3 ms·
You could argue that 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book. OTOH preventing adaptations stifles
by wisty 2y ago
You could argue that 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book. OTOH preventing adaptations stifles things. Imagine if Tolkein had managed to lock down his orcs and elves like Disney locked down the mouse.
I think 20 or 30 years is fairer. But IIRC it's not about fair, the Constitution says that it should only be to encourage innovation, and long copyright inhibits innovation.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> 14 years is a little short, especially for books which can get adaptations that pay more than the book If you want to make an official adapatation, hire the author. If not, it's not official. This takes care of itself for authors who cultivate their fan base.
- antifa 2y agoI think some kind of automatic royalty would be a nice middle ground.
- musicale 2y agoCompulsory licensing seems to have worked OK (though maybe not great) in some areas, such as broadcast retransmission, and recordings of cover versions of songs.
- Ekaros 2y agoYou could also keep trademarks. So content might not be protected, but you couldn't release remixes under trademarked names.
- musicale 2y ago> the Constitution says that it should only be to encourage innovation, and long copyright inhibits innovation. I concur, but the Supreme Court might not. Plaintiffs in Eldred v. Ashcroft were defeated on "limited times", and I expect that a "promote the progress" argument would have an even harder time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft