Audience’s Rights Reform #1: Copyright
Tom Scott once said, “YouTube’s copyright system isn’t broken. The world’s is.” He was correct, and the reasons are far deeper than YouTube’s algorithms. As it stands, copyright law is terribly imbalanced. It hinders creativity, blocks learning, locks away culturally valuable works, and prioritizes corporate greed over the public good. The goal of copyright should be to encourage creation and access, not restrict them. Laws should favour the many, not the few. Here are some areas where reforms are called for.
Reform A: Fan works
Fanfiction, fan games, and fan-made tribute videos are among the most popular and diverse forms of creativity. They have become increasingly common in recent years, and yet, most companies regard them as threats to be extinguished.
In 2016, Nintendo issued a cease-and-desist against Adam “Koolboyman” Vierra, halting development of his fan games Pokémon Prism and Pokémon Rijon Adventures. These fan projects, intended as grateful tribute to the Pokémon franchise, were erased without any sort of due process. This decision outraged thousands of Pokémon fans. A new development team (Rainbow Devs) took over Prism, but Rijon Adventures remains abandoned.
Fan works enrich culture and foster community. They should be allowed to flourish, provided they are free of charge, clearly marked as unofficial material, and avoid defamation or harmful content. One possible solution would be to add banner ads to fanfiction and fan game websites. This way, ad revenue could be directed to the rights holders, while fans would be permitted to share their work. Lawmakers should protect transformative fan expression, not criminalize it.
Reform B: Commercial adaptations
Some creators or estates block adaptations indefinitely, even when public demand is extremely high. Many people would like a film adaptation of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, but to date, none exists because Roald Dahl objected. Artistic control matters — within reason. When a refusal serves only personal preference, it can freeze culture in place. Commercial adaptations should generally be allowed, as long as they are respectful, pay fair royalties, and meet ethical standards. Copyright should balance individual control with collective cultural benefit.
That said, commercial adaptations should be held to a higher standard than fan works, especially regarding to the “do no harm” rules. By maintaining previously established negative stereotypes about dwarves, Disney’s 2025 live-action Snow White remake failed this test. It was therefore met with significant backlash upon release. Conversely, Ernest Cline’s novel Ready Player One saw a successful and popular adaptation in Steven Spielberg’s 2018 film. Spielberg’s film demonstrates how an adaptation can respectfully diverge from the source material, while preserving core themes. Thoughtful, respectful adaptations serve only to enrich the cultural landscape.
Reform C: Automated takedowns
Fair use was meant to safeguard learning and satire, yet automated copyright systems routinely erase both. Geography Now lost its Kyrgyzstan episode to a claim; CrashCourse and Open Library have faced similar removals. The parody series Dragon Ball Z Abridged was struck down by bots despite being clearly transformative.
Educational and nonprofit material should never vanish because of algorithms. Every removal should require human review and a clear appeals process, complete with restoration of past deletions. Access to knowledge and parody is a right, not a glitch.
Reform D: Public access
Completed works sometimes disappear entirely, locked in archives or dismantled servers. When the online game City of Heroes shut down in 2012, its world was destroyed and official access ended forever.
Copyright should include a “use it or lose it” clause: if a work goes unused or unreleased for a certain length of time (perhaps 20 years), it should enter the public domain unless the rights holder renews with genuine intent to distribute. Libraries and museums should also have explicit rights to archive and share inaccessible works non-commercially. Art that no one can experience isn’t protected — it’s imprisoned.
Reform E: Dormant intellectual properties
Popular franchises can remain frozen for years on end, even when demand for revival is extremely high. Banjo-Kazooie has not seen a true sequel since 2008, despite longstanding and ever-increasing public demand.
Playtonic Games was founded by former Rare developers Steve Hurst, Steve Mayles, Gavin Price, Jens Restemeier, Mark Stevenson, and Chris Sutherland. They went on to create the platform game Yooka-Laylee, a heartfelt tribute to Banjo-Kazooie. This is especially remarkable; a Banjo-Kazooie revival is called for by audiences and artists alike.
If Rare/Microsoft remains uninterested, then they should be obligated to appoint a successor to keep the franchise going. Copyright should nurture living culture, not memorialize it.
Reform F: Charitable copyrights
Existing charitable copyrights should remain. Most famously, in 1929, James Matthew Barrie gave his Peter Pan copyright in perpetuity to London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children. Since then, the play has seen numerous adaptations, and the royalties have saved countless young lives.
But at the same time, companies should not be allowed to hand over their works to a charity with the sole purpose of dodging the revised rules. That would defeat the purpose of these reform ideas.