Scott Ingram writes: >From: "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> >> Joshua Kronengold wrote: >> > Copyright should have a fixed term, both out of interest of fairness, >> > and to encourage creators of any age -- a monetarily motivated 90 year >> > old should expect to provide for their children if they produce a >> > best-seller just like a younger author might try to provide for their >> > later years. By the same token, though, anything other than a fixed >> > term isn't reasonable -- a reductio ad absurdium of this is a work >> > written by an immortal or virutally immortal creator -- such a thing >> > will never go out of copyright, and by principle 1, works should be >> > guarunteed to go out of copyright. >Reductio absurdium indeed. You might as well say that copyright will be >rendered useless because one day we might be able to record our memories >digitally. That's a tangent, and has nothing to do with copyright. The point is that fixing copyright to anyone's lifespan is ludicrous unless you think the possibility of someone writing a parody or fanfic (or even commercial variant on same) is a tragedy. And as much as it might feel like one (just like, say, a negative review), it's not -- it's just a thing. Without that, a lifetime-based copyright is just a sop to genius 18 year olders, and a punishment to 80 year olders, who can't necessarily sell their works for as much...and a means of keeping works out of the public domain for 0-70 years longer than they would otherwise be. Remember -- the average lifespan is increasing -- this is -not- a fixed term. >> > Yup. This is why it should be a fixed term. >Yup, 50 years past the life of the creator. That's not fixed. Not even close. -- Joshua Kronengold (mneme at io.com) "I've been teaching |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) --^--him...to live, to breathe, to walk, to sample the /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\joy on each road, and the sorrow at each turning. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ /-\\\I'm sorry if I kept him out too late"--Vlad Taltos '---''(_/--' (_/-'