Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
Do you really think people would be creating less if their exclusivity rights expired, say, 10 years after their death? Or even with their death? Heck, what about 25-30 years after creation? The current situation only serves big corporations, perhaps the heirs of creative people, but rarely the artists themselves. Discuss.
|
Agreed. Extending copyright was intended to benefit heirs... but was created when heirs often had no other income to fall back on. Today, the income possibilities of family members and dependents are much better, so the extension law best serves those dependents that cannot support themselves... minors, for instance, or the significantly disabled. If the government supports them, the govt should either get the royalties, or decide to make the creation free.
I'd agree, for instance, in an extension beyond death that provided income to my son or daughter... but only up to the point that they reach legal adulthood, and would therefore be expected to provide for themselves. If I have no son or daughter, the extension ends with my death (or sooner, if that was the law).
I don't challenge that copyright law needs to be reviewed and revised to keep up with the times. And I would not oppose shorter copyright limits, even as low as 20 years max, or extended to cover dependents up to legal adulthood if the creator dies before end of the 20 year period. (So, better hope I don't adopt any kids in year 19, then kick the bucket!)