Really, after reading everything written down here, I felt I had to weigh in with a middle ground.
I can't help but hugely disagree with the concept that people should hold a copyright for all works for "perpetuity".
Imagine, if you will, a world where every work of art possessed an eternal copyright, which can be passed from generation to generation. A society where the distant descendants of Shakespeare, Beethoven and da Vinci have become billionaires off the works of their forebears, spending their time unproductively for the rest of society as they have been brought up knowing they have no need to work. Where there is a perpetual legal battle over who owns the rights to first written copy of the Bible, Torah and Koran. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but you get the idea.
In such a society, all creativity would be stifled rather than fostered, as artists would be unable to use the influence of great writers of the past in their works. Great books like 'Wide Sargasso Sea' (based on Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre') or 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead' (a play based on 'Hamlet') would never be written, as this would require paying exorbitant amounts of money to the author's great(x30)-grandchildren.
In fact, these descendents would not be required to give permission for such works to be published. Look at the issues currently raised by Stephen Joyce, the grandson of James Joyce who frequently prevents both academics and artists from quoting pieces of his grandfather's work.
In the same way that the copyright for inventing cars, planes, microwaves and every other piece of technology must be dropped eventually, to allow further scientific progress, artists cannot expect (and I could hardly imagine would want) to maintain their copyright in perpetuity.
On the other hand, I disagree with Derek Kerton's assertion that 5 years would be a suitable length of copyright. I certainly think that an artist should be allowed to maintain copyright throughout their life and benefit from the fruit of their labours. I would probably also say that their descendants should hold the rights for a ten or twenty years after the writer's death, if only to allow them control during the period immediately following their parent's/spouse's death. I will admit to being undecided on this point.
Further, it must be taken into account, that any popular author who would be affected by this issue of copyright has already made CASH off the sales of their books. For example, if J.K. Rowling's children did not get the copyright of her books after she died, they would still have huge amounts of money from the proceeds gained during the author's life. The same applies for pretty much all authors on a smaller scale.
Anyway, I should conclude my ramblings now! I just felt that had to be said.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by CharmingApollo.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The smartest kid in the room
I can't help but hugely disagree with the concept that people should hold a copyright for all works for "perpetuity".
Imagine, if you will, a world where every work of art possessed an eternal copyright, which can be passed from generation to generation. A society where the distant descendants of Shakespeare, Beethoven and da Vinci have become billionaires off the works of their forebears, spending their time unproductively for the rest of society as they have been brought up knowing they have no need to work. Where there is a perpetual legal battle over who owns the rights to first written copy of the Bible, Torah and Koran. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but you get the idea.
In such a society, all creativity would be stifled rather than fostered, as artists would be unable to use the influence of great writers of the past in their works. Great books like 'Wide Sargasso Sea' (based on Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre') or 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead' (a play based on 'Hamlet') would never be written, as this would require paying exorbitant amounts of money to the author's great(x30)-grandchildren.
In fact, these descendents would not be required to give permission for such works to be published. Look at the issues currently raised by Stephen Joyce, the grandson of James Joyce who frequently prevents both academics and artists from quoting pieces of his grandfather's work.
In the same way that the copyright for inventing cars, planes, microwaves and every other piece of technology must be dropped eventually, to allow further scientific progress, artists cannot expect (and I could hardly imagine would want) to maintain their copyright in perpetuity.
On the other hand, I disagree with Derek Kerton's assertion that 5 years would be a suitable length of copyright. I certainly think that an artist should be allowed to maintain copyright throughout their life and benefit from the fruit of their labours. I would probably also say that their descendants should hold the rights for a ten or twenty years after the writer's death, if only to allow them control during the period immediately following their parent's/spouse's death. I will admit to being undecided on this point.
Further, it must be taken into account, that any popular author who would be affected by this issue of copyright has already made CASH off the sales of their books. For example, if J.K. Rowling's children did not get the copyright of her books after she died, they would still have huge amounts of money from the proceeds gained during the author's life. The same applies for pretty much all authors on a smaller scale.
Anyway, I should conclude my ramblings now! I just felt that had to be said.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by CharmingApollo.
Submit a story now.