Copyright Law

[Francesca R]

I would suggest to you that the decision to become a pharmacologist or a musician has little, if anything, to do with the relative length of intellectual property protection that the fruits of one's labour would enjoy.

Instead, it would come down to whether one wants to spend their days creating drugs or spend their days using drugs.

I suspect that the compensation you can expect to extract from a career has an influence on the choice of career. It did in my case since I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry but work for an investment bank.

Copyright and patent are both about intellectual property rights. Property rights are about providing incentives for capitalist enterprise to flourish, to the benefit of society. I fully agree that the issue is "trade-off" and the balance of incentives. but it is all one debate as far as I'm concerned, different nuances notwithdstanding.

 

[Ocelot]

As an artist, I see no reason why the protection afforded my work through copyright laws can't extend for 70 years past my death. It could help my children and grandchildren financially and keep at bay those 'businessmen' without a creative bone in their body from looting work that sprang from my imagination.

Fair enough. I assume that you would see no reason why the protection shouldn't last 170 years or 700 or into perpetuity. You're an artist and it's in your interests to look out for the value of your work. Anything that increases that value is in your interestsw. I can see that.

As a member of society, I can see no reason why you should get any protection at all. If you're not creating for the love of your art then aren't you just another "businessman?" Here I'm looking out for my interests and the interests of the rest of society in getting free access to the products of artistic culture.

In truth I can see both arguments and feel that there should be a balance. Art enrinches all our lives and as such we choose to make the sometimes unrewarding life of an artist somewhat better to encourage more art. However we do not choose to allow copyright to exist in perpetuity. We choose to allow work to revert to the public domain after a period of time. The duration of this protection expresses the balance between how much reward society feels the artist deserves to be given and how much reward it takes to encourage artists to work.

I see the balance being skewed by the likes of Sonny Bono and corporate copyright holders who lobby for extended copyrights.

There are two issues here. One is why is the duration of copyright based upon a date of mortality rather than the date of publication. Why should the copyright on ET have added value due to the youth of Henry Thomas who played Eliot compared with say "Fried Green Tomatoes..." where all the principles were over 50? This makes no sense to me.

The second is that the duration is just too damn long. Copyright is not a natural right. It is an agreement between society and the artist. Society sees the benefit in protecting an artist's work from unauthorised duplication in incentivising that artist to create by offering rewards for a period of time. Some artists might argue that the product of their labour is their own and ask why should others ever profit from it. The answer is simply because those others can, without actually harming that artist. Lost revenue is not harm, it is just absence of benefit. Society provides a window of opportunity when the artist holds a monopoly for the benefit of that work. We as society have the right to renegotiate that deal as do the artists. However I feeel that once the artists enter into that deal the terms should not have been changed. If the duration of copyright was to be exteneded then surely that should have affected only new copyrights rather then the copyrights of 19th century artists. Making the copyrights of Strauss etc. more valuable will not cause more or better concertos from Strauss to have been written. Adding 20 years to the value of Virgina Woolf's novels will not retroactively cause her to hang in there and pen a few more. However I don't see that the duration of copyright should have been extended at all on those many occassions. I don't feel that a mandate from society was obtained and feel that society now has it in thier gift to express their opinion that it has gone too far.

If I want to download and read Virginia Woolf's novels and want to do so for free I have the technological ability to do so. I just have to click on this link here. In the US this is not under copyright so clicking on that link is legal. In the UK it is under copyright and so clicking on that link is not legal. In the UK I must pay for the right to take a copy of "the Voyage Out" but who am I paying? The agreement that Woolf made with society when publishing that book was fullfilled in 1991. Under the terms of that original agreement society reclaimed it's natural right to do with that content whatever it wants. The reward that society promised Woolf to encourage her to write has been repaid. The current copyright owner has recieved an unearned windfall.

As a side note I beleive that the proposed change to copyrights to 50 years from publication should affect only new works and that we have no moral right to alter copyrights that originated under more favourable conditions. However I also believe that copyrights that had their terms extended should revert to the terms of the original agreement. Just my opinion though.

 

[burnvictim77]

As an artist, I see no reason why the protection afforded my work through copyright laws can't extend for 70 years past my death. It could help my children and grandchildren financially and keep at bay those 'businessmen' without a creative bone in their body from looting work that sprang from my imagination.

As a songwriter and musician, I still don't see how people can claim they own ideas. Intellectual 'property' is nothing of the sort.

 

[Ladewig]

Sign the petition ...
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/copyright50/

In the United States legislators place zero value on electronic petitions. Does Parliment recognize them?

 

[Ocelot]

In the United States legislators place zero value on electronic petitions. Does Parliment recognize them?

Check the domain name - petitions.pm.gov.uk

This site is hosted by the UK governement. Petitioners must register with the site and supply their e-mail address and their UK postal address. Your name is only added to the petition after responding to a confirmation e-mail.

It could be said that legislators accross the world place zero value on any type of petition. A case in point may well be the road pricing petition hosted on the same site. History will tell.

I'm not entirely sure whether this process implies an electronic signature however it seems to be equivalent to the process used by www.writetothem.com. According to them Under the Electronic Communications Act 2000, Subsection 7(3) an electronic signature holds the same value in law as written signature. In the case of a petition that legal value in the UK is tantamount to nil. Should the government choose to ignore any petition even one signed by the overwhelming majority of it's citizens I believe that they have the legal right to do so.

However petitions are rarely about enforcing a legal obligation upon legislators. They apply moral pressure. In democratic societies policies are often formed on the basis of the squeaky wheel getting the oil. If you want to accomplish something then make a lot of noise. Whilst a government may ahve the legal right to ignore the will of the overwhelming majority of their constituents they shouldn't expect to do so and remain electorially unharmed.

All I'm trying to do is inform the UK government how many people think, like me, that current copyright arrangements are unbalanced, favouring corporate interests over society. Currently that number stands at just 6 so perhaps it is I who should take notice and stop harping on about it.

 

[Mephisto]

Fair enough. I assume that you would see no reason why the protection shouldn't last 170 years or 700 or into perpetuity. You're an artist and it's in your interests to look out for the value of your work. Anything that increases that value is in your interestsw. I can see that.

Actually, it would benefit me more to have my work enter the public domain after a period of time. I think the current laws (in the U.S. at least) are fair in that they would allow my grandchildren to retain the rights to my work to their benefit. The current laws would roughly cover two generations beyond my death and I think that anyone would find it fair to believe that they left something of (hopeful) value to their children's, children.

As a member of society, I can see no reason why you should get any protection at all. If you're not creating for the love of your art then aren't you just another "businessman?" Here I'm looking out for my interests and the interests of the rest of society in getting free access to the products of artistic culture.

Would you allow artists or musicians to dip into your retirement earnings? Would you think it fair if the public could divide your property (home, bank account, family heirlooms, etc.) immediately after your death? Why do you think it's fair that the general public be allowed "free access to the products of artistic culture," when you'd undoubtedly NOT think it fair for the artistic culture to dip into things of potential value you've saved for your family?

 

[Mephisto]

As a songwriter and musician, I still don't see how people can claim they own ideas. Intellectual 'property' is nothing of the sort.

Ideas are different than the actual work, are they not?

An idea, such as a protest song, is merely an idea and isn't worth much alone. It's the songwriter or musician who brings a unique blend of idea, music and lyrics to his work and THAT, I believe, is what is actually protected under copyright law. As a songwriter, do you constantly invent new musical genres which can't conceivably fit into one of several categories (symphony, ballad, rock & roll, punk, Country & Western or folk)? The idea is the base from which an artist or musician starts his work and clearly most artists and musicians use these "ideas" as springboards.

Literature and art are much the same in this respect, it's the unique view of the writer or artist that brings the IDEA into being; otherwise the first person to ever write an account of a war between the Greeks and Trojans would have his "property" trampled by every war story or movie since. The artist who first painted Christ on a cross would "own" the copyright to any art portraying that image.

 

[Mephisto]

As a member of society, I can see no reason why you should get any protection at all. If you're not creating for the love of your art then aren't you just another "businessman?" Here I'm looking out for my interests and the interests of the rest of society in getting free access to the products of artistic culture.

I'm still wondering if you still believe that "society" is welcome to the efforts of YOUR labors because, "if you're not creating your art (or your work/money) for the love of doing your job," then you're just another businessman.

I may go along (somewhat) with what you're saying regarding corporate interests, but I don't understand why you think they shouldn't retain their rights.

As an airbrush artist, I'm very aware of the fact that Disney Corporation as well as most sports teams guard their copyrighted materials (logos, recognizable characters, mascots, etc.) very closely. I don't paint t-shirts or automobiles, but I've heard of instances where corporate lawyers have decended upon beach-scenes where t-shirt artists often set up shop in order to have anyone painting copyrighted material arrested.

Still, these corporations have paid money for the design and implimentation of these symbols and logos and I can't understand why you feel that you have a right to them without compensating the companies.

 

[egslim]

The purpose of copyright laws should be to increase artistic innovation for the benefit of society - since in a democracy it is society that passes such laws. Too short or no copyright at all stiffles innovation, because it removes most financial incentives to be creative. Too long copyright also stiffles innovation, because then artists have little incentive to produce anything new. Which is why we're still stuck with Disney cartoons from the 30's.

Considering the fact that modern communications allow rapid publication of artistic works all over the world, an artist can receive the benefits from his work almost immediately - much faster than 50 years ago. Even without a worldwide publisher, online sale and downloads allow anyone with an internet connection and a creditcard to buy music/ebooks - movies require broadband. Therefore I think 10 years copyright is more than sufficient for the artist to recuperate his investment, but at the same time it provides an incentive to quickly produce something new.

Patents should last longer, since it generally takes more time to find investors, construct a production facility and set up a worldwide distribution network than to set up a website for sales.

 

[Mephisto]

Considering the fact that modern communications allow rapid publication of artistic works all over the world, an artist can receive the benefits from his work almost immediately - much faster than 50 years ago. Even without a worldwide publisher, online sale and downloads allow anyone with an internet connection and a creditcard to buy music/ebooks - movies require broadband.

But it's those same "modern communications" that allow artistic work to be easily "pirated." Certainly you've heard of Napster and the legal ramifications of providing copyrighted music to the general masses for free? If you ever peruse art websites, you'll also see that most artists include a watermark on their high resolution works. I'm not too sure what literary works can do to protect against piracy, but I'm sure something must exist.

Therefore I think 10 years copyright is more than sufficient for the artist to recuperate his investment, but at the same time it provides an incentive to quickly produce something new.

Have you personally tried to sell a piece of art? Ten years isn't more than enough time to see a return on an investment as the marketability of art is often determined by the overall economy. As it stands now, people have very little money to invest in art - they're too worried about other investments. The high price of gasoline or air travel also stifle the art market.

Ten years isn't a sufficient amount of time for selling either art, fine wine or antiques, all of which should increase in value as time passes.

Patents should last longer, since it generally takes more time to find investors, construct a production facility and set up a worldwide distribution network than to set up a website for sales.

Why would patents deserve more time than art? If an invention is worthy of putting into production it shouldn't take more than ten years to recoup the investment. I would say that after ten years a patent might be relatively useless, since many inventions are often obsolete within a short time frame.

This is especially true when considering the rapid pace of evolution with computer hardware or other technological inventions. Ten years ago no one ever considered computers running at the speed they do now, no one ever considered High-Definition plasma televisions, or DVDs. If an inventor can't get his product financed and flying within ten years, it probably won't ever sell.

Art, literature and good music, on the other hand, remains timeless. A painting by any notable artist doesn't decline with age, it becomes more valuable.

 

[Mojo]

Strauss, Ravanello and Rachmaninov never made half as much money from their own work as is extracted by their current copyright holders. However today's culture is stifled by copyright holders refusing to relinquish their grip on what should be our shared heritage.

Bulls[rule 8]t. Inexpensive recordings are available and public performances happen all the time. It is not in the copyright holder's interest to withold these works from the public via onerous fees, and they do not do so.

In addition, the copyright period for sound recordings (in the UK, and I think the rest of the EU) is not the same as the copyright period for the work itself. Copyright in recordings lasts 50 years from date of recording, or if it was published during this period, 50 years from date of publication (there's an anomaly relating to unpublished recordings made between 1957 and 1989, for some reason: the copyright in these expires on 31st December 2039, or 50 years from publication if published after 1989 but within 50 years of recording).

Hence there are record labels devoted to reissuing material that's over 50 years old.

 

[egslim]

But it's those same "modern communications" that allow artistic work to be easily "pirated." Certainly you've heard of Napster and the legal ramifications of providing copyrighted music to the general masses for free? If you ever peruse art websites, you'll also see that most artists include a watermark on their high resolution works. I'm not too sure what literary works can do to protect against piracy, but I'm sure something must exist.

The issue you mention is basically that pirates, both professional and amateur, have adapted much faster to the emergence of modern communications than legal sellers. That's why Napster emerged long before the first legal downloads became available.

Have you personally tried to sell a piece of art? Ten years isn't more than enough time to see a return on an investment as the marketability of art is often determined by the overall economy. As it stands now, people have very little money to invest in art - they're too worried about other investments. The high price of gasoline or air travel also stifle the art market.

I imagine most producers of luxury items suffer the same difficulties right now. I don't see why artists should be exempted from that group. And of course for copyright holders of educational texts and other more everyday items this is far less of an issue. It's a matter of demand for luxury items, not copyright protection.

Ten years isn't a sufficient amount of time for selling either art, fine wine or antiques, all of which should increase in value as time passes.

Oh, please. I'm pretty sure the Mona Lisa is no longer under copyright, but I doubt anyone will reduce its value by making copies. Such potential buyers pay for originality, with or without copyright.

Why would patents deserve more time than art?

I already answered that:
it generally takes more time to find investors, construct a production facility and set up a worldwide distribution network than to set up a website for sales.
To sell copyrighted works all you really need are online sales, and if you want more conventional exposure any music distributor/book publisher/art gallery can sell your work.

On the other hand, an invention may require construction of a brand new production facility, official safety tests, incorporation in a complemental product, etc. The investments in time and money may be far greater.

For example, a modern chip factory costs approximately 2 Billion dollars and several years to build. But any song of yours, no matter how artistically brilliant, can be recorded and distributed with a fraction of the time and money required.

 

[geni]

In truth I can see both arguments and feel that there should be a balance. Art enrinches all our lives and as such we choose to make the sometimes unrewarding life of an artist somewhat better to encourage more art. However we do not choose to allow copyright to exist in perpetuity. We choose to allow work to revert to the public domain after a period of time. The duration of this protection expresses the balance between how much reward society feels the artist deserves to be given and how much reward it takes to encourage artists to work.

I see the balance being skewed by the likes of Sonny Bono and corporate copyright holders who lobby for extended copyrights.

Sonny Bono mearly brought the US into line with international law with regard to lengths of copyright terms (the berne convention) . Given that the US is likely a net exporter of IP it is in the interests of the US economy to see that certian international standards are kept to. The lengeth extended to was already the standard in the UK.

There are two issues here. One is why is the duration of copyright based upon a date of mortality rather than the date of publication. Why should the copyright on ET have added value due to the youth of Henry Thomas who played Eliot compared with say "Fried Green Tomatoes..." where all the principles were over 50? This makes no sense to me.

Basicaly because the theory behind the current law is that copyright should last long enough to support your grand children.

The second is that the duration is just too damn long.

That is a subjective judgement.

Copyright is not a natural right. It is an agreement between society and the artist. Society sees the benefit in protecting an artist's work from unauthorised duplication in incentivising that artist to create by offering rewards for a period of time. Some artists might argue that the product of their labour is their own and ask why should others ever profit from it. The answer is simply because those others can, without actually harming that artist. Lost revenue is not harm, it is just absence of benefit. Society provides a window of opportunity when the artist holds a monopoly for the benefit of that work. We as society have the right to renegotiate that deal as do the artists. However I feeel that once the artists enter into that deal the terms should not have been changed.

Given that large areas of copyright law are case law you have to accept things are going to change.

If the duration of copyright was to be exteneded then surely that should have affected only new copyrights rather then the copyrights of 19th century artists.

The US has not extended all copyrights. This has some annoying effects. Under UK law with the exceptions of a few odds and ends (KJV bible and don't talk to me about engraveings) I can tell you when the copyright on something is going to expire after about 3 questions (what is it?, when did the last principle author die? is it under crown copyright)

US law would require twice that and involves lots of lawyers. Of course perhaps you are a lawyer and favor such a system.

I don't feel that a mandate from society was obtained and feel that society now has it in thier gift to express their opinion that it has gone too far.

UK is unlikely to break from international standards any more than it has already done so.

In the US this is not under copyright so clicking on that link is legal. In the UK it is under copyright and so clicking on that link is not legal. In the UK I must pay for the right to take a copy of "the Voyage Out" but who am I paying?

I'm sure the UK has a public libiary system.

The agreement that Woolf made with society when publishing that book was fullfilled in 1991. Under the terms of that original agreement society reclaimed it's natural right to do with that content whatever it wants. The reward that society promised Woolf to encourage her to write has been repaid. The current copyright owner has recieved an unearned windfall.

Not at all they made an investment and it has paid off. Risk reward.

As a side note I beleive that the proposed change to copyrights to 50 years from publication should affect only new works and that we have no moral right to alter copyrights that originated under more favourable conditions.

Oh boy. I hate publication +50. Have you any idea how hard it is to prove some stuff was published (it is an issue for some crown copyright stuff)? figureing out who counts as principle authors is trivial by comparison.


Out of interest what have you done with the copyrights you hold? There are various ways you could make them PD after 50 years.

 

[geni]

In addition, the copyright period for sound recordings (in the UK, and I think the rest of the EU) is not the same as the copyright period for the work itself. Copyright in recordings lasts 50 years from date of recording, or if it was published during this period, 50 years from date of publication (there's an anomaly relating to unpublished recordings made between 1957 and 1989, for some reason: the copyright in these expires on 31st December 2039, or 50 years from publication if published after 1989 but within 50 years of recording).

Hence there are record labels devoted to reissuing material that's over 50 years old.

Can't help woundering if there is room for a UK equiverlent of what happened in the US with "It's a Wonderful Life". The film isn't copywriten but since it is a derivative of a work which is it is still a copyright violation to show it without permission.

 

[Mephisto]

The issue you mention is basically that pirates, both professional and amateur, have adapted much faster to the emergence of modern communications than legal sellers. That's why Napster emerged long before the first legal downloads became available.

Which is why copyright infringement is such a problem for artists of all types. The very technology that allows artists such widespread exposure also allows their works to be stolen with relative ease.

I imagine most producers of luxury items suffer the same difficulties right now. I don't see why artists should be exempted from that group. And of course for copyright holders of educational texts and other more everyday items this is far less of an issue. It's a matter of demand for luxury items, not copyright protection.

Yes, but we're talking original works of art and NOT diamond rings, or Ferrari's here - a painting is a unique item that isn't mass produced. Also, most educational texts are massed produced and more often than not use staff writers whose work isn't copyrighted except as part of the text. It's a shame that you believe the only worth in art is that it's a luxury item.

Oh, please. I'm pretty sure the Mona Lisa is no longer under copyright, but I doubt anyone will reduce its value by making copies. Such potential buyers pay for originality, with or without copyright.

I'm pretty sure that Leonardo Da Vinci didn't die 70 years ago. Most of his paintings are already in the public domain, but it's not the image itself that is valuable, it's the actual painting.

I already answered that:
it generally takes more time to find investors, construct a production facility and set up a worldwide distribution network than to set up a website for sales.

And you're telling me that inventing a new computer chip (or potato chip) requires a completely new production facility? You're telling me that an inventor has to set up a worldwide distribution network from scratch? If your invention is worth anything at all investors will jump at the chance to produce it and most often will buy your patent outright. Say for instance you invent a new computer chip - don't you think Intel or some other computer chip manufacturer would be interested and consider the production facilities before they make you an offer? It's not like the inventor himself is going to have to build a factory to produce his invention.

Now, how would you feel if a company like Intel simply boycotted your invention until after ten years, then took over your idea to mass produce the chip you invented. Would you consider that fair?

To sell copyrighted works all you really need are online sales, and if you want more conventional exposure any music distributor/book publisher/art gallery can sell your work.

That's all that's needed huh? Check eBay to see how much most art is sold for, then go to an art gallery and check the prices for a similar piece there. If you were an artist, which price would you rather get for your work? The same is true of music or literature. You'll notice that "conventional exposure" usually brings a better price to the artist for original work and better copyright protection.

On the other hand, an invention may require construction of a brand new production facility, official safety tests, incorporation in a complemental product, etc. The investments in time and money may be far greater.

And you believe that most inventors are responsible for these costs? As I said before, if your invention has any merit at all, you'll recoup the price for your work early on as any company in a related field will buy the patent outright from you. Take for instance the inventor of Velcro, you honestly don't believe that he actually paid for the factory to produce his invention, or paid for the marketing, do you?

For example, a modern chip factory costs approximately 2 Billion dollars and several years to build. But any song of yours, no matter how artistically brilliant, can be recorded and distributed with a fraction of the time and money required.

And the money you'd make from inventing a totally new computer chip would likely be at least 100 times more than anyone could make on a song or a painting. Again, why do you think it's a viable alternative for an artist to distribute his work via the internet. If you wanted to be realistic, you could post the schematics for your new computer chip on the internet just as easily - but I'm sure you'd have a difficult time proving you were the inventor once the technological pirates got ahold of it.

 

[geni]

I'm pretty sure that Leonardo Da Vinci didn't die 70 years ago. Most of his paintings are already in the public domain, but it's not the image itself that is valuable, it's the actual painting.

There is a market for images of the painting however since the Louvre until recently allowed photography this has not really been a issue.

Most galleries do not and as such have some level of control over the market for coppies of their paintings. The situation is worse in the uk where current case law suggests it is posible to have a copyright claim on a copy of a PD work.

Now, how would you feel if a company like Intel simply boycotted your invention until after ten years, then took over your idea to mass produce the chip you invented. Would you consider that fair?

Then AMD would buy it.

 

[Mephisto]

There is a market for images of the painting however since the Louvre until recently allowed photography this has not really been a issue.

I know that most museums in Europe (that I've been to, anyway) don't allow photography because of the belief that the flash can cause damage to some paintings. The advent of flash-less digital photography hasn't relaxed the restraints any as most museums want you to visit their "gift shop" to purchase copies of the work.

Most galleries do not and as such have some level of control over the market for coppies of their paintings. The situation is worse in the uk where current case law suggests it is posible to have a copyright claim on a copy of a PD work.

I'm not at all familiar with UK copyright law, but it's becoming more clear to me that the restraints on work in the public domain are more for business reasons than protection of the artist. Of course, there is a difference between a galley and a museum as many museums (especially in Europe) often display work that has been in the public domain for some time.

Still, you can't hold them at fault for wanting to make some money for exhibiting and maintaining the art.

Then AMD would buy it.

I'm afraid I don't know what AMD is, could you elaborate please?

 

[geni]

I know that most museums in Europe (that I've been to, anyway) don't allow photography because of the belief that the flash can cause damage to some paintings. The advent of flash-less digital photography hasn't relaxed the restraints any as most museums want you to visit their "gift shop" to purchase copies of the work.

Partly. Goes back further than that though. Original issue was flashbubs burning the floor (this was more an issue for things like national trust houses).

I'm not at all familiar with UK copyright law, but it's becoming more clear to me that the restraints on work in the public domain are more for business reasons than protection of the artist.

No this has nothing to do with either. The problem is a case a bvit over 100 years ago that has never been challanged. Another test case might go the other way but no one is quite sure and no one wants to trigger such a case (although when the royal society sent an email to a list I'm on asserting copyright over a scan of an 18th centry text I was tempted)

Anyway a lot of the detials can be found at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm

Of course, there is a difference between a galley and a museum as many museums (especially in Europe) often display work that has been in the public domain for some time.

Same is true for many galleries.

Still, you can't hold them at fault for wanting to make some money for exhibiting and maintaining the art.

Eh it wasn't the museams that have been getting on my nerves (worse case sneak a camera in not too much of a problem). No it is currenty the UK public libiary service.

I'm afraid I don't know what AMD is, could you elaborate please?

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. The other big computer chip maker.

 

[Ocelot]

Sonny Bono mearly brought the US into line with international law with regard to lengths of copyright terms (the berne convention) . Given that the US is likely a net exporter of IP it is in the interests of the US economy to see that certian international standards are kept to. The lengeth extended to was already the standard in the UK.

I agree that International considerations will make it unlikely that the duration of copyright will be reduced unilaterally by the Uk government.

Basicaly because the theory behind the current law is that copyright should last long enough to support your grand children.

I get paid a salary for my dull non-creative job. If I wish to bequeath soemthing to my decenedant then I have to make savings. Why should a copyright provide for grandchildren?

I'm sure the UK has a public libiary system.

Interesting that you should mention the public library system. The public lending right is a separate right to copyright in the UK, however the duration is linked. When the scheme was set up in 1979 the duration of the right was 50 years past the author's death. In 1997 this was extended to 70 years pma. Each time a book is lent by a puiblic library about 5p wings it's way to the author paid from a central fund of about £2 million a year from central government funds (a.k.a. our taxes)

PLR is not retrospective and only living authors can register for payments. This means that not a single author's work has fallen out of this duration since the scheme was set up in 1979. However you can see from this example how when (if) they do society will be enriched by works falling into the public domain.

Admittely 2 million a year is a drop in the ocean compared to gross government expendidture. However I feel the point is not entirely without merit.

Not at all they made an investment and it has paid off. Risk reward.

Maybe you see it that way but I see it as lobbying government to steal from the public. Their investment was going to pay off anyway but eventually expire as per an agreement with public. What they did was manage to extend the time for which the public pays them to enjoy that artists work.

 

[Mephisto]

I get paid a salary for my dull non-creative job. If I wish to bequeath soemthing to my decenedant then I have to make savings. Why should a copyright provide for grandchildren?

But if your job left a unique resource that could be used by your grandchildren, wouldn't you want it protected? Do you think it's fair that anyone could dip into the savings you hoped to leave for your children's children?

For the record, most artists AREN'T swimming in cash and quite often the value in an artist's work or a writer's work doesn't reach full potential until that person dies.

Say for instance you bought a parcel of land that was relatively useless and saved it for years to pass it onto your children. When your children's children grew to be adults they found that a land developer was going to build exclusive mansions on that land and your grandchildren could sell it at a great profit; do you think that artists, musicians and writers should share in that profit?

Would you be so willing to split the money with people that had absolutely nothing to do with your foresight and your hopes that the land you worked hard to pay for (and maintain) would someday be worth a great deal of money?