4 ms·

> an artistic work won’t join the public domain for the life of the author plus another 70 years. > "Canada will continue to do its part to protect the interes

> an artistic work won’t join the public domain for the life of the author plus another 70 years. > "Canada will continue to do its part to protect the interests of artists, creators and rights holders, while continuing to balance the needs of industry" Well no, an artist's interests disappear the moment they die, this is only to protect the interests of the rights holders, most likely only the big ones. At least be straight about it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
You are failing to consider scarcity. For example, if the artist is 70 years and someone is thinking about buying the rights to their work, how long after death the work is protected is a big deal. In this example, if the copyright ended immediately upon the artist's death, then a lot of potential buyers may decide that it is worth it to just wait for the artist to die, and either not make an offer or make a much smaller offer than they would have under the current situation of 70 years after the death of the author.
- mharig 3y ago
  Artists have to make art, not shovel money.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  This is an argument to simply not consider the date of death of an author at all. For example, 70 years since the work was first published seems reasonable. Then most people's descendants will see some revenue from dad's work, and there won't be a sudden cliff date, assuming dad produced works all through his life. An investor who buys the rights no longer has to consider the age and health status of the author while deciding how much the rights are worth.
  - kevincox 3y ago
    I also like excluding the authors lifetime because it makes it easy to determine when works are public. There is no need to track down who the author is, if it has been around for X years it is now public. It gives a definite endtime.
- charles_f 3y ago
  That's a fair argument
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  Why not "the author's natural lifetime or 23 years, whichever is longer"?
t-writescode 3y ago
An artist's interests disappear after their family is reasonably compensated after they die, in many cases. While I completely disagree with "Life of author + 70 years", I'm very much a fan of 20 + 20 and other platforms, where things are protected for, for example, 20 years and then if the author is still alive, or recently passed, they get another 20 for their lineage. Imagine an author finishes a book as their way of securing their family's future.
- amrocha 3y ago
  Why do artists families deserve that kind of compensation compared to everyone else? What makes them so special that they can't just just use a pension or investments like everyone else?
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    A book is not like a statue with one large patron; or a piece of software they were commissioned, in the past, to write and have no promise of gain in the future. A book is written for hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of tiny, future patrons. Further "starving artist" isn't just a trope. An author probably wasn't being paid for a given book for the months or years until the book was produced. It was made on a promise that some day it would be paid back. That's what makes it different.
    - croes 3y ago
      >or a piece of software they were commissioned What about software that wasn't commissioned? Many programmers are kind of an artist too. All what you mentioned is also valid for a programmer writing a game or application.
      - t-writescode 3y ago
        Sure is! I would say their work should be protected the same way. When I was mentioning the programmer above, I was definitely not clear. I should have been more clear. The difference I was trying to portray is that artist work tends to come in two forms: * pay ahead of time * pay in the future I was speaking mostly of the contract workers that work for another company and could be fired "tomorrow" and never see another penny - their pennies were earned in their salaries. Artistic work regularly comes in the "pay in the future" form. We see that all the time with books, songs and yes, indie game or other software developers working on passion projects. Having copyright immediately end at death harms the desires for those creators to do work, especially later in their lives, where they personally won't reap the benefits of it; but, their children could. "Plant a tree for your grandkids to swing in" and all that. But yes, you are entirely correct with regards to developers working on passion projects.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

You are failing to consider scarcity. For example, if the artist is 70 years and someone is thinking about buying the rights to their work, how long after death the work is protected is a big deal. In this example, if the copyright ended immediately upon the artist's death, then a lot of potential buyers may decide that it is worth it to just wait for the artist to die, and either not make an offer or make a much smaller offer than they would have under the current situation of 70 years after the death of the author.

mharig 3y ago
Artists have to make art, not shovel money.
londons_explore 3y ago
This is an argument to simply not consider the date of death of an author at all. For example, 70 years since the work was first published seems reasonable. Then most people's descendants will see some revenue from dad's work, and there won't be a sudden cliff date, assuming dad produced works all through his life. An investor who buys the rights no longer has to consider the age and health status of the author while deciding how much the rights are worth.
- kevincox 3y ago
  I also like excluding the authors lifetime because it makes it easy to determine when works are public. There is no need to track down who the author is, if it has been around for X years it is now public. It gives a definite endtime.
charles_f 3y ago
That's a fair argument
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
Why not "the author's natural lifetime or 23 years, whichever is longer"?

t-writescode 3y ago

An artist's interests disappear after their family is reasonably compensated after they die, in many cases. While I completely disagree with "Life of author + 70 years", I'm very much a fan of 20 + 20 and other platforms, where things are protected for, for example, 20 years and then if the author is still alive, or recently passed, they get another 20 for their lineage. Imagine an author finishes a book as their way of securing their family's future.

amrocha 3y ago
Why do artists families deserve that kind of compensation compared to everyone else? What makes them so special that they can't just just use a pension or investments like everyone else?
- t-writescode 3y ago
  A book is not like a statue with one large patron; or a piece of software they were commissioned, in the past, to write and have no promise of gain in the future. A book is written for hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of tiny, future patrons. Further "starving artist" isn't just a trope. An author probably wasn't being paid for a given book for the months or years until the book was produced. It was made on a promise that some day it would be paid back. That's what makes it different.
  - croes 3y ago
    >or a piece of software they were commissioned What about software that wasn't commissioned? Many programmers are kind of an artist too. All what you mentioned is also valid for a programmer writing a game or application.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      Sure is! I would say their work should be protected the same way. When I was mentioning the programmer above, I was definitely not clear. I should have been more clear. The difference I was trying to portray is that artist work tends to come in two forms: * pay ahead of time * pay in the future I was speaking mostly of the contract workers that work for another company and could be fired "tomorrow" and never see another penny - their pennies were earned in their salaries. Artistic work regularly comes in the "pay in the future" form. We see that all the time with books, songs and yes, indie game or other software developers working on passion projects. Having copyright immediately end at death harms the desires for those creators to do work, especially later in their lives, where they personally won't reap the benefits of it; but, their children could. "Plant a tree for your grandkids to swing in" and all that. But yes, you are entirely correct with regards to developers working on passion projects.