Profile
The Wild Ewt of the Plains of Canada
Page Summary
elmyra.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ewtikins.livejournal.com - (no subject)
elmyra.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sci.livejournal.com - (no subject)
reddragdiva - (no subject)
mstevens.livejournal.com - (no subject)
vashti.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sci.livejournal.com - Unrelated
lethargic-man.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:48 pm (UTC)Out of interest, what do you think of the life + 70 years term on compositions, writing, etc.?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 01:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 10:43 pm (UTC)Unrelated
Date: 2006-12-14 01:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-17 03:05 pm (UTC)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?