5 ms·

I spend years writing a novel. My wife contributes to this novel by keeping me fed, clothed, and sheltered while I write it. The day it's published, I die. You

I spend years writing a novel. My wife contributes to this novel by keeping me fed, clothed, and sheltered while I write it. The day it's published, I die. Your proposal leaves my family nothing. Life + a decade is reasonable, IMO. Alternatively, 25yrs or life, whichever is longer.

EvanAnderson 5y ago
Dead creators can't create new works. The primary purpose of copyright, to my mind, is to incent the creation of new works for the ultimate benefit of humanity. I'd like to see "life plus" sunset over a period of years, allowing those who "banked" on that business model to still benefit while decreasing the copyright term after death until it's eventually eliminated. Removing copyright-after-death gradually discourages the business model you describe. It makes sense, to me, to ease into that gradually. Does the end of copyright-after-death mean some works won't be created? Maybe. Some people might not create new works if their estate can't profit after their death. Eliminating copyright-after-death opens the door for new derivative works sooner. I think there's potential for more new works to be created with copyright ending at death. More creators can build upon the old work versus a single creator toiling at the end of their life. I am of the camp, ultimately, that wants to see the U.S. Constitution's original copyright terms restored (and the requirement for registration and renewal). I think it will need to be a gradual process if only to allow those who have (unfairly, in my mind) lobbied for effectively infinite copyright terms to die.
- xur17 5y ago
  > Dead creators can't create new works. The primary purpose of copyright, to my mind, is to incent the creation of new works for the ultimate benefit of humanity. But in the example GP posted, if the person knew they were near death, they very well might stop working on it since their family won't benefit.
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    Yes. I said that in the 4th paragraph of my parent comment. Some people might choose not to create works for that reason. Works will become available for masses of artists to build upon sooner if copyright ends at death. I think the latter option will likely create more newworks than the former so I see potentially sacrificing the former as being worthy.
- anjbe 5y ago
  > I am of the camp, ultimately, that wants to see the U.S. Constitution's original copyright terms restored The Constitution doesn’t specify copyright terms; it only grants Congress the ability to set them. You probably mean that you want to restore the terms of the US’s first copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790 (fourteen plus fourteen years, etc.).
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    > You probably mean that you want to restore the terms of the US’s first copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790 (fourteen plus fourteen years, etc.). You're quite correct. Sorry for being sloppy when I banged-out that comment.
midasuni 5y ago
Why not 10 years? That’s all your wife gets in the first case, why linger if you don’t die?
einpoklum 5y ago
Are you Robert Jordan or J.K. Rowling? The large majority of people who write novels don't get any money for it and have no such expectations.
derbOac 5y ago
So I've always leaned toward the "ends at death" model (if not sooner; I actually have tended to lean toward no IP protections) but I think you've raised a good argument and might have changed my mind. However, can't you somehow create some legal mechanism for transferring rights on death to handle the sort of scenario you describe? This is, after all, the arguments about divorce settlements (Person A is supremely financially successful, but was supported by their spouse, so their spouse is heavily rewarded by the court). So couldn't you somehow smooth that process? I tend to think copyright lengths are arbitrary except these kinds of arguments: 1. Death of the creator(s) -- or those supporting them, or designated by the creator(s) as you've outlined. People dream up all sorts of murder plots, but it seems like those kinds of incentives could be worked out. 2. Some decline in profits or failure to make available a product. That is, once the profit declines to a certain point, or if someone takes a product out of print, it enters the public domain. You could also specify something based on averages. Like, the median product ceases to maintain X% of profit after Y years, so that becomes your copyright length.
anjbe 5y ago
One real‐world example of this is Ulysses S. Grant’s autobiography[1], which he wrote while dying of throat cancer, specifically to provide for his wife. He died five days after finishing the final manuscript. It’s a great read and I’m glad it was written. I’m also glad that the copyright has expired and as a result there exist free, high‐quality community‐maintained ebook editions. [1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/ulysses-s-grant/personal-memoirs-of-ulysses-s-grant https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/ulysses-s-grant/personal-m...

EvanAnderson 5y ago

Dead creators can't create new works. The primary purpose of copyright, to my mind, is to incent the creation of new works for the ultimate benefit of humanity. I'd like to see "life plus" sunset over a period of years, allowing those who "banked" on that business model to still benefit while decreasing the copyright term after death until it's eventually eliminated. Removing copyright-after-death gradually discourages the business model you describe. It makes sense, to me, to ease into that gradually. Does the end of copyright-after-death mean some works won't be created? Maybe. Some people might not create new works if their estate can't profit after their death. Eliminating copyright-after-death opens the door for new derivative works sooner. I think there's potential for more new works to be created with copyright ending at death. More creators can build upon the old work versus a single creator toiling at the end of their life. I am of the camp, ultimately, that wants to see the U.S. Constitution's original copyright terms restored (and the requirement for registration and renewal). I think it will need to be a gradual process if only to allow those who have (unfairly, in my mind) lobbied for effectively infinite copyright terms to die.

xur17 5y ago
> Dead creators can't create new works. The primary purpose of copyright, to my mind, is to incent the creation of new works for the ultimate benefit of humanity. But in the example GP posted, if the person knew they were near death, they very well might stop working on it since their family won't benefit.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  Yes. I said that in the 4th paragraph of my parent comment. Some people might choose not to create works for that reason. Works will become available for masses of artists to build upon sooner if copyright ends at death. I think the latter option will likely create more newworks than the former so I see potentially sacrificing the former as being worthy.
anjbe 5y ago
> I am of the camp, ultimately, that wants to see the U.S. Constitution's original copyright terms restored The Constitution doesn’t specify copyright terms; it only grants Congress the ability to set them. You probably mean that you want to restore the terms of the US’s first copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790 (fourteen plus fourteen years, etc.).
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  > You probably mean that you want to restore the terms of the US’s first copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790 (fourteen plus fourteen years, etc.). You're quite correct. Sorry for being sloppy when I banged-out that comment.

midasuni 5y ago

Why not 10 years? That’s all your wife gets in the first case, why linger if you don’t die?

einpoklum 5y ago

Are you Robert Jordan or J.K. Rowling? The large majority of people who write novels don't get any money for it and have no such expectations.

derbOac 5y ago

So I've always leaned toward the "ends at death" model (if not sooner; I actually have tended to lean toward no IP protections) but I think you've raised a good argument and might have changed my mind. However, can't you somehow create some legal mechanism for transferring rights on death to handle the sort of scenario you describe? This is, after all, the arguments about divorce settlements (Person A is supremely financially successful, but was supported by their spouse, so their spouse is heavily rewarded by the court). So couldn't you somehow smooth that process? I tend to think copyright lengths are arbitrary except these kinds of arguments: 1. Death of the creator(s) -- or those supporting them, or designated by the creator(s) as you've outlined. People dream up all sorts of murder plots, but it seems like those kinds of incentives could be worked out. 2. Some decline in profits or failure to make available a product. That is, once the profit declines to a certain point, or if someone takes a product out of print, it enters the public domain. You could also specify something based on averages. Like, the median product ceases to maintain X% of profit after Y years, so that becomes your copyright length.

anjbe 5y ago

One real‐world example of this is Ulysses S. Grant’s autobiography[1], which he wrote while dying of throat cancer, specifically to provide for his wife. He died five days after finishing the final manuscript. It’s a great read and I’m glad it was written. I’m also glad that the copyright has expired and as a result there exist free, high‐quality community‐maintained ebook editions. [1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/ulysses-s-grant/personal-memoirs-of-ulysses-s-grant https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/ulysses-s-grant/personal-m...