Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Nor were they negotiated (with the public) with the concept that copyright was to last for more that 56 years, maximum.
|
The public may be a beneficiary of public domain, but they aren't a stakeholder here. The public did not create the work, they were not a party to negotiations, and they did not pay for the rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
The same should hold true for copyright. If a copyright was granted for a particular length, it should not be ex post facto (retroactively) altered.
|
Public domain is
not ownership. No one owns or controls a work that's in public domain. The public does not pay anyone when a work goes into public domain.
PD is a revocation and thus absence of all protection for a work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
The fact that a major consortium of middlemen has already tried to change the law, is not very optimistic that there won't be another change attempted.
|
Again: They tried, and they failed. This provision was completely untouched by the last major update to the copyright law, the CTEA. Optimism may in fact be justified.
Artists are already filing, and the record labels are already losing in the courts.
Maybe, just maybe, you ought to be a bit thrilled to be wrong here, since this is a good thing for the content creators. Actually, I'm not very optimistic about that happening.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
Kali, when are you going to admit (at least to yourself) that copyright extension may be legal but it is "profoundly unfair"?
|
Right around "never."
I agree life + 70 is a bit too long, but it hasn't had the devastating effect that its detractors insist. There is no sign of Europe or the US adding further extensions, even though the CTEA is already 14 years old.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
If you took away copyright extensions, and kept the 35 year clawback for post 1978 copyright, the corporate holders might find much of the "orphan work" problem goes away. And you might get more respect for copyright in general. But hey'd lose money, and that cannot be allowed to happen....
|
Publishers will lose money with the termination of transfer, and that's going to happen. It's already started.
And no, shortening copyright terms is not going to get rid of piracy or increase respect for copyright. We see just as much distaste and corporate gamesmanship over patents, which have a very short duration.
The bottom line is that people want free stuff, and are happy to construct all sorts of rationalizations to get that free stuff. Shortening copyright terms won't change that.