Will there be another US copyright extension?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think the absolute best we could hope for would be a return to the Berne minimums. And realistically, I see no no chance of that happening in the US or in Europe.

Between the corporate lobbyists trying to protect the 1% of old copyright material that is popular enough to be immensely profitable, and actions like a appointing a former music industry lawyer (who maintained personal format shifts like copying CDs to MP3s are not fair use) to the EU copyright policy director, copyright terms are never going to get shorter.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Since copyright terms are fairly arbitrary, how about some of these?

others???

How about:

For author: till death of author or inheriting spouse, whichever is later (screw the kids - they've enjoyed the fruits of their parent's creation all their lives. It's time for them to go out and earn their own keep.)
For publisher: five years or until the first time a bookstore receives a 'not available from publisher' notice, whichever is shorter.

Same should apply to music and film.

But here is what someone one day will see:

2411-04-07 Congress today passed the 67th amendment to the Copyright Term Extension Act.

This amendment lengthens the period of copyright to 500 years from production date. It occurred just in time to prevent the first Mickey Mouse cartoon from entering the public domain, an event which would have had catastrophic consequences for the production of new entertainment according to a spokesman for the MPAA.

2511-04-07 Norman & Schyster sues Gutenberg for $45 jillion for publication and distribution of Shakespeare works.

Since congress approved the bill adding retroactive copyright to works previously in the public domain it has become popular for publishing houses to buy up copyright from descendants of these works. N&S were the lucky winners of the sale of rights by the descendants of William Shakespeare. The high figure reflects the number of descendants now living said a N&S spokesman. Gutenberg refused to comment on the rumour that they will have to close their doors if the case goes against them. The organisation has been struggling since there have been no new works entering the public domain for 450 years.

[Worldwalker]

Shakespeare has no living descendants. His line died out a couple of generations after he did.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Shakespeare has no living descendants. His line died out a couple of generations after he did.

Oh good! So the rights to his works will just be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

We're now over 12 years into the 20 year copyright extension provided by the Copyright Term Extension Act in the US.

The first Mickey Mouse cartoon is set to enter the public domain (if it's not already public domain because of a flawed copyright notice) on 1st January 2024, less than 13 years away.

Since Congress has already pulled some public domain works back into copyright (and the Supreme Court is soon to decide whether that's constitutional), perhaps we will see an attempt to simplify the current terribly complicated US copyright length rules, and impose a simple lifetime+70 rule for everything? That would give Mickey another 13 years to 1st January 2037.

Or even, to harmonise with Mexico, lifetime+100? That would lock Mickey away safely until 1st January 2067.

It will be interesting to see if anything is brought forward in the next few years.

The effort will absolutely be made. Once it is submitted, I will start the a lobbying effort call "Make Mickey Pay For Granny!".

What is it? A progressive Tax on copyright. You pay, you keep, you don't pay, to the P.D. it goes...With the US being desperate for money, make the results payable to the various old age programs...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Shakespeare has no living descendants. His line died out a couple of generations after he did.

Now that's just downright false, we all have a common ancestor, well we are about 99.99% certain that we do. lol for shared genetic heritage, You and I are the descendants of everyone. Copyright is meaningless!!!!!!

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Now that's just downright false, we all have a common ancestor, well we are about 99.99% certain that we do. lol for shared genetic heritage, You and I are the descendants of everyone.

Wrong.

A descendant is someone who can claim you as a direct ancestor. You may be my relative, but you are not my descendant.

William Shakespeare's grandchildren had no children of their own. He has, therefore, no descendants.

[John Carroll]

I've been thinking about this a lot. What do I do with the copyrights of my books? I want to leave something for my wife and children in case I get trampled by a herd of emo bunnies on their way to a sale on purple hair dye, but at the same time, I think my kids should make their own mark on the world.

I personally believe copyright should be life of the author + 10 years. That is enough time for my family to become self sufficient. As far as companies go, they can find new artists to foster. With a 70 or 100 year ownership these companies are kind of like gollum and his precioussssss.

[GA Russell]

As I've stated elsewhere, the problem I see with "life of the author" concepts is that authors will claim that their young child was a co-author, thus extending the copyright term another (perhaps) fifty years.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

As I've stated elsewhere, the problem I see with "life of the author" concepts is that authors will claim that their young child was a co-author, thus extending the copyright term another (perhaps) fifty years.

So far, that's not been done in the areas that have "life plus XX". Plus that runs into other legal issues, due to the supposed author being a minor. Usually that is enough to squash it.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

So far, that's not been done in the areas that have "life plus XX". Plus that runs into other legal issues, due to the supposed author being a minor. Usually that is enough to squash it.

Hellmark, this is just speculation on my part, but there isn't necessarily as much incentive to do this in a life plus 50 or 70 jurisdiction because the status quo already provides for the heirs to continue to receive royalties for a long time.

My comment was on the concept of the copyright ending with the death of the author.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Wrong.

A descendant is someone who can claim you as a direct ancestor. You may be my relative, but you are not my descendant.

William Shakespeare's grandchildren had no children of their own. He has, therefore, no descendants.

Yes, but what I meant was we are all descendants of the LUCA, the original creator. Mayhaps you don't think that a single cell is capable of creation, or perhaps a simple piece of RNA? But I assure they are capable of quite a bit, including but not limited to Hamlet and Macbeth a few billion years down the road. The line has never been broken and is most likely unable to be broken. Death doesn't even exist, so to me just the idea of life +70 is absurd.

[Worldwalker]

Giggleton, as far as I can tell, you're trolling in a very complicated fashion. Knock it off.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Giggleton, as far as I can tell, you're trolling in a very complicated fashion. Knock it off.

If by trolling you mean inserting the end of copyright meme into as many minds as possible, then yes I am.

[Worldwalker]

I mean that whole thing about descendants, death (or lack thereof), etc.

It's also starting to look like you really favor perpetual copyright, since you're trying to annoy as many people as possible and make the whole "end of copyright" thing look ridiculous. You're beginning to remind me of the kind of person who wins an election by hiring a bunch of unwashed winos to hand out his opponent's campaign literature. If that's what you're doing, we're on to you; if that's not what you want, you're doing it wrong.