Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
Thanks a lot. Pournelle's argument works for me as one for lifetime copyright, but not really for life+.
Ellison's cases sound interesting. Did he win them? *heads off to duckduckgo* *comes back* Interesting. He won settlements, but to me Ellison's claim regarding
Terminator seems unconvincing. (It seems he never sued about
The Road, but just expressed his claim in an interview). His case seems to be a strong argument against eternal copyright - if a corporation started playing copyright troll, things could get nasty.