5 ms·
While I agree that 2-3 years is probably too short time, your reasoning is wrong. The purpose of copyright should be to incentivise the creation of creative wor
by mortil 15y ago
While I agree that 2-3 years is probably too short time, your reasoning is wrong. The purpose of copyright should be to incentivise the creation of creative works, not to perpetually reward the owners of works with a sustained commercial value.
- res0nat0r 15y agoThis is a great argument, but a bit too idealistic in my opinion. If copyright kicks in a few years after I write my hit novel and then I see my revenue plummet to $0 even though I know tons of people are still willing to pay me for it, then I'd be less willing to write another book because of this. I'd be willing to bet that the next JK Rowlings of the world would fight tooth an nail to prevent any type of copyright change that doesn't at least extend until the authors death. Rowling and Stephen King aren't just in it for the money, but they do want to get paid.
- wtallis 15y agoIdealistic or not, it's more than just a great argument. It's what the US Constitution requires.
- tsotha 15y agoBut the constitution gives Congress a wide latitude in the implementation, which is why the Supreme Court is unwilling to curtail the perpetual extensions that got us where we are today.
- nitrogen 15y agoWhy should the author's death have any bearing on the length of copyright? That seems entirely unfair to the estate of the hypothetical dead author whose bestselling crowning achievement was written on his death bed, and entirely unfair to the public who want to have the works of unusually long-lived authors enter the public domain sooner.
- res0nat0r 15y agoThis was just a hypothetical, extend it even after the authors death, this is fine by me. I'd like to see copyright such that the actual creator of the work defines how long the item stays under copyright. I say 1 year? Fine. I say until my death? Great. I say this book shall remain under copyright for 300 years? So be it. Take the good with the bad.
- tsotha 15y agoAuthors sell the rights to their books for income. The shorter the copyright period is the less valuable those rights will be. So it's not a question of "sustained commercial value", it's a question of the value of rights at the time of publication. 2-3 years would make writing a hobby for all but the very most popular authors.
- sp332 15y agoI don't really care if the rights are less valuable. The author has no inherent (property) right to tell me that I can't make copies of his book. Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now.
- tsotha 15y ago>Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now. No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be available from any source, because it would never get written at all. There's only so much time people are willing to put into an unpaid hobby.
- sp332 15y agoWhy do you assume he wouldn't get paid for it?
- tsotha 15y agoWho would pay?
- sp332 15y agoAnyone who thinks it's worth the money, anyone who wants to thank him for writing a book, anyone who wants to encourage him to make more books, anyone who makes an impulse buy, anyone who wants a physical copy... you know, all the same exact people who pay for it now.