[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by pricecw

So let's pretend we have a societal backlash, and copyrights are put back to a 14yr term (with maybe a 14yr extension). Would it stop creators from creating?

I don't think all writing would shudder to a halt, as there are people who are willing to (literally) write without any compensation. However, I expect that new writings, particularly by popular authors, would be very expensive; and both authors and publishers would just figure out some way to manage or otherwise restrict access. For example, it might be possible to set up a click-through contract on ebooks whereby the purchaser agrees not to re-distribute the work, perhaps based on laws similar to NDA's.

Originally Posted by pricecw

Most money off of a book, image, code base, etc is made long before 14yrs is up.

But other works sell consistently, and in good numbers, for decades. 14 years takes us back to 1996, and there is plenty of material prior to that year which still sells well, especially now with greater access to obscure titles via online sales and POD capabilities.

For example, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone was published in 1997 -- and possibly copyrighted a year before then. I don't think JK Rowling would jump for joy if you told her that in a year or two, anyone could sell copies of, or make movies and video games, off of that book without any necessity to give her one red cent. Even less successful authors would probably hit the ceiling if they only had 14 years to get paid for their work.

Many books do not recoup their costs for the publisher. And for those which have, back-catalog sales turn into high-margin sales; as 50% goes to the retailer, 7-10% goes to the author, 15% goes to paper/distribution.

And if the majority of revenues is generated in that 14 year period, then why would anyone care about longer durations? Obviously it's because there is a desire for works older than 14 years; otherwise, there wouldn't be much reason to care.

Life + 70 may be too long, but 14 years is clearly far too short.

Originally Posted by pricecw

The only purpose that the copyright is granted is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

I see you are a Constitutional originalist. I hope you apply this interpretation of law consistently, instead of merely when it suits you.

By the way, multiple court rulings have upheld the very long current copyright terms. Since they determine what is or is not "constitutional" for US law, I'd say that proclaiming "copyright terms are unconstitutional" requires a bit more backing than "I don't feel like long terms perform functions X and Y."

Originally Posted by pricecw

If the creation is lost to society before that term is up, does it not go against the purpose of copyright?

Not really, no. Tons of work is lost to obscurity or destroyed, it's the nature of things.

Also, for those who choose to be originalists , the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- very clearly and explicitly references commercial use. So I don't really see any problems at all in terms of using copyright to protect economic interests.

That said, I do think we should have legislation to properly manage orphaned works, given the length of current copyright terms. IMO that would resolve some critical issues.

Of course, if the government does start passing laws to address orphan works, expect some fireworks from unexpected quarters. Apparently Britain is drafting one right now, and photographers over there are having fits as they're terrified it will result in widespread infringement of their work under the cover of the infringer claiming they can't find the copyright holder....