I was being glib. Copyright law should be reviewed and the Mickey Mouse extensions revoked, or some provision for brand identifying figures, or perhaps actively used intellectual property be made. After all, Mickey Mouse isn't defunct, and it isn't because of their lobbying.
I think you're confusing copyright with trademark. Trademarks are based on active use and can be renewed indefinitely.
Copyright, on the other hand, has nothing to do with whether or not a property is "defunct". The Jungle Book wasn't defunct when it went into the public domain; if it were, Disney wouldn't have started making a movie out of it the very same year. (This, Stross acknowledges, is the main hazard of short copyright terms: companies sitting and waiting until something goes into public domain so they don't have to compensate the rightsholders.)
The public domain isn't just for abandoned works. If it were, the works of Shakespeare would still be under copyright.
The reason copyright expires is so that a single entity can't keep a monopoly on an idea -- an important piece of art or culture.
Indeed, flip it around -- the reason copyright EXISTS is so that a creator can TEMPORARILY claim a monopoly on an idea, an important piece of art or culture, in order to be compensated for that idea and therefore have incentive to publish it in the first place.
So no, Disney's welcome to keep its trademark on Mickey Mouse, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the idea that Plane Crazy and Steamboat Willie should still be held under copyright.
I believe that not only should copyright terms be shorter, but that corporate copyrights should expire SOONER than individual copyrights instead of later. This will actually incentivize corporations to grant ownership and favorable contracts to artists. (I also think work-for-hire agreements should come with a royalty clause that's automatically triggered above a certain threshold, but I think that's a separate argument.)
As for DRM, our conversations have never been productive. Neither of us like it, however I am willing to accept that it will inevitably occur, and choose the lesser evils where I can. There are in fact several games, mostly from UbiSoft, that I've been planning to by but chose not to because of some kind of DRM that crossed the line, and no, I can't tell you where the line is. It's where the DRM bugs me enough that I'm unwilling to put up with it for the product, which is somewhere between none and sub-dermal implants.
And if you claim I disagree with any of that the you are mischaracterizing my stance.
The distinction between your view and mine is precisely where the line is -- and, I suppose, just how "inevitable" DRM is. It's pretty well dead in the music industry and I think the other industries must eventually follow, it's just a matter of how soon.
(I suppose that software is the one medium where DRM actually may persist, because they're the one medium where it could, hypothetically, actually work -- in the case of a pure streaming system where the computer/console you use is effectively a dumb terminal and the program is never copied into memory but run entirely from a remote server. Due to its interactive nature, software COULD actually be "protected" this way -- but no other medium can. You stream a movie, well, you've just copied the entire movie into memory, and there's going to be SOME mechanism for the user to extract that information no matter how you obfuscate it. Same with books, music, every form of passive entertainment.)
(Tangentially, software should be subject to much, much shorter copyright terms than other media, because its value to its owner degrades quickly while its value to the public degrades more slowly. What the fuck is MS doing with NT 3.x code? What, by contrast, could a group of enterprising hackers do with it?)
Also, you've a tendency to tell me that if DRM inhibits my ability to play a game the way I want to, then I'm doing it wrong, and am wrong for not spending money on a thing that doesn't work the way I want it to.
Regarding punishing infringement, I think that's the way to go. During the hearings I watched live on Thursday it was brought up that we don't go after the Postal Service for shipping something illegal, we go after the person who posted it. This is basically how I feel about copyright infringement.
Too vague -- because EVERYBODY is an infringer. You are, I am, and, as YouHaveDownloaded has demonstrated to nobody's surprise, so are the
RIAA and MPAA.
It is literally impossible to sue every infringer. So Big Content has two choices: go after random targets, or prioritize. (Or both, I suppose.)
Obviously the more rational choice is to prioritize, to go after the big targets.
Which brings us to:
Though I must admit that when it's media groups and not actual artists complaining I have trouble mustering even crocodile tears.
And this is precisely because the biggest copyright infringers ARE the fuckers filing the suits.
The YouHaveDownloaded stuff is fish-in-a-barrel, but I've recently posted links indicating much more serious infringement: Universal's illegal sale of songs it didn't own the rights to, its repeated fraudulent takedown notices, various corporations fraudulently claiming copyright on public domain videos on YouTube...
I really can't see lawsuits as a way to effectively enforce copyright, precisely BECAUSE they are heavily stacked in favor of the rich companies that are actually responsible for the most egregious abuses. Even under the laws they've written.