4 ms·

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.

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.

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.