#19:
I have to wonder about knee jerk reactions.
I get nervous about Socialism creep whenever anybody goes after those laws. I get more nervous when I hear nonsense phrases (”death by copyright”). And I get real nervous when somebody comes up with a “good” replacement for what we’ve already got.
The quarrel would be with the Founding Fathers. They’re the ones who ascribed the purpose of the Copyright. The article proposes moving back towards the system they had, and if you want to be suspicious of something new. Consider that until 1976, when a Democratic Super Majority passed our current copyright laws, copyrights were for 28 years, renewable for another 28 years. ‘
This is so totally wrong in so many ways. Congress screws up just about everything it touches: it can keep its hands off my copyright. And as for the fee — it’s didley-squat compared to the money I might be able to make by renewing my own copyright, and anyway, do you really think it’s going to stay that low? Nothing does, when the money’s going to bureaucrats. Let’s cut them right out of the food chain here and leave it up to me to practice my own rights…you know, the general conservative approach.
First of all, with all due respect, I’ll take odds that most folks won’t be around to renew a 50 year Copyright. Secondly most material that’s 50 years old isn’t marketable or of any commercial value when it’s locked up by copyright, so then it can fall into the public domain, where it can benefit the culture which is why the Constitution created the Copyright power.
Current copyright law has no renewal provision, it’s life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a work for hire, which means that many authors are forgotten and much of our cultural heritage lost, with no benefit to the creators.
