5 ms·

"20 + 20" is really a 40 year copyright with an early release if the artist passes away, basically. I am probably misremembering. I think the US was originally

"20 + 20" is really a 40 year copyright with an early release if the artist passes away, basically. I am probably misremembering. I think the US was originally 14 + 14, which is really 28 with a quick release in case of early death, etc. I'm also amiable to a 20 + (exponentially increasing yearly price to maintain copyright manually) pattern. Actually, that's probably my favorite form. Then Disney can retain their copyrights .... by paying a _whole lot of money_ and stop all the harm they've caused society at large by extending copyright duration far beyond anything reasonable.

arp242 3y ago
Ah, right. I'm not sure why death of the author should really be a factor; why not just a fixed period, whether that's 20 years, 40 years, or something else? I don't like "20+ increasing yearly price to maintain copyright"; the basic idea behind copyright is that authors or their estate will be able to make a living from their creative works. I'm not opposed to people or corporations make truckloads of money if their work is successful, but under this scheme the more successful your work is, the longer you'll be able to afford renewal fees and the more money you will be able to make off it. An author who made a slightly successful work that still rakes in some money after 20 years (say, €50/month) won't be able to afford the renewal fees, but if something is wildly successful (say, Harry Potter) then they'll be able to afford the renewal fees for a lot longer. The more successful a work is, the more it's part of our culture. Things like Star Trek or Harry Potter are just as much part of our culture as the Homeric stories were part of Greek culture, or Shakespeare is part of English culture. As far as I'm concerned the biggest reason why we should limit copyright at all is that culture belongs to everybody and that everyone should be able to contribute to that in their own way.

arp242 3y ago

Ah, right. I'm not sure why death of the author should really be a factor; why not just a fixed period, whether that's 20 years, 40 years, or something else? I don't like "20+ increasing yearly price to maintain copyright"; the basic idea behind copyright is that authors or their estate will be able to make a living from their creative works. I'm not opposed to people or corporations make truckloads of money if their work is successful, but under this scheme the more successful your work is, the longer you'll be able to afford renewal fees and the more money you will be able to make off it. An author who made a slightly successful work that still rakes in some money after 20 years (say, €50/month) won't be able to afford the renewal fees, but if something is wildly successful (say, Harry Potter) then they'll be able to afford the renewal fees for a lot longer. The more successful a work is, the more it's part of our culture. Things like Star Trek or Harry Potter are just as much part of our culture as the Homeric stories were part of Greek culture, or Shakespeare is part of English culture. As far as I'm concerned the biggest reason why we should limit copyright at all is that culture belongs to everybody and that everyone should be able to contribute to that in their own way.