Given the two bad choices, I voted for copyright forever because most books I have loved would, I suspect, not have been written without intellectual property protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg
Fourteen years, renewable once.
|
I like this. Reasons include the careers of J. D. Salinger and Ralph Ellison. I don't think that putting a great writer in a situation where the residuals are never-ending is wise.
Life + 50 made some sense back when agreed to in 1886. Lifespan length back then was
extremely unpredictable. An author's surviving widow could easily live another fifty years, during which her earning potential, given discrimination against women, would be low. But in modern nations with a social safety net, I don't see the justification for having copyright last decades past the author's death.