4 ms·
At least they should stop copyright once the authors dies. I understand that the creator deserves fair compensation, but why would relatives or companies who bo
by 13415 6y ago
At least they should stop copyright once the authors dies. I understand that the creator deserves fair compensation, but why would relatives or companies who bought the copyright make a living from some dead person's work? To me it makes no sense, people should be paid for their own work based on their own merits.
But even during lifetime 20 or 30 years would be more reasonable. As much as I sympathize with people who make substantial money off a Christmas song they wrote 40 years ago, the idea of lifelong support already seems a bit exaggerated.
- t-writescode 6y agoIf memory serves me, and it’s late so I don’t want to go research right now, original copyright in the US was 20 years + 20 more if the author was still alive. You want works to outlast a person in the pathological (edge) case, which the old law supported because, if you’re an author and you release your most recent work a year before you die, you want the spouse you leave behind to profit despite your absence. Imagine being a sick old man that wants to write one last book and some carnivorous movie company refuses to pay you for the movie rights because you’re about to die anyway. That’s not really protecting the author as copyright is intended.