5 ms·

I don't see any reason you couldn't have the greater of: a fixed term (say 20 years) or when the author dies (I don't have any problem at all with an author liv

• mikeash 12y ago
  I think that would be decent. I don't particularly think a person should still be getting income from a copyrighted work they created the better part of a century ago just because they happen to still be alive, but I'm not strongly opposed to it either.
  • mcb3k 12y ago
    I think that using just the fixed term would be better, just for simplicity's sake. How would it work if you have a collaborative novel? One author dies, the other continues living. What if the author goes missing? Changes their name, moves and leaves no forwarding address? How much effort do you need to put in to track down an author in order to re-print their works, or to tell if they're in the public domain? It's much easier to just do a standard, fixed term for all copyrights.
• pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >(I don't have any problem at all with an author living off their own work for as long as they live). // It corrupts the copyright deal to some extent. Copyright in part is to encourage creation of new works in the hope that they will benefit society. If we (the people) allow authors to rest on their laurels we potentially deprive ourselves of much of the benefit that could be elicited from their creativity. We also to some extent lock up important works that would otherwise allow the inspiration of others - creators of derivative works - to be rewarded. We want to reward creativity, but not so much so that those who happen to have societally enriching creativity don't need to exercise it more than once!