Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
I'll just respond to the comments that were addressed to me.
The first comment is a strawman. No one in this thread is arguing for no copyright. Artists can benefit financially from a reasonable copyright period.
The second comment seems to be arguing a point I never intended to make, although I'm actually not sure what's being argued. My point was simply that a lower copyright period is useful for artists who want to create a new work in an existing setting (for profit even!).
|
It may be that we agree, but I doubt it. I believe that works that have value should be copyright. I also believe that a reasonable period extends, at the very minimum, until the artist dies. The basis of this was given in the argument that you called a straw man. Many great works of art were not recognized as such until after the death of the artist.
My point in the second paragraph is that long periods of copyright are in many cases necessary to generate a reasonable amount of profit from a work. I do not believe that the reduction in the length of copyright so that you can create works derived from other works, will not help the economic situation of the author. As the newly created work will have a shorter copyright, and it is likely that the author will not be able to have a reasonable profit from it.