How Long Should Copyright Last?

[5thWiggle]

Not an option in the poll, but I'd say that copyright should extend from creation till the creator's 80th birthday (living or dead) with a minimum of 20 years (for creations after 80). It's just like a normal job, you get paid until manditory retirement, then you have to live off what you saved. In the event of death before before 80, copyright goes to your heirs (acting like an insurance policy). It's a bit harder to police than life+term, but a solution might be to get the goverment's tax agency involved. Tax collectors know everything. (darn, no tinfoil-hat conspiracy smiley!)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

Not an option in the poll, but I'd say that copyright should extend from creation till the creator's 80th birthday (living or dead) with a minimum of 20 years (for creations after 80). It's just like a normal job, you get paid until manditory retirement, then you have to live off what you saved. In the event of death before before 80, copyright goes to your heirs (acting like an insurance policy). It's a bit harder to police than life+term, but a solution might be to get the goverment's tax agency involved. Tax collectors know everything. (darn, no tinfoil-hat conspiracy smiley!)

Hmm.... a 'birthdate + fixed term'. I don't like the awkward special case for authors who are older than the fixed term length.

[CyGuy]

7 years from the date it is published, then it becomes public domain...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What I dislike most about current copyright laws is the "lifetime + fixed term" aspect of them. It seems very odd that an author's earliest (and usually weakest) work should have the longest copyright.

I'd much rather see a "fixed term, or lifetime, whichever is longer", where the fixed term is 50 years or less.

Sadly, I don't see any way that that could be brought about with the current system of international agreements.

And there isn't even a poll option that's anywhere near my position.

I like the lifetime + X approach. Lifetime because the author who created the work should have control of it in the author's lifetime, especially for purposes of extending series or writing sequels. "Plus X" so that whoever buys the rights isn't risking that they become public domain if the author is hit by a car next week.

And lifetime+X doesn't just benefit the author's heirs; by making the copyright more valuable, it directly benefits the author.

And the meme that lifetime+70 was due to Disney needs to die; the primary reason for this period was to bring it in line with European copyright law, which was already lifetime+70.

Which does seem like a long time; I'd be happier with that time period if there were an accelerated method for abandoned works to enter the PD. But I really don't think that our culture is being harmed because Mickey Mouse isn't in the PD.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I like the lifetime + X approach. Lifetime because the author who created the work should have control of it in the author's lifetime, especially for purposes of extending series or writing sequels. "Plus X" so that whoever buys the rights isn't risking that they become public domain if the author is hit by a car next week.

"Lifetime" is certainly necessary because, as I stated previously, it gives the author the legal right NOT to publish during their lifetime, and that strikes me as a basic right that every author should have.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Lifetime" is certainly necessary because, as I stated previously, it gives the author the legal right NOT to publish during their lifetime, and that strikes me as a basic right that every author should have.

Why? I assume you mean the case that the work was once published and then the author did not publish it any more. Why is it a basic right to try to limit ideas and knowledge?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I like the lifetime + X approach. Lifetime because the author who created the work should have control of it in the author's lifetime, especially for purposes of extending series or writing sequels. "Plus X" so that whoever buys the rights isn't risking that they become public domain if the author is hit by a car next week.

lifetime + X isn't necessary for the reasons given here. X or lifetime is just as good.

* Creator retains control during lifetime
* Anyone buying rights knows how long the rights are likely to last. (If the author /is/ hit by a car next week, the rights still last X from whenever they were first published.)

lifetime + X is bad because it leads to very excessively long copyrights, and lots of orphan works.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

The point of copyright, according to the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I think copyright should last the author's life.

I think author's life or 75 years, whichever is greater. If an author should die prematurely, it's reasonable that his her immediate heirs still draw a benefit.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

lifetime + X is bad because it leads to very excessively long copyrights, and lots of orphan works.

Orphan works are easily addressed by requiring copyright renewal every 10 years during the lifetime of the copyright. Failure to renew on time immediately places the work into public domain.

Problem solved.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Orphan works are easily addressed by requiring copyright renewal every 10 years during the lifetime of the copyright. Failure to renew on time immediately places the work into public domain.

Problem solved.

How does this fit in with your desire for perpetual copyrights?

(Oh, and if it requires renewals, then it's not a lifetime + X copyright.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why? I assume you mean the case that the work was once published and then the author did not publish it any more. Why is it a basic right to try to limit ideas and knowledge?

No, I was actually meaning the situation where an author decides to write something and wishes to keep it private: the examples I gave earlier were diaries and private letters.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Hmm.... a 'birthdate + fixed term'. I don't like the awkward special case for authors who are older than the fixed term length.

Kind of relating copyright holding to a salaried job. Most people are retired by 80 if not sooner. The extra 20 years are for the "Walmart Greeters" of authorship

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I was actually meaning the situation where an author decides to write something and wishes to keep it private: the examples I gave earlier were diaries and private letters.

Unpublished works are always treated differently anyway. Easy to make an exception there.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

How does this fit in with your desire for perpetual copyrights?

(Oh, and if it requires renewals, then it's not a lifetime + X copyright.)

It fits easily with my infinity copyright.

Why? Copyright holders are still guaranteed X number of years of exclusive rights, provided they renew every Y years during that time.

[camino real]

It should be for at least the lifetime of the author. I don't think anything less would be fair.