Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
I don't actually see a strong case for it continuing past the author's death.
Although I see a strong case for it continuing past the author's death in the specific case where the author did not live very long.
So although by rights we should really go back to 14 years with a renewal option for an additional 14 years (total 28) and on a strict opt-in basis (!!!) ... I will be generous and vote for automatic copyright, at life or 50 whichever is longer.
|
The strong case for it continuing past the authors death, at least in my opinion, is not only where the author does not live very long but also where works are written towards the end of an author's life. As an author gets older and/or begins to have health problems then they will find it almost impossible to sell or license their work if copyright is limited only to their life. Given that a publisher has traditionally made most of the money on a book in the first year or so, life + 5 (or at the outside 10) years may be justified. Also, though not necessary to achieve the stated goals in the US Constitution I would like to see an author have at least some rights over their works during the whole of their lifetime. If not a complete monopoly, this could extend to moral rights after the expiration. Or perhaps a non-exclusive statutory licensing scheme between expiration and death. There are many possibilities which would achieve the relevant purposes far better than the present regime.
I don't have a problem with Heirs getting some benefit, but like you and for the same reasons I don't think it is appropriate to equate copyright or other intellectual property with tangible property. So many Amazon bashers mistakenly classify Amazon as a monopoly, which is meant as a slur. It assumes a monopoly is a bad thing. And today, with the emphasis on competition policy, it is generally accepted that this is the case. Yet suddenly, when talking about Copyright and other intellectual property, monopoly becomes good?
What we have is a case of balancing public policy goals. Competition is good. Monopolies are bad for competition. Encouraging the advancement of science and arts is good. So we encourage it by letting Authors and Inventors have this bad thing, a monopoly. For a limited time. Unfortunately the balance has long been lost.