• TrickyNuance@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    With that strategy, we’d wind up with shell people holding copyrights on behalf of corporations.

    Edit: Just wanted to add that I am definitely for the reduction of copyright duration, just that this particular solution has a somewhat amusing flaw.

    • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well then make it impossible to transfer the copyright. In most jurisdiction it’s not possible anyway. You can only licence it, not transfer.

      I guess it might be difficult to figure out shared copyright in teamwork, but indie teams work just fine, and it’s still a better option than corpus sitting on a golden pile of IPs.

      • Pigeon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like the idea of non-transferable copyrights a lot. That would make the “this is motivation for innovation / just protects inventors and artists” claim a lot more believable to me. I don’t think it should even be passable to descendents/“estates”.

        And maybe also disallow “our employees’ inventions/creative work copyright automatically goes to the company” clauses. This would be… Waaaay more complicated to sort out, but still worth thinking about imo.

        • cavemeat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That sounds a good solution to me, and it would fix many of the issues with modern copyright law. Although I feel “lost profits” for companies would mean that this would never be implemented.

    • png@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      oh thats easy to solve though. If the corporation wants to profit off of it and made it, it has to obtain the copyright.