Quote:
Originally Posted by gastan
This is a perfect example of why I pay absolutely no attention to copyright, at least in its current form.
I'm all for protecting creativity. A much more sensible copyright law would protect a work for a REASONABLE time -- say 10-15 years -- not in perpetuity, and never once the author is dead.
|
I wouldn't be happy with quite such a short limit, nor would I disallow posthumous copyrights.
I'd like to see copyright being a fixed time from publication in general. For posthumous publication, I'd suggest that treating it as if published on the last day of the author's life would seem reasonable, with a proviso that the minimum copyright length for posthumous publication should be (say) five years).
There are good reasons for allowing posthumous publication. It gives authors an incentive to produce works throughout their life, in the knowledge that their works might being an income for their heirs.
My proviso of a (short) minimum copyright length for posthumous publication is to give an incentive to publishers (which now includes all of us) to transcribe and publish otherwise unpublished works by authors.
Unfortunately, these are pointless musings. The Berne convention is so well established internationally that it seems impossible to ever get rid of it.
The best we can do with any hope of success is to campaign for copyright to return to life+50.