File: 1569983373510.png (117.21 KB, 1920x1188, 160:99, Tom_Bell_graph_showing_ext….png) ImgOps Google
Are current copyright terms too long? How long should copyright last?
Yes. Though I'm personally rather opposed to the concept outside of writing.
Even covers, I'm a tad wishy-washy on.
I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with someone making Harry Potter and the Chamber of Potted Plants, with special guest Johnson from Halo.
As long as they aren't literally just reprinting the original books, I say let people make spinoffs if they want.
But what if someone wants to make "Harry Potter and the Secret that he is a child molester"? Something that tarnishes the character. I'm for the public domain like I said in >>2845
, but this is an interesting question.
Don't consider it cannon.
People'll know that Harry Potter and the Secret Child Molester isn't made by the original author, after all.
Do fanfics mess up the reputation of MLP? I wouldn't say so.
File: 1569994267987.png (48.35 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Gardevoir-282.png) ImgOps Google
>>2845>I'd say up to the original creator's death.
What if the original creator is a corporation? What about a movie, where thousands of people are involved in creating the movie? What if the author of a book has a heart attack and dies right after the book is printed?
Personally, I'd go with a 30-year fixed term after creation.
Fanfics can't be published and placed on the shelf next to the actual books with the way copyright is right now. >>2870>What if the original creator is a corporation
Corporations don't create things. People within the corporations do. >>What about a movie, where thousands of people are involved in creating the movie?
I'd say whoever wrote the original screenplay.>> What if the author of a book has a heart attack and dies right after the book is printed?
Then he can no longer make any money from the IP, so it becomes public domain.
That said, a fixed term might be an OK idea.
File: 1569995513309.jpg (51.63 KB, 500x500, 1:1, doge-at-desk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2874>Then he can no longer make any money from the IP, so it becomes public domain.
It seems like that would have the undesirable effect of making publishers reluctant to work with authors who are nearing death?
True, but with the development of the internet, the only real difference I see these days is whether or not you can sell them.
I don't think they'd have the effect you talk about regardless.
File: 1569998763509.png (43.26 KB, 248x363, 248:363, 382.png) ImgOps Google
>Are current copyright terms too long?
>How long should copyright last?
I'm not really convinced for the 'sitting right next to the original work'. I guess it depends on how you sort things, though. I'd've sorted by author, personally.
As for in the general store, if that's what you're getting at, it seems like saying strollers and dildos are sold right next to eachother, because Amazon sells both products.
They're usually sorted by author within those categories, though.
You go to the fantasy section, and your books by one major author tend to be together, A-Z. At least htat was the case at the last store I went to.
>>2841>Are current copyright terms too long?
Probably.>How long should copyright last?
If I have to come up with a number, um...25 years. I think that would cover most of the profit creators would earn, and if the goal is to ensure creators earn enough to justify creation, exerting legal resources to protect a trailing trickle of sales makes little sense. True, some things gain a cult following long after their release, but I'm not sure that factors in the economics of creative efforts.
Yes. They're very much too long. I think about 30 years is pretty reasonable. It leaves enough time for publishers to make money off the process so writers can still effectively work with publishers in a workable time frame, but doesn't leave us in a draconian state we're in now where copyright is a joke that nobody even takes seriously because it's over a fucking century now. Funny part is, these companies make most of their money on opening weekend anyway, and then another bump once the dvd is released, so it wouldn't really hurt these giant publishers much at all.
The way it is now is basically the result of corporations having free rein over the legal system via lobbying, and with the internet making information fast and free, nobody right now has any respect for the 110 year bullshit current copyright law. They'll do what they can to avoid legal ramifications, but nobody, not even the corporations, are looking at the century-long copyright rule and saying "yea, that seems reasonable".
It's anti-freedom and anti-competition to have such long terms.
Rather than a way to promote innovation, it is a way to stifle and stabilize society, producing less competition, in an age where technology rapidly advances.
Really, it should be the other way around - copyright should be getting shorter with advances in technology.