If you had a vote for copyright?

[The Terminator]

If you had to vote to either completely get rid of all copyright or to have it last forever which would you choose?

[pdurrant]

Do away with copyright altogether is my choice of those two extremes.

I don't think either of those two extremes will ever come to pass, I'm glad to say.

[susan_cassidy]

Life + 50.

[JSWolf]

This poll is just too far to the left and right to be of any use. What I would like to see copyright be changed to a lesser time then we have now. But that won't happen because of Micky Mouse.

What I would like is Death+25 or 50 years from when it was created whichever is shorter.

[Phogg]

Fourteen years, renewable once.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Fourteen years, renewable once.

I prefer 10 years, with no renewal allowed. This should hold true for copyright and patents. Trademarks should be allowed for much longer though.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I prefer 10 years, with no renewal allowed. This should hold true for copyright and patents. Trademarks should be allowed for much longer though.

Good point about trademarks. If a trademark is given to a business and the business keeps it renewed, then they should be able to keep the trademark for as long as they are in business or renew it. That way, Disney would be able to trademark Micky Mouse and copyright ca be properly sorted.

[spindlegirl]

Since I only had two extremes, I chose the "do away with"....
I do think 3 generations past the death of an author is far too long, and would settle for simply shortened copyright.

I have a friend who is writing a (reference) book who has licensed her book thus: (quoted in part)

I have made arrangements for this book to be put into the public domain after my death for use by anyone and everyone under all circumstances. I refuse to sequester the information in the name of copyright when I am no longer around to benefit from it.

The link to the full post containing her full licensing information is HERE. She has a great sense of humour but actually does intend to print that in the front of her book.

[AlbertaCowboy]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Since I only had two extremes, I chose the "do away with"....
I do think 3 generations past the death of an author is far too long, and would settle for simply shortened copyright.

I have a friend who is writing a (reference) book who has licensed her book thus: (quoted in part)



The link to the full post containing her full licensing information is HERE. She has a great sense of humour but actually does intend to print that in the front of her book.

Since I can't give your friend Karma, you get it! What a great post.

[banjobama]

Honestly I don't really see anything wrong with how it is. I get that the US law of life+70 years is so that the author's family can continue to get revenue from his or her work. Maybe 40-50 years would be acceptable. But really I don't see anything wrong with a person getting paid for his work.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by banjobama

Honestly I don't really see anything wrong with how it is. I get that the US law of life+70 years is so that the author's family can continue to get revenue from his or her work. Maybe 40-50 years would be acceptable. But really I don't see anything wrong with a person getting paid for his work.

I think the taxpayer should continue to pay me for the rest of my life for each of the radios i fixed or rebuilt in the military. In fact they should continue to pay my descendants too.

You have zero problems with me getting paid, right?

[Ekaros]

Depends on media. Still, I wouldn't give author full rights for whole life. On other hand there might be reason to separate commercial and peer to peer distribution. For commercial there should be some sort of standard fee.

For books maybe 25-50, 40 would be good since first publishing.
Computer software 10 years for executable form from launch. Source code could remain private if they so whishes.
Music 25 years
Films 25 years first commercial showing.

Also good point on trademarks they should be renevable for ever.
For extremes none.

I wouldn't (and didn't) vote.

If you held a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd choose forever. After all, that leave the author the option to release their work into the public domain at a later date. It also gives authors the option to license their work under more generous terms, which is what CC licensing and the GPL is about.

In reality though, I find it quite offensive that someone can (in theory) work on something for a few months and live off the proceeds for the rest of their life. That is especially true when you consider that writing is easy work, and by easy work I mean that it isn't the sort of thing that you do for minimum wage and end up with a body that is wrecked for life.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I think the taxpayer should continue to pay me for the rest of my life for each of the radios i fixed or rebuilt in the military. In fact they should continue to pay my descendants too.

You have zero problems with me getting paid, right?

Run for the US Senate.
Both are rediculous. Extreme anything is rediculous. That is why both Democrats and Republicans can not get anything done that benefits the country as a whole. They are like children who will take their football and go home if they do not get their way.
Apache

[Hellmark]

Personally, I have no problem with copyright for something lasting the lifetime of the creator, it just is when it lasts for longer that I have a problem. Copyright is for helping artists create more works, by letting them profit off their past work. Problem is, most heirs don't create more art. I say, life +10 or +20. Lets the heirs respect the wishes of the artist, and get things after the artist's death cleared up, but not create a career off managing the copyright.