Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
I partly agree, in that to me life + 50 is ideal.
However, any renewal term will increase the costs and complexities for artists, publishers, and government agencies alike.
In terms of the examples, I think you're missing the extremity of Elfwreck's $2000 registration. It would likely bankrupt creative professionals who try to keep up. How does what amounts to a "Copyright Tax" actually encourage people to create?
There is no question in my mind that automatic copyright is beneficial for and helps promote the arts, and that registration just makes it harder to do the work.
|
I don't think there is a right answer for copyright terms. Anything you choose is essentially arbitrary. If you use Life+X, a renewal term may be pointless. But if you want something less than Life, then a renewal process is to the advantage of copyright holders. It is only an additional cost to those who wish to extend their copyright, which is primarily those whose work continues to generate income. And they will happily jump through a small hoop to get that income to continue.
How does a "Copyright Tax" encourage people to create? I would say it isn't the tax itself, but the limited term. (The tax encourages works that don't continue to generate profits to enter the public domain, which is a separate benefit to society.) Here's the logic, as I see it (I'll use an author for simplicity):
1. The existence of copyright encourages me to write and publish a book, because it allows me the opportunity to profit from it and make a living.
2. Most of the profits from most books are realized in the first X years (say 20, or 50 even) after initial publication.
3. Therefore, a protection of X years instead of X+100 years (or anything longer than X) will still be sufficient protection to incent me to write and publish my book.
4. If I need continuing income beyond year X, then the fact that my copyright will expire encourages me to write another book in those X years.
One more analogy:
Insurance agents earn commissions by selling policies. Depending on the company, they may earn 10% of the premiums paid by the policyholder annually for the 10 years following the sale. Even if they make a bunch of huge sales in their first year on the job, they still have an incentive to sell (i.e. create) every year, because even though the 10 years of commissions made it worth it to them to work for the original sales, they still need income after the 10 years are up.
I don't claim that 20 years is the right term, or that $2000 for a renewal is the right price, but that something like 20 years plus 20 year renewal for a non-trivial fee is very workable for copyright holders and lets them be fairly compensated for their work, and has the additional benefit of greatly reducing the issue of out-of-print and orphaned works at the same time.