Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
This article makes me very sad. What an opportunity wasted. Another illustration of the way our intellectual property system often no longer benefits the public but a few large "rights-holders" to whose interests the public good has been sacrificed. There is much to be said for the 14 year Copyright duration in the original legislation. I would baulk at this only because I would like to see authors benefit from their work throughout their lives. I would hate to see a travesty where a book languishes during a short copyright period only to later become a blockbuster with the still living author receiving no benefit. I think perhaps a 14 year copyright duration during which the copyright can be licensed or assigned, followed by reversion of the work to the Author and a statutory licence and royalty scheme during the rest of the authors life and perhaps a short period thereafter. Copyright exists for the public good, and benefits to authors are incidental to that purpose. Benefits to non-creative "rights-holders" are yet a further degree remote.
Of course, the prospects of this happening any time soon are just about non-existent. I can only see rights holders pressing for ever more draconian laws as intellectual property laws of all types fall further and further into public contempt and are increasingly disregarded. Which is a shame, since sane and equitable intellectual property laws are very much in the public interest.
|
I agree. Copyright terms have gotten ridiculous and the publishers want to tighten things up even more. It's in their interest sometimes to work against the public interest. Capitalism is far from perfect but I'm sure glad we have it.
Barry