3 ms·

As a resonable compromise. Between 0 and the current 95 years, it is at a good middle. Also resonates well with the natural life spans. If your are creating wor

by _ph_ 8y ago

As a resonable compromise. Between 0 and the current 95 years, it is at a good middle. Also resonates well with the natural life spans. If your are creating works between 20 and 40, you have them under copyright for most of your life. The protection span should be long enough, that individual creators are not disincentivized to not publish creations early.

benj111 8y ago
Lets (broadly) split creators into 2 groups. Individuals and companies. Individuals tend to produce smaller works because theres only one of them, concentrate on less capital intensive forms of creation, and I would contend tend to create regardless of copyright. Therefore the focus should be on allowing them enough money to create. Does 50 years allow them to do that? The majority of a works financial success in general comes in the first few years. I don't think the long tail of income dripping in is going to meaningfully allow them to carry on creating, and the cost to society isn't worth it either. Companies are more likely to work on larger, more capital intensive works. And are less likely to be intrinsically motivated to create. Creation is about what money they can make. Therefore the focus should be on arranging it, so that it is worth their time to create new works. Companies do not think long term in general. 10 years out is about the maximum. They aren't going to make investment decisions based on year 11. It will be based on years 1 - 10. Will that film not get filmed because copyright is only 10 years? Will that book not get written? I don't think those decisions will change, whether copyright is 10 years or 100 years. The only difference is society loses derivative works. What about that high successful fan fiction writer that never was? Or that director that (never) got their start remixing films? The status quo isn't some Neutral where nobody loses out. Subsidies we give to current and past creators have to be paid by some one.

by _ph_ 8y ago

benj111 8y ago

Lets (broadly) split creators into 2 groups. Individuals and companies. Individuals tend to produce smaller works because theres only one of them, concentrate on less capital intensive forms of creation, and I would contend tend to create regardless of copyright. Therefore the focus should be on allowing them enough money to create. Does 50 years allow them to do that? The majority of a works financial success in general comes in the first few years. I don't think the long tail of income dripping in is going to meaningfully allow them to carry on creating, and the cost to society isn't worth it either. Companies are more likely to work on larger, more capital intensive works. And are less likely to be intrinsically motivated to create. Creation is about what money they can make. Therefore the focus should be on arranging it, so that it is worth their time to create new works. Companies do not think long term in general. 10 years out is about the maximum. They aren't going to make investment decisions based on year 11. It will be based on years 1 - 10. Will that film not get filmed because copyright is only 10 years? Will that book not get written? I don't think those decisions will change, whether copyright is 10 years or 100 years. The only difference is society loses derivative works. What about that high successful fan fiction writer that never was? Or that director that (never) got their start remixing films? The status quo isn't some Neutral where nobody loses out. Subsidies we give to current and past creators have to be paid by some one.