Actually, I think it would be even more fair for software. In the software you are talking about, you are continually adding features and adding compatibility with new versions of the O/S, etc. You are a great example of Type 2 consulting -- you continue to provide value in a non trivial way, and people would continue to buy the upgrades.
But this does bring a good point. Others might want to take the guts of your software and tweak it to make a competing or free version that they maintain. So, while I hadn't thought about that, maybe it does make sense to keep a "no derivatives" protection for life even if copyrights were shortened.
In practical terms for the case of books, this would mean that substantive improvements would have to have value to extend the length of sales. You could write a book on Java programming, but if it was public domain after 10 years, you could only sell another version if you provided new value, like updating it for current technology. If it was a biography, you would really have to have significant improvements, but I think that's fair. I don't know what the right number is, but personally I think the length now is too long.
In terms of your example, I think you should get derivative protection for an extended period, but that you should (and do, I'm sure) continue to provide value in your ongoing work. If you produced it 20 years ago and never touched it since, then I think it's an open question about whether you should have full control of it over your lifetime.
Maybe the opposite is even possible - you have control if it, but not the derivatives after a period of time.
That's really a tough example, though, because it's so personal. I wouldn't like any laws changed that keeps money out of my pocket - whether the law change was fair or not, I would not want to see it happen.
Still, I think there's a difference between a book that is written and not continually worked on, and the kind of software career you are talking about in which you are working on it for 20yrs. You deserve ongoing revenues and more protection in that case, and I think your value-added work should be protected by some kind of derivative protection.
But like I said, I'm still trying to formulate my own position on this, so that's just my feeling right now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Writing books, software, or whatever, is just as much "work" as creating "physical" things. Why ever shouldn't an author be able to continue to benefit from those efforts?
A "real world" example. I run a company writing computer software for amateur astronomers, which draws maps of the sky. I've spend more than 20 years of my life writing my software. If you had your way, five years after I'd initially released my software, it would have entered the public domain and anybody would have been free to take advantage of my work and use it free of charge! Can you explain why you believe that would be "fair"?
|