Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by seoaeu on Monday January 03, 2022 @10:38PM (#29791017)

I surely can't be the only one who finds it really weird that copyright lengths depend on the author's lifespan? Copyrights act as a sort of financial instrument that can be bought and sold. Imagine suggesting an office space lease that lasted for X years following the death of some specific named person. Everyone would think you are insane! But if it is the rights to a book, now everyone acts like an author's life expectancy should reasonably be a factor the term that any subsequent owner can hold the rights for their book

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by CRConrad on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @06:27PM (#29802475)

Reminds me of a precursor to life insurance, if only I could remember what it was called... Kind of a lottery / pool, all participants paid into it and the last survivor inherited the lot. IIRC.

Come to think of it, reminds me of life insurance: that's also a financial instrument the value of which depends on the lifespan of a specific named person.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by CRConrad on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:04PM (#29828251)

Unless there's something even closer to what I was warbling on about, it was probably a tontine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by kolinko on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @03:23AM (#29792620)

It makes sense if you consider that royalty fees are the retirement plan for many authors.

[ Parent | on HN ]