One thing that has bothered me, more and more over the years, is the current situation with Copyrights (and the trend behind the changes over the past 40 years or so). As such, I have been thinking a lot about the changes I would recommend. I have my desired position on it, as well as some fallback positions that I could ultimately compromise for.
Here are the fundamentals of what I think Copyright should be:
a single term of 28 years, unable to be extended for any purpose.
only able to held by actual human beings (not business entities).
must be available to the public-at-large for purchase for at least 180 consecutive days during each 2 year period.
non-transferable.
The single term of 28 years promises to build up our culture by releasing more and more of our works (ours, as in the people of our nation) back into the public domain for the benefit of our entire society. This was a concept that was considered vital at one time, but now has been pretty much destroyed in favor of having some continue to rake in the bucks from old ideas. On that point, it will also increase innovation by decreasing the amount of time each person has exclusive control over their ideas, as well as increasing the pool of content that could inspire the next innovations.
The purpose of Copyright is to give individuals a reasonable amount of time for exclusive control of their own ideas. As such, it is not about giving businesses the same control. Every copyright will be owned by individuals and only those actual human beings will be able to control the use of it during their exclusive period.
My idea of dealing with copyright trolls is the basis behind the requirement that the copyrighted idea be made available for purchase by the public-at-large for a consecutive 180 day period within each 2 year period. This would prevent the stockpiling of copyrights for the sole purpose of suing infringers. The knowledge that they must market this product for 6 months out of every 2 year window would require that their business model consist of more than just filing litigation. As well, big business would no longer be able to bury copyrighted works indefinitely while suing those (sometimes the original creator of the works) who try to bring it out to the people. Anyone who does not meet these requirements risks losing their copyright, if found to be non-compliant.
The non-transferable clause is to prevent the hording of copyrights by entities who never create anything. Since this whole concept was to make sure the original artist got exclusive control and was able to use this to earn an income and buy things like food, we cannot allow this to be transferred to others. Control stays with the originator until they either die, or the 28 year term expires (whichever comes first).
If these are not to be met, and the current concept of ever-increasing Copyright terms is preferred, then they must not be treated as criminal activity going forward. The only thing worse than the current trend of increasing term lengths is the trend of expanding the criminal charges for it. If you want to treat it as criminal activity, then you simply must have a reasonable term limit that sees that material enter the public domain within a few decades. If you are willing to make it a civil matter, as it used to be and patent infringement currently is, then you can keep the terms at hundreds of years.
