not complete record company puppets have some really good stuff that dates to the 80s and before. Elvis still sells records long after the toilet incident. A very very small portion of copyright holders make a very very large number of dollars off the old stuff, and would be quite annoyed if they lost this income. Corporations are even more worried, with Disney at the top of the list.

Ah Disney, the lobbyist and lawyer wielding home of artificial happiness. They have some things that are teetering on the edge of copyright expiry that are quite lucrative. What would they do if the characters we all know and love were no longer exclusively theirs? They would have to, gasp, "innovate" and create new works! While this would benefit the public, it would most likely destroy Disney, and old Walt would be spinning in his cryogenic tube.

So, who is right, and who would be hurt worst by the extension or repeal of copyrights? Well, both, and both, respectively. The reality of the situation is that there are precious few entities that would be harmed by a copyright expiry, but they would be hurt a lot, in dollar terms anyway. The estate of several 1920s bluegrass singers would probably not be devastated by the loss of revenue on those wax cylinders. Frank Sinatra Jr. would probably say otherwise. The various camps, and about 200 other groups, some with an interest, some without are all taking extreme positions, and seem unwilling to compromise at all. Disney spends a lot of money every 15 years or so to buy senators who will protect the large eared creations of old Walt. Other people point out that bending the laws to keep the cash flowing to the already rich contravenes the point of the original laws. No compromises are in sight.

So what is the right path between the sides that will keep both camps happy? Easy, a tiered copyright system. Right now, [US] copyrights are more or less free to get, and the office that oversees them is woefully under funded, like most government entities not tasked with killing people. A system that has a copyright expire after 20 years would cover most things that need copyrights, allowing the authors to make the money they deserve. The second tier of a new copyright law would help out that tiny percentage of the population that needs more protection.

That tier would be voluntary, and would cost money. After the first 20 years, extending the copyright for another 10 years would be doable for a minimal fee, say $100 per copyrighted work. If you are still making money off of something after 20 years, or care enough about it to want to keep it 'yours', $10 a year is a pittance. Disney loses more than that each day in the couches of the corporate restrooms. So far so good.

When the first extended term expires at year 30, the copyrights can be extended again, but this time it costs more, $1000, or $100 a year. Again, if you have a potentially large financial gain from the works, this is trivial. Beatles records still sell more than $1000 a year. Each decade thereafter, the extension fee would go up by an order of magnitude, capping off at $1 million for each decade after the 70th year. It could be done indefinitely, at a cost. Is it worth it for the big boys to spend $100K a year to keep Mickey Mouse out of hentai sites? You bet. Is it worth it for everyone? That is up to the individual. Some will drop out after 30 or so years, some before it costs anything. Very very few would hit the top tier.

This plan could be phased in, everyone starts at the $100 level when the next extension time comes. At that time, most people would drop out, and the anti-copyright forces would be happy. Disney would up the price for a large Coke at Disneyland by one cent, and make up the money in a week. All of the money collected could go to the copyright office to enforce the laws, ease the process, and protect the rights of those covered. They could hire more lawyers, prevent mistakes, and hopefully badger people enough so they don't miss out on a renewal. Overall, it is a win/win for all involved.

Protecting the weak and the powerful, while creating a system that is self-sustaining, without government funding. Could it work? Of course. Would it put lobbyists out of business? Sure. What is there not to like? µ