Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
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. |
Thanks for the info. I browsed a bit of the Macauley speeches and from the little I've seen I like the way he thinks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by xg4bx
The Great Martin Luther King Copyright Conundrum
"Believe it or not, to legally watch that famous Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" speech -- arguably one of the most hallowed moments in American history -- costs $10 thanks to the twisted state of United States copyright law."
http://news.yahoo.com/great-martin-l...170521665.html |
The interesting thing here is, not knowing too much about copyright law, that I'm surprised that speeches get copyright.
It seems strange that something given away free in public by an orator, in this case to inspire, can then be copyrighted and profited on by his descendants. It doesn't seem right. Do any of you think if MLK were still alive that he would've copyrighted the speech and sold it for money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Does the current copyright holder have the right to financially benefit from its valuable property? Yes, of course it does.
|
Yes, but perhaps that's not the right question. There are many outdated and convoluted laws which give people some strange rights indeed. What about
: Should the current copyright holder have the rights to this valuable property?