(03-03-2021 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote: (03-03-2021 09:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote: (03-03-2021 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote: Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.
Irrespective of the content of the works, arguably works that old should already be in the public domain -- in which case it wouldn't be the estate's decision to make. Copyright for works from that period generally lasts 95 years, which may be excessive. For more recent works, it's even longer: life of the author plus 70 years, which some have called the "Walt Disney rule".
The life of author plus 70 years seems pretty reasonable for my non-lawyer mind. What do you think is reasonable for works such as this?
Well, every IP right is a monopoly in the work covered by the right, and thus a restriction on the public's freedom of action. Hence, every grant of such right is (or should be) a balance between the public's interest in sufficiently incentivizing the creation of such works and the public's interest in freely using them and in free expression generally.
The US Constitution recognized this balance when it authorized patents and copyrights in the first place, giving Congress the enumerated power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
For promoting the creation of written works, a monopoly term on the order of life of the author OR 30 years (whichever ends last) seems sufficient -- which is about what it was for the first 120 years of US copyright law.
Life of the author PLUS 70 years seems to stretch both the policy purpose and the Constitutional authorization in two ways:
- First, it seems to stretch "limited" far beyond what is necessary and proper to promote creativity.
- Second, by extending the monopoly 2-3 generations past the actual author's existence, it seems to stretch the scope of "securing to Authors".
This lengthly term is perhaps a classic example of regulatory capture: the principal lobbyists involved in making copyright law are the representatives of the publishing industries (not just book publishing, but music, movies, and so on) -- i.e. the rights owners, who have a massive vested interest in making the term as long as possible. And they have been impressively successfully in steering the law more and more in their favor over the last several decades.
I'm the first to note that popularity doesn't make right, but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to about this topic has said that the current copyright term is too long. Rice93 is the first person I've conversed with who has stated otherwise.