If you had a vote for copyright?

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Personally, I have no problem with copyright for something lasting the lifetime of the creator, it just is when it lasts for longer that I have a problem. Copyright is for helping artists create more works, by letting them profit off their past work. Problem is, most heirs don't create more art. I say, life +10 or +20. Lets the heirs respect the wishes of the artist, and get things after the artist's death cleared up, but not create a career off managing the copyright.

I personally don't think "lifetime" should play into the equation at all. One person might live 70 years after they publish, another person could die the day after they publish. This is way to variable. It should just be a standard length of time, no more than 10 years in my opinion...

[Ekaros]

10 year is short time for such material as books. 10 years from last print might be acceptable. Orphaned works would enter public domain faster. I would give some time for author, not his entire life, but good amount.

[DiapDealer]

Sheesh. I'd hate to play "who would win a fight between..." with you guys!

If you had to vote to either completely get rid of all copyright or to have it last forever which would you choose?

If I had to make a decision between "no copyright at all" and "copyright forever and ever amen": I'd choose no copyright at all.

Answers to questions don't always have to be useful.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I personally don't think "lifetime" should play into the equation at all. One person might live 70 years after they publish, another person could die the day after they publish. This is way to variable. It should just be a standard length of time, no more than 10 years in my opinion...

Personally, I'd like to see a renewal process, so that every 10 or 15 years, or however long, the copyright owner has to go and renew the copyright, and if they fail to do so, it drops off into the public domain early. The lifetime is basically a period in which it cannot exceed. So, if it is renewed every 15 years, and they renew it the day before they die, someone else cannot come along and just keep renewing it indefinitely. It

One reason I want a renewal process, is that it helps sort out orphaned works, as well as help with a way to find the copyright owner to contact them, since theoretically a relatively up to date contact address should be on file for the copyright.

[caleb72]

I voted to do away with it forever, but only because I think that there would need to be some other incentive created for artists etc.. as a replacement. For the record, I have no problem with copyright for a limited period of time.

I would not vote for copyright forever though.

[The Terminator]

In my opinion no one would have ebooks if copyright was to short.

I think the family of the dead author should be able to profit from the sale of a book for as many years as they can. I think that Life + 50 is pretty fair.

[tubemonkey]

Forever, baby

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

Since I can't give your friend Karma, you get it! What a great post.

But if this person has a family, that book can bring more income to that family. Way to go taking money from the family.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Next time, try a realistic poll. This one should be in the Lounge with an "unutterably silly" tag on it.

So, I'll say: Forever, plus the age of next of kin, plus the age of their cats (all 9 lives), plus however long it takes for the pickled herring to go bad in the fridge. Then add a week, just to piss everyone off.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But if this person has a family, that book can bring more income to that family. Way to go taking money from the family.

Sarcasm, I hope?

[RainingLemur]

Given the hard-line choice between the two, I'd say do away with it entirely.

[sun surfer]

To those who want a specific time period for copyright, especially a short one such as ten years, and not a "life+": What would you say to a poor author who publishes a book that bombs at first, but the minute it lapses out of copyright somehow it becomes a huge Harry Potter type phenom, leaving the author still poor?

As far as the "family" dilemma after the author's death goes, here's how I see it: Right now, an author could write a bestseller at say 20, live to 110, and then her great-great-grandchildren who're already rich could keep on rolling in the dough without lifting a finger for more than another half a century, keeping a work in copyright well over even 150 years possibly, which is just silly. Also, let's not forget that estates with copyright can choose not to print something and hoard it, depriving the world of easy access to the work until generations later when it finally goes out of copyright.

I haven't thought on it much until just now, but my first instinct for books would be something like: 50 years or life+20, non-renewable and whichever comes later. This would protect the author's actual family in case the author dies young (and not some money-grubbing descendants of the author), and the author herself in case the work doesn't become successful until years later, while being short enough to give the world the work of art in a timely manner and not being so long and drawn out just for the sake of making a few people richer who don't necessarily deserve it.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

I haven't thought on it much until just now, but my first instinct for books would be something like: 50 years or life+20, non-renewable and whichever comes later. This would protect the author's actual family in case the author dies young (and not some money-grubbing descendants of the author), and the author herself in case the work doesn't become successful until years later, while being short enough to give the world the work of art in a timely manner and not being so long and drawn out just for the sake of making a few people richer who don't necessarily deserve it.

What you're suggesting is having a relatively long certain term (50 years) compared to the uncertain term (life + 20 years), on the grounds that this ensures that works receive a more equal length of protection.

Which is precisely the argument made in the mid-19th century in the UK parliament by Macauley. Only he set the limit to 42 years or the lifetime of the author, whichever is longer.

The main problem with any significant copyright reform is the Berne Convention, which specifies a minimum term of life+50.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Problem is, most heirs don't create more art.

But some certainly do - eg the posthumous works of J.R.R. Tolkein edited and published by his son and literary executor, Christopher Tolkein. We certainly wouldn't have that without copyright protection. Much of it isn't especially interesting, certainly, but there are some real gems there.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But some certainly do - eg the posthumous works of J.R.R. Tolkein edited and published by his son and literary executor, Christopher Tolkein. We certainly wouldn't have that without copyright protection. Much of it isn't especially interesting, certainly, but there are some real gems there.

Well doesn't most of it come from unpublished notes that only he has access to?
So he is the only person who can create the new works, and once he does so he has his own copyright in those.