|
Just a couple of thoughts here.
I agree with the notion that it is not fair to compare a carpenter's work with an author's. Mostly because, it is possible that the carpenter might also have had unsold work at the time of his death.
To a certain extent, a copyright term must have a minimum duration -- this does not necessarily have to extend past the life of the author if the minimum duration has been reached, but it should protect the estate of an author who is unfortunate enough to die shortly after the publication of a work.
I am going to pull out a suggestion I have made several times before. Copyrights should have a fixed term or say 10 years (The exact total is flexible, but it should not be more than say 25 years). Copyrights can be renewed by the author as long as he or she is alive or by their heirs, for one time only. Now here is the final catch, the first renewal has a low cost of renewal. the second and subsequent renewals should cost 10 times (More if the period is significantly longer than 10 years) what the previous renewal cost. This way there is not only an incentive to publish, but also ultimately, an incentive to let a work enter the public domain. While the first several renewals might be worth while, after 4 or so renewals (If we assume the initial renewal costs say $10), only the most valuable works will be worth renewing copyrights on and eventually no work will be worth enough to pay the reregistration fee. Works that fall out of print will probably quickly enter the public domain.
The other advantage of requiring that works have their copyrights renewed periodically is that a database will be available that clearly indicates whether a work is still under copyright or not.
--
Bill
|