Copyright Duration Debate

At least in the US, copyright is a monopoly on certain rights for a limited time. By locking those rights for an extended time, it is stretching that definition. The time to benefit from your creations is in that time window. That goes for my creations, yours, and everyone else too. Public domain is patient, but I don't think it is worth depriving it of moderately older works with which others can start to use as a foundation to build upon.

How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?

Not forever. But 75 years after the death of the creator by current international agreement. I definitely think that the exact terms of copyright should be revisited - a lot of usages should be allowed like 50 years of publishing a piece of work. But that needs to be agreed upon and converted into law. Till then, one should expect everyone, especially large corporations, to stick to the law.

Probably around 7-10 years, which is the time limit it originally had.Copyright is meant to be a "public pact" to encourage creation and innovation.But think about that goal for a minute. It doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to create one awesome thing once and then benefit from it for life as a rent-seeking fat cat.Instead, it should give you a reasonable amount of time to benefit from the fruits of it, but afterward, you should be encouraged to create again. S

You're beating up a strawman. No one (sane and uncorrupt) is arguing for life+70.However, a mechanism which works for Star Wars and Mickey Mouse, but not for a short story, a play, or a specialized piece of software written by a single individual which e.g. generates $20k / year, doesn't work for me.The length of the copyright shouldn't be proportional to the effort invested in the work. If a book my parents wrote is supposed to move into the public domain, so should St

Hahaha, that's their creative touch so they can claim copyright on this for the next 70 years

I am an author who relies on copyright for part of my living, yet I agree that copyright protection lasts too long. I feel like it should protect the work for a reasonable time--say 20 years--after which one must pay an initially modest but exponentially increasing fee to renew the copyright every X years. Big players like Disney could afford to keep their stuff out of the public domain for a while, but not forever. And many deceased artists' work would slip into the public domain when thei

Copyright never expires: it gets extended faster than time itself.

No, copyrights make sense to be longer. But not “century” long. But something like 15 years for a copyright, renewable each year after for a growing cost, up to 30 years total, seems reasonable to me.The main point being, if you’re still making money hand over fist from your book you wrote, or film you made, you can keep the copyright. But at some point, you have to prove it has value by paying for it, with a fast growing price each year after, and still a finite time where the copyright goes

It’s wild that copyright lasts this long (life of author + 70 years after death)