4 ms·
10 years might be good enough for software, maybe movies and TV, but 50 is certainly a lot more appropriate for a book. I know of one case where a guy wrote a
by mikro2nd 8y ago
10 years might be good enough for software, maybe movies and TV, but 50 is certainly a lot more appropriate for a book.
I know of one case where a guy wrote a book -- a gardening book -- which was quite popular for its territory and niche. Then the author died. Fortunately for his widow the copyright protects her now primary source of income. But for copyright existing beyond the author's life she'd be destitute. Books are a writer's pension plan.
- benj111 8y agoPensions should be a writers pension plan. Replace the Author with someone with a normal job. Do their widows have some right to ongoing payment based on their partners work? It just seems bizarre reasoning to me, that doesn't seem to be applied elsewhere. And it doesn't even work that well. The Paul McCartneys of the world are rolling in more money than they and their relatives will ever need. Mean while there are actual creators that need paying jobs to continue doing their creating. Why does one creators widow/child/grand/great grand child have more of a right to a living than another actual creator? If we want a paternalistic system where we look after creators, then fine, do it fairly. If you want a somewhat free market where we attempt to maximise value for all parties then fine do it fairly. Edit to add: Copyright should allow/encourage creators to create. I'm not saying writers should have to churn out pulp fiction to make ends meet. I also don't think there should be an expectation that you can retire after one gardening book. The writer that retires after one book is a loss to society.