Re-writing copyright laws.

[Razgovory]

In the Piracy thread, there was some discussion that copyright laws are not fair.  I agree with this, while not an excuse for piracy, I think that really should be overhauled.  For instance, I don't think reducing the time of copyright to only twenty or thirty years most intellectual property is unfair.  I'm not really well versed on this (though some members of this board are I believe), what do the rest of you think?

[Ideologue]

What do I think would be fair?

Ten years window of copyright on works, but with much longer exclusionary ownership of properties.  E.g.: MST3K would be in the public domain, but Jim Mallon's company would still own the rights to use Crow and Tom Servo and such for several more decades; Adventure Comics #247 would be in the public domain, but DC Entertainment would still own the Legion of Super-Heroes; and so on.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I think death of author + 70 years is retarded, I see no real reason that benefits any part of society aside from major media corporations.

[garbon]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?

[Josquius]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I think death of author + 70 years is retarded, I see no real reason that benefits any part of society aside from major media corporations.

hmm...I would add a bit of a plus; the author might have a family reliant on him. +30 or 40 or so? - assumes even if the author has a newborn son he will still be supported well into adulthood. And his wife should be able to see her way through to retirement age.

[ulmont]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?

Actually, copyrights occupy an interesting middle ground between patents (which are for a strictly limited time) and trademarks (which last as long as they serve to identify the producer to the public).  I wouldn't mind a perpetual copyright, as long as it was accompanied by an annual, and escalating, tax (to insure that only those copyrights which are still rather valuable are monopolized, and even so, not forever).

[The Brain]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I think death of author + 70 years is retarded, I see no real reason that benefits any part of society aside from major media corporations.

hmm...I would add a bit of a plus; the author might have a family reliant on him. +30 or 40 or so? - assumes even if the author has a newborn son he will still be supported well into adulthood. And his wife should be able to see her way through to retirement age.

While the children of inventors can starve to hell. OK.

[Razgovory]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?

Actually, copyrights occupy an interesting middle ground between patents (which are for a strictly limited time) and trademarks (which last as long as they serve to identify the producer to the public).  I wouldn't mind a perpetual copyright, as long as it was accompanied by an annual, and escalating, tax (to insure that only those copyrights which are still rather valuable are monopolized, and even so, not forever).

Interesting idea.

[Sheilbh]

hmm...I would add a bit of a plus; the author might have a family reliant on him. +30 or 40 or so? - assumes even if the author has a newborn son he will still be supported well into adulthood. And his wife should be able to see her way through to retirement age.

From an academic perspective  I do think it can hold back research.

Some estates are extremely protective.  The Joyce estate for example are just about to lose their copyright restrictions - that's why they gave Kate Bush permission to use Ulysses on one of her 2011 albums but not in the 80s.  It'll be interesting to see the effect of that, I've read that it's expected to lead to another bout of Joycemania as we see new interpretations based on Joyce's work.  The Abbey Theatre's already refusing to comment.

I can't wait for the Nabokov estate to lose their copyright as I think they've been similarly quite restrictive

[Warspite]

If estates (ie children of talented artists with copywrited work) want seventy years of monopoly, maybe they can pay inheritance tax on the value? After all they would do so on, say, the family home.

But yeah, current terms are far too restrictive and are just rent seeking. I accept the need to ensure a fair reward for an artists creative labour, but I don't think the de facto perpetual monopolies are a fair deal for society.

Among other things I manage an archive of 155 years worth of academic material and we only charge or get restrictive about the last twenty years of papers, even though we could get decent cash for a lot of our older material. But then we are a charity and have some naive beliefs about the public good...

[Martinus]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?

Apples and oranges, in terms of public interest, "expiration date", and potential monetizing value.

[garbon]

I think life of the author is "okay", but I wouldn't mind if it was 40 years or so from date of first publication.

I don't think so. Patents don't even get that long so why should copyright?

Apples and oranges, in terms of public interest, "expiration date", and potential monetizing value.

Oh there's certainly a public interest in having patents expire at much shorter times...but where is the public interest in allow copyrights to last so long? I really doubt that without such a long period of copyright that authors would feel so stifled as to not create works.

[Cecil]

Bring it back to 28 years. Though I suppose the first change to 42 would be acceptable as well.

[Grey Fox]

Experiation after 20 years of registering. Extension of what consist fair use.  Much lower royalties. No transfer of IPs.

[Barrister]

Copyright law is fine.

Change patent law instead.