Quote:
Originally Posted by doubleshuffle
Do you happen to have the names of some of those writers?
What are those? I've come across the argument by publishers that without the rights to their "modern classics" they couldn't fund publishing fresh talent. Are there more?
|
I want to say that Harlan Ellison was one, since he was so relentless in suing for copyright infringement (one example is that he claims that the novel "The Road" infringes on his copyright for "A Boy and His Dog". He also sued because he said The Terminator movies infringed on his copyright for "Soldier from Tomorrow", but I can't really point to anything where he actually claimed eternal copyright.
The best argument for longer copyrights that I've seen was from Jerry Pournelle who referred to his backlist as his 401K, i.e. he depended on his backlist books to generate revenue after he slowed down. I've noticed that quite a few authors seem to have a a limited period when they are most active and then slow down as they grow older. I have no issue with authors continuing to generate royalties from their works as long as the works are available to the public. I'm less persuaded by life+ arguments.
I tend to think that derivative protection should not extend nearly as long. Ellison's behavior is exhibit A of why I think that way.