Matthew Hunter <matthew at infodancer.org> writes: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:50:48AM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > > Discussions over the years have pointed out some other things -- such > > as that if copyright doesn't extend significantly past death, creators > > who are old will have a difficult time negotiating decent terms on new > > works. "We can't pay you much for this, because you'll probably die > > in the next 5 years, and all we're buying from you is the license to > > use your copyright; if that ends in 5 years, it's not worth much to > > us." > > > > This leaves me thinking that "life + 25" is a vaguely reasonable place > > to end up. It's by no means a "precisely right" point. > > I get to this same point by the following reasoning: > > An author needs copyright on his works to make money. So long as > he is alive he has some right to revenue from those works. In > the event that he dies, his works should retain protection > sufficient that their proceeds can be used to the benefit of his > children, up until their majority and assumed independent means. > > So, life + enough time for a child born the day before to reach > adulthood. I'd be happy with life + 18 or life + 21. Life + 25 > is enough for a college education. At the graduate level. And for *most* people they die rather after their children are born. I was thinking a bit about children, and 25 is partly picked to take *really good* care of them. (And there's nothing to prevent an author >from saving and passing on a *cash* estate to his heirs, either.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info