Quote:
Originally Posted by petrucci
Some of these industries may need longer copyright. In the linked paper, the author argues that certain works, such as Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev, are performed less often than they used to be, because they went back into copyright. I would argue that the availability of free works has damaged the economy of music making. The orchestras simply cannot afford to perform a work that costs money. You can imagine that this stifles new composition, one of the activities that copyright is supposed to protect.
|
If they can't afford to pay for new works, putting everything under copyright would not enable them to afford to pay for the works. It would simply mean they would shut down.
Quote:
|
Imagine bands trying to complete against free albums by everyone up to the year 2000. Everything from the Beetles through Nirvana would be free. It would be really hard to sell new stuff.
|
Only if copyright were reduced from life+70 to 14 years. And would people really become aficionados of oldies?
Quote:
|
Given the current system, it makes sense that copyrights are continually increasing. Current authors are competing with the best works of the past. They need to produce better works. As one might imagine it takes that much more time and care to produce such works. Thus, the continual increase in copyright terms in this economy makes sense, as the author needs to be incentivised to produce great new works.
|
Copyright is already life+70 years. Further extensions cannot provide additional incentive to authors. Life+90 would not provide incentive to authors to create new works. Most works will be long forgotten before the copyright expires. If copyright were reduced to Life+50 would authors really be saying "screw this" and not creating new works?