4 ms·
No copyright isn't the solution. But it probably would be better than the current situation. Bring back either a 20-year copyright or an "author's death plus 10
by tarboreus 9y ago
No copyright isn't the solution. But it probably would be better than the current situation. Bring back either a 20-year copyright or an "author's death plus 10 years" version. The latter would be easiest to litigate and would incentivize relatives pulling together and sharing papers and unfinished manuscripts.
- rlayton2 9y agoSerious question: how would "author's death plus 10 years" work for companies?
- LoSboccacc 9y agoor group works. would nirvana songs be public domain?
- bjoli 9y agoHave a fallback. Authors death +10 years or at most 30 years (numbers pulled out of my posterior. I am not suggesting anything)
- T-hawk 9y agoThis encourages gaming the system: companies will seek to designate as the copyright holder the youngest available employee, to make the term last longer.
- tarboreus 9y agoA good question, though we're currently living in a world that is the author's death plus 95 years in the US, so this is already standard practice. Works not covered this way get a ridiculous 120 years copyright coverage. I would say a flat 35 years from publication or 50 years for unpublished works would be reasonable.
- zczc 9y ago20 year is ok, but "author's death plus 10 years" is bad because it short enough to create some dreadful incentive for would-be publishers: if author is not willing to deal with you just kill him and wait a decade
- tarboreus 9y agoThat doesn't make sense. It's not like the person who killed them would get a copyright monopoly on the work. Literally anyone could publish it. Do you see anyone getting rich publishing works in the public domain? If that's the case, I need to get myself some of that red-hot Project Gutenberg money.