Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[Rhialto]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...g_culture.html

Interesting 'article' - actually just a provocative graph over on Slate that suggests copyright periods may be too long.

[QuantumIguana]

If copyright continues to be extended, it may well be that no books ever again enter the public domain. Disney is certain to push for an extention of copyright when the copyright for Steamboat Willie nears expiration, and they may well get keep getting extensions. The last copyright extension was challenged in court, but the Supreme Court ruled that it didn't volate the "limited times" provision of the copyright clause. But there has to be some point where we have to say "this is too long to qualify as 'limited times'". Extending copyright over and over again is in effect the same as eternal copyright.

I'm a supporter of copyright for limited times, but I am an opponent of eternal copyright. Culture and the public domain are inseperable. One of the real ironies is that those who want copyright to be eternal quite often have benefited from the public domain. Where would Disney be without the public domain?

[JoeD]

The original article is mentioned in the comments which has a video link too.

I do think copyright is getting to be too long. They should do away with life + 70 and just make it 70 years regardless, although I'd prefer a shorter span such as 50 years but the actual number of years could be quite a discussion in itself. Copyright needs to be simplified and also standardised around the globe. The continual extensions that are added for the sake of a handful of companies is imo wrong.

[Kumabjorn]

I think copyright should be life. Period. Or maybe life plus spouse's life (I can see a case for that) but I don't see any reason that lazy kids should live of a parent's creativity. In certain extreneaous circumstances a special dispensation can be made in case of untimely death or children still too young to support themselves. Otherwise i see no reason to extend copyright beyond the life of the creator.

[tubemonkey]

I favor life + forever

[bill_mchale]

I like returning to the notion of relatively short, but renewable periods of copyright (With the work needing to be registered). That achieves two things. 1. There can a public database that can be used to check the copyright status of any work. 2. If an author feels a work is selling well enough he can apply to have the copyright extended to some degree. The exact maximum number can be discussed, but by and large, anything much over 50 years is probably done for the benefit of either corporations or the relatives of the author. Based on the chart, it looks like only a handful of works are still being published by their rights holders within 20 years of their release... so 20 years should probably be the point of the first renewal.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I favor life + forever

Yes, and supposing you are a successful author whose works are still read in 500 years, figuring out the estate ought to be really interesting.

--
Bill

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Yes, and supposing you are a successful author whose works are still read in 500 years, figuring out the estate ought to be really interesting.

--
Bill

works for land

[BeccaPrice]

it's not the kids who are living off copyrights, it's the copyright's owners.. the publishers... who want to live off it forever.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I favor life + forever

And I'm in favour of common sense and ideas that aren't nonsense. I don't even understand what additional incentive you think creators would get out of this that is above what they receive under the current system, or why you don't think creators would be harmed by cutting off the public domain.

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

works for land

Indeed, and certainly no one could possibly suggest that land is in anyway different than ideas.

Seriously, a flat copyright term of 25 years. Problem solved people, you can all thank me when we're all reaping the benefits of a robust public domain that supports the creation of new, transformative works. Now if anyone else needs me, I'll be solving world hunger.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

works for land

You can't copyright land.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

works for land

My thoughts too.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Indeed, and certainly no one could possibly suggest that land is in anyway different than ideas.

Land ownership -- life + 70 years.

Works for books

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I think copyright should be life. Period.

I don't think that's fair on those who die early though. They've not had the same opportunity to accumulate wealth to pass on via inheritance to their family. Making it a fixed number of years allows the copyright to be passed on to family should someone die early in their life. Not to mention the idea of potentially valuable assets becoming public when someone dies could have movie plot line consequences

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I don't think that's fair on those who die early though. They've not had the same opportunity to accumulate wealth to pass on via inheritance to their family. Making it a fixed number of years allows the copyright to be passed on to family should someone die early in their life. Not to mention the idea of potentially valuable assets becoming public when someone dies could have movie plot line consequences

Copyright ending at the author's death has major problems. One example is Ulysses S. Grant. When he was near death from throat cancer, he wrote his memoirs so that his family wouldn't be left destitute. If copyright ended at his death, there would have been no point, publishers could publish it without paying a cent.