Date: 2006-12-17 03:05 pm (UTC)
Didn't get around to responding to this beforehand...

I haven't signed this (yet)... On the one hand I think life plus seventy years is wrong... but on the other, I think fifty years is wrong too. Cliff Richard has been complaining that it means his income from his earlier works is going to dry up, and whilst I disagree with his contention that copyright should be life plus ninety years, I agree with his original point.

Now, one could ask why he should be able to continue gaining income from something he did fifty years ago, but I think to an extent that is another question. This is how our copyright system works: artists get royalties for something they did in the past.

From my philosophical perspective I think both literary and recorded copyright should be no more than life plus twenty-five years. I agree strongly with the contention that works should be able to pass eventually into the public domain; but I disagree with that that copyright should last so little time artists loss copyright on their own works in their own lifetime.

Thoughts?
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

The Wild Ewt of the Plains of Canada

September 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29 30     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2025 10:08 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios