How Long Should Copyright Last?

[sircastor]

As I'm trying to write an answer to this, I'm finding myself uncertain of what I really think. Initially, I was thinking that copyright ought to have a similar term as a patent. 14-20 years. With patents, the period is (IMO) reasonable. If you create some new invention, you have a reasonable period to protect and sell your invention. By the end of the term you've either exhausted the usefulness of your invention, or someone else has invented a reasonable alternative/successor.

My initial thinking about copyright was the same: 14-20 years for you to sell your work and get exposure, etc. I have little interest in the idea that a work should support an author's family. A person works to support their family, not something they did 100 years ago. If I were a construction worker, a building would not continue to pay me and my family beyond the work that I do.

As I'm not an author, I don't really know what goes into writing (for instance) a book. Therefore I don't think it's reasonable for me to set the time frame. At the same time, I'm appalled that it will be 2023 before Mickey Mouse's Plane Crazy moves into the public domain space.

The reason public domain exists is to preserve and extend out cultural heritage. I think an extensive copyright gives license (no pun intended) to authors to abandon creativity in lieu of maintaining a single piece of work or a single series of work.

14-20 years may be too short considering how long it takes to create and distribute, but Lifetime+75 is way too long.

[Hellmark]

Personally, I believe that the copyright should last the lifetime of the author, plus say 15-20 years. Reason I think it should extend slightly past death, is to allow for the royalties to help cover debts of the estate. Sometimes, it takes a while for all debts to come to the surface, and also in the case of the majority of copyrights, they're not highly profitable so there is time to recoup money initially put out if the estate couldn't cover all debts.

For instances where the copyright owner is a corporation, I would set the lifetime of the copyright to be 60 or so years. Basically, try to find some average that a person lives after creating their works. Most people seem to be most creative in their 20s and 30s, so the average life expectancy less the average age. Say, if on average copyrights are created by 25 year olds, and most people live to 75, you have 50. Add on the 15 years, and you get to a copyright lifespan to 65 years. If the average for creator's age is 30, you get 60, etc.

The reason I think that copyrights shouldn't be for forever, is the vast majority of them go forgotten after a while. If you have them be permanent, you'll have a huge wealth of orphaned copyrights, and at that point they cannot be used by anyone. Eventually, you'll have so many copyrights you cannot use, that it will be difficult to create anything new because of possible copyright infringments.

[pietrocrazy]

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.

I guess I'm a little confused about this, because I'm not sure copyright law is what really prevents people from publishing each other's private writings. I'm thinking of when celebrities have their sex videos or nude pictures stolen (a bizarrely regular occurrence), are they suing on the basis of copyright infringement? You rarely hear that mentioned in these cases.

[Namekuseijin]

10-20 years. After that, when I'm an old retired author and dying from hunger, I can perhaps make a few bucks to buy me some bread by taking pictures with crackhead pirate fans who happen to recognize me in the slums.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I make no distinction between physical property and intellectual property.

Intellectual property doesn't exist. It's a concept made up to justify some of the silliness that copyright fanatics come up with about protecting the authors.

Copyright isn't about protecting the rights of the authors or to protect "intellectual property". It's about providing an environment in which creators are encouraged to continue to create and therefore enrich society.

However, it's just one approach to that end. There's nothing to say that society can't find a way to continue to enrich itself with new cultural creations in the absence of the concept of copyright.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Intellectual property doesn't exist. It's a concept made up to justify some of the silliness that copyright fanatics come up with about protecting the authors.

Intellectual property is as "real" as any other kind of property.

[Hellmark]

Well, it isn't in the same sense of other stuff. It isn't tangible, it isn't limited to size or number. How can you really constrain something that is purely mental?

[wyndslash]

I must be stupid then. I thought intellectual property rights is what kept people from claiming that so and so work was their idea and they deserve credit?

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

I must be stupid then. I thought intellectual property rights is what kept people from claiming that so and so work was their idea and they deserve credit?

That's more an issue of plagiarism, which is often not copyright infringement.

[wyndslash]

Yeah, thought so too. Just was addressing one of the previous posts.

[Hellmark]

CopyPlager Infringism!
Here's a wikiquote, but I think helps.

Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different concepts. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, the moral concept of plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

CopyPlager Infringism!
Here's a wikiquote, but I think helps.

thanks for that! and of course...that's why it's called copyright. i'm so stupid

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Intellectual property is as "real" as any other kind of property.

No it's not. It's an artificial construct, a play on words really, designed to make it less ridiculous to assert "ownership" over ideas.

[charmian]

I really think it should apply to the author's life, but if the author should die shortly after completing the work, 10-20 years plus optional renewal of ten more years.

If the author survives forty or more years after the work is completed, there should be an option for the heirs to renew for ten more years, in my opinion.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by charmian

I really think it should apply to the author's life, but if the author should die shortly after completing the work, 10-20 years plus optional renewal of ten more years.

If the author survives forty or more years after the work is completed, there should be an option for the heirs to renew for ten more years, in my opinion.

And what about copyrights for ideas expressed by individuals who have contracts with entities to transfer rights of their ideas to said entities upon their expression. Corporations are people after all, can they not express ideas, is not copyright already in some senses perpetual??