5 ms·

> till their deaths When you want to use some work it can be a hardship to tell if the author is dead. Fixed expiration time is much better.

CydeWeys 7y ago
I've never understood what the creator's death has to do with copyright anyway. You've already written the work; why should it matter to copyright law if you were young or old when you did so, or whether or not you got really unlucky immediately afterwards in getting run over by a bus?
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  Probably something to do with making a living off the fruits of your genuis/labor?
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Because copyright is artificial, and the only reason that we grant it to artists is so that the artists may make money and thus more art. The interest of the public domain far outweighs any imagined right of relatives of the artist to make money; it's not like they're automatically artists themselves.
  - simonh 7y ago
    This strikes me as a particularly mean and grasping attitude I’m afraid. My children aren’t IT engineers, but they still benefit from my savings, life insurance and the proceeds of my investments. The property rights you exercise over the things you own are artificial. It’s in the interests of the public to encourage the production and publication of new ideas and art. The vast majority of authors make very little for their efforts, and the majority of the benefit to society is gained simply by its publication and broad distribution. The additional benefit from derived works IMHO is much lower.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lidHanteyk 7y ago
      Look at your mewling phrasing. You're "afraid" that I'm "mean"? My viewpoint is not a "grasping attitude". To quote the relevant part of the USA's Constitution [0]: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Copyright is not for your children. It is a limited right given specifically to you, the author or inventor. How did you confuse it with property rights? You are free to invest the earnings that you make from exercise of your copyright, and to give those investments and savings to your progeny; you are not free to so invest your works, because upon your passing, they are no longer yours, but enter the public domain. You chose to share those works with the public, taking their money with the understanding that the money would support you in your artistic efforts; the public, in turn, has a shared cultural knowledge which incorporates your art. Your second paragraph is a bland restatement of the basic reason why copyright exists: Copying is easy, art is hard, so copyright is necessary to ensure that artists get paid enough to live on and create more art. However, art only happens within a cultural context, so it's also necessary to have a large and robust public domain. This balance between copyright and the public domain is reflected in the legislative history of copyright [1] around the time of the drafting of the Constitution. To paraphrase a popular lyric, when you go knockin' on heaven's door, please leave your tools; you won't need 'em anymore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
    - mthoms 7y ago
      > the majority of the benefit to society is gained simply by its publication and broad distribution. You just made the perfect argument for a robust public domain.
      - simonh 7y ago
        Being in the public domain doesn’t automatically mean material is published, promoted and distributed. Those activities take a lot of effort, they are full time jobs for an entire industry, and they are the only way martial gets to be widely read. I love project Gutenberg, I have several of its books on my iPad right now, but a single book shop selling copyright works probably does more in a week to promote actually reading stuff than Gutenberg does in a year.

CydeWeys 7y ago

I've never understood what the creator's death has to do with copyright anyway. You've already written the work; why should it matter to copyright law if you were young or old when you did so, or whether or not you got really unlucky immediately afterwards in getting run over by a bus?

JKCalhoun 7y ago
Probably something to do with making a living off the fruits of your genuis/labor?
lidHanteyk 7y ago
Because copyright is artificial, and the only reason that we grant it to artists is so that the artists may make money and thus more art. The interest of the public domain far outweighs any imagined right of relatives of the artist to make money; it's not like they're automatically artists themselves.
- simonh 7y ago
  This strikes me as a particularly mean and grasping attitude I’m afraid. My children aren’t IT engineers, but they still benefit from my savings, life insurance and the proceeds of my investments. The property rights you exercise over the things you own are artificial. It’s in the interests of the public to encourage the production and publication of new ideas and art. The vast majority of authors make very little for their efforts, and the majority of the benefit to society is gained simply by its publication and broad distribution. The additional benefit from derived works IMHO is much lower.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Look at your mewling phrasing. You're "afraid" that I'm "mean"? My viewpoint is not a "grasping attitude". To quote the relevant part of the USA's Constitution [0]: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Copyright is not for your children. It is a limited right given specifically to you, the author or inventor. How did you confuse it with property rights? You are free to invest the earnings that you make from exercise of your copyright, and to give those investments and savings to your progeny; you are not free to so invest your works, because upon your passing, they are no longer yours, but enter the public domain. You chose to share those works with the public, taking their money with the understanding that the money would support you in your artistic efforts; the public, in turn, has a shared cultural knowledge which incorporates your art. Your second paragraph is a bland restatement of the basic reason why copyright exists: Copying is easy, art is hard, so copyright is necessary to ensure that artists get paid enough to live on and create more art. However, art only happens within a cultural context, so it's also necessary to have a large and robust public domain. This balance between copyright and the public domain is reflected in the legislative history of copyright [1] around the time of the drafting of the Constitution. To paraphrase a popular lyric, when you go knockin' on heaven's door, please leave your tools; you won't need 'em anymore. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
  - mthoms 7y ago
    > the majority of the benefit to society is gained simply by its publication and broad distribution. You just made the perfect argument for a robust public domain.
    - simonh 7y ago
      Being in the public domain doesn’t automatically mean material is published, promoted and distributed. Those activities take a lot of effort, they are full time jobs for an entire industry, and they are the only way martial gets to be widely read. I love project Gutenberg, I have several of its books on my iPad right now, but a single book shop selling copyright works probably does more in a week to promote actually reading stuff than Gutenberg does in a year.