Re:In 'Sherlock Holmes' Rights Dispute, Conan Doyle Estate S...
by mcb3k on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @02:28PM
(#8144026)
Another good point is that for every book, movie, song, game, etc. that is very popular and keeps getting re-printed, re-published, re-released, or ported to new platforms, there are tens to hundreds of books that do not. Having long copyright terms makes the chances of vast swathes of works stop existing entirely, simply because of the decay of the medium that they are produced and stored on.
Re:In 'Sherlock Holmes' Rights Dispute, Conan Doyle Estate S...
by thesteamboat on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @11:11PM
(#8146119)
Agreed. Yet another related point is that strict copyright regimes can be discriminatory against, say, the visually impaired, when rights holders are neither willing to expend the effort to translate works into a more suitable format nor willing to allow others to do so.
2) Isn't someone who holds a copyright other than the creator (say in this example the Conan Doyle estate) profiting from the work of others?
3) Like all sensible issues, deciding the proper term of copyright should be understood as a set of tradeoffs. Longer copyright terms may encourage more creative work by increasing the payoff, may give authors more creative control in how their creations are used and so forth. Shorter copyright terms may encourage more creative work by reducing the cost of remixing other's ideas, can provide a common pool of cultural resources for all to draw on, and so forth. What is necessary is to try to balance these competing interests against each other. It is not that shorter copyright terms are "automatically better", but I (and apparently many others in this thread) strongly believe that the balance right now has copyright terms that are too long to be socially beneficial.