Thread by @parismarx

In “A New Copyright Bargain?”, @rgibli says that existing international #copyright laws are based on a number of assumptions that either no longer apply or have been disproven.

Is it time for a reexamination of the system we’ve developed?

One of those assumptions is that #copyright is a way to incentivize cultural production, but history and empirical evidence shows us the optimal copyright term to incentivize production is only 15-25 years.

Long copyright terms can actually discourage creativity.

It's also assumed that #copyright is necessary to encourage ongoing investment in existing works, but again empirical evidence shows the reverse: works in the public domain are more readily available.

Digitization is making it even easier for investment in public domain titles.

And what about compensation for the author?

Unsurprisingly, @rgibli explains that authors benefit little from #copyright and their motivation for creation is rarely for economic gain, making it even easier for companies to take advantage of them because they don't have a union.

Part of the impetus for long #copyright terms was that most published works would disappear regardless because of high production costs, so at least publishers would have to keep paying royalties for those that were available.

But new tech means that's no longer the case.

Given that these assumptions to justify long #copyright terms no longer apply, @rgibli asserts that even though existing treaties will be difficult to change, aspects of copyright can still be changed to make things better.

Key to this reimagining of #copyright would be the automatic reversion of rights after 25 years.

As @rgibli explains, it could not only create new revenue streams for authors (especially working with #libraries), but could also reduce the oligopolistic power of publishers.

Further, for works that authors no longer care to exploit, rights could go to an “author’s domain” in which a cultural steward uses the proceeds from those titles to support future authorship. Authors could take rights back at any time.

I actually really love this, @rgibli.

.@rgibli’s research makes us really consider whether #copyright is working, and who it’s working for (rarely the author).

It is also provides solutions that would make a big difference, while fitting within the framework of existing international treaties.

I couldn't help but wonder, while reading, how #selfpublishing might respond to these proposals.

Unfortunately, I’ve found selfpub to be happy, if not celebratory, of long copyright terms. I’ve not noticed much critical appraisal of larger, systemic impacts among those authors.

Whether they would be concerned with systemic effects and impacts on trad authors, I’m not sure, but there would be clear benefit for those who pursue a “hybrid” self- and trad-pub model and an “author’s domain” could be ultimately beneficial to all—authors, and the wider public.

You can read @rgibli’s full paper, “A New Copyright Bargain?: Reclaiming Lost Culture and Getting Authors Paid,” for free here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@rgibli If you found this intriguing, I also did a thread on another of @rgibli’s papers comparing availability of copyright and public domain titles in US, Canada, Australia, and NZ.

https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1138517696335757312