View Single Post
Old 05-29-2008, 06:19 PM   #10
moz
Addict
moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.moz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.
 
moz's Avatar
 
Posts: 368
Karma: 1553
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Melbun
Device: Sony PRS-505
Steve, you're taking the existing law in the US as the description of what copyright should be. Which is quite backwards.

Will more people be encouraged to write if they know that they can go to their grave never having allowed anyone to publish their work? Or will more people write if they know that they have 10 years from publication before copyright lapses? I suspect the latter.

More usefully, will more people do fun remixes of existing work if they gain the right to do so 10 years after first publication of a recording? For that reason alone I am inclined to support a "10 years absolute control, 10 years compulsory license" type model. That prevents unreasonable control while paying artists, and means that in the case where someone wants to reproduce a copyright work in the second period they merely have to pay a license fee, there's no negotiation (unless they want a lower fee that the statutory one).
moz is offline   Reply With Quote