4 ms·
This 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
by res0nat0r 15y ago
This 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.