Quote:
Originally Posted by petrucci
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.
|
I'm going to be honest here, I'm having a little trouble following what your arguments are, and this isn't my first time to the rodeo.
There's a double-negative (and maybe a misplaced comma?) in your second sentence that makes the whole thing difficult to parse, and the last sentence seems to be repeating what you said earlier, in the same mess-of-a-sentence way. I'm really trying here petrucci, and I want to argue with you, but I just don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say.
Maybe this would be easier - What do you think would be a reasonable copyright period?