Quote:
Originally Posted by exscentric
Poll seems flawed, should be an option for copyright forever.
|
Some people are actually for that.
Not that I am. After a few hundreds years, the rights holders, if known, will probably consist of hundreds of heirs due to some partial rights holder having died intestate long ago. Once the rights can't be easily established, it becomes impractical to legally distribute a copyrighted eBook.
After a thousand years, most people on earth would probably have a portion of the rights of most books. I mention this to point out the absurdity of perpetual copyright.
Some on this thread would address the above-mentioned problems by requiring copyright registration. But requiring copyright formalities is
against international law for the good reason that with 207 countries each having slightly different copyright laws, only the richest publishers and authors could afford to do it correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by exscentric
What is the interest in a shorter copyright? Is it so the book can be had for free? Not saying free isn't good if the author wants :-) Or are there benefits that escape me. Just asking!
|
Books written in the couple decades after 1922 are mostly unavailable as eBooks. Not just unknown authors. Authors like Conrad Richter and Winston S. Churchill, who won Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, have works unavailable as eBooks because of what I consider excessive copyright.
That's the big reason for me personally, due to my reading interests.
Another reason I like limited copyright is that it has some of the same effects as an inheritance tax. Isn't it about time that F. Scott Fitzgerald's heirs have to live on what they earn, as I do? That argument, I'm sure, is more controversial.