Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
I just made the same statement in another thread, but Elfwreck made some good points that made me rethink that.
If it expires immediately at death:
1. It discourages creating work late in life since they and their family will see little to nothing out of it if they die right as it comes out etc.
2. It discourages the family for publishing works posthumously if the copyright died with the creator as they'll see nothing out of it.
So I do think the copyright does need to go beyond death--but maybe it can apply to works that have been out for 10 years or less (late life works) and only last for 15-25 years past death rather than 50 or 75 as a compromise.
That way you don't have books written when they were 20 still under copy right 100+ years later as they lived to 100 and the copyright carries on etc.
|
These are quibbling on details. The important part is to remind that "Copyright Czar" that extending the copyright lengths is as much "stealing" as copyright infringement, and that the needs of the public should be taken in account every bit as much as the lobbyists of the copyright holders.
If you want to claim costs, we, the public, request an economic accounting of just how much we have been robbed of by the law changes. Cost BOTH sides of the issue...
I recommend that other people write in. Believe it or not, it's Your government (assuming you're a US citizen. No offense to the non-US readers here.).
Just don't get angry or real specific (You can use a specific example or two to estimate by, like the fact that under the law at the time that Gone With The Wind and The Wizard Of Oz were released, they would have gone PD in 1996. Therefore the entire DVD/BluRay revenue would be a sample of monies taken out of the public's pocket.) Merely point out that the public loses every time the copyright has been (or will be) extended. You don't have to be as good a writer as I am, but I suspect that quantity counts....