Quote:
Originally Posted by crossi
I agree that copyright should not have been drastically altered. It should have remained what it was origionally, 14 years plus, at most, 14 more if requested.
|
I don't it would have gotten a longer term if the 14 year thing was effective. In 1710 there were relatively few books published in total, and far fewer annually, probably less than 20? Can't remember. So the term was ludicrously small IMO.
Now there are possibly a million a year and over probably 1/3 by trad publishers.
Most of these books will not bring the authors long term benefits via copyright.
My thinking is which you obviously disagree with although you chose to ignore it IIRC is that the very few authors of books that withstand the test of time and are still selling 14 or 50 or 70 years later deserve to get paid a small portion of the sales price whether to themselves or their estates.
The books that you or no one else wants to pay for, well why do you care f they are copyrighted?
Helen