Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”[0]
I do agree that copyright could last longer than patents, although the current laws are made to grant copyright for many (~6) generations, while patents are for only ~1 (all depends what you call a generation, I estimated at 20-25 years).
And of course this is securing for a limited time to authors and inventors. In other words, it should be limited relative to the life of these authors -- not even life long, let alone long after they're deceased.
The constitution is not a guideline to unlimited powers, but constraints to limited powers. If congress is passing various copyright laws for reasons other than to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" then it would be unconstitutional. In other words passing laws to enhance profits rather than to ensure creator motivation would be unconstitutional, yet that's unambiguously the motivation for nearly all modern copyright law. Nobody is deterred from creating a work because they would only own the rights to it for e.g. 30 years, let alone 110 years.
Well now that we've all agreed(lol) that corporations are now citizens, I'd argue that some do indeed 'live' long after the normal squishy citizen(s) that originally invented/created the thing have died (e.g. IBM).
(Note: I agree with your point, just playing devil's advocate)
No, that is the means of accomplishing the goal. The goal is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
That may be why governments of the world keep passing copyright laws now and how they view copyright.
But copyright was established as a "balance" between making it profitable for the author to create the work (read: not to extract billions of dollars out of a work) in order to benefit the public. The primary goal has always been to benefit the public, not the author.
Also, one of the reasons why copyright should be finite and not have too long of a term is because no author has ever created anything - anything at all - from scratch. They themselves have built upon the work of others. This is why copyright is meant to be a system where one creates something upon something else, and then someone new can create something new upon that previous work, and so on.
Copyright was meant to be a kickstarting mechanism for authors, not a rent-seeking one, which is how it's used today.
If you still don't see this what I'm trying to say from my comment, I highly suggest you watch this video:
Then we'll see how much Mickey Mouse copyrights etc are really worth to Disney.
Oh, and capping it on the bottom end - even symbolically, to something like a dollar a year, just so that there's the hassle of having to pay it - would also solve the abandonware problem.
Also, when Eminem dies, IRS will value his estate (mainly image rights, songs and copyrights) and send a bill for close to half of the value.
They say that copyrights are "intellectual property". Let's treat them as such in other respects, not just when it comes to protecting property rights.
The Brothers Grimm works helped Disney, who refuses to allow another Disney in like kind.
FREE THE MOUSE
I had that as a bumper sticker for over a decade. Lots of people asked! Was the best sticker ever. I told the Disney story many, many times.
Interestingly, most people were engaged, asked questions, mostly understood.
"So, that is why we get Terminator 2, 3, 4, 13...?"
What makes sense?
Balance of benefit of author and the public.
Authors need material to work from. Without that, everything will need a clearance of some sort. It is extremely difficult to make entirely new works and have them be compelling enough to reach greater relevance. No public works = tepid new works.
The public wants and benefits from a robust, rich culture. Everything owned = stale, managed culture formed in boardrooms.
Authors need to eat and benefit from their works. These benefits can and should be substantial, depending. No copyright term = dubious value in creative works = starving authors.
0 years breaks creation. Infinity years breaks culture, dilutes overall value to everyone.
100?
It is better than infinity, but where is the sweet spot?
The Brothers Grimm worked under 24 year terms. Disney used those works, once public, only to object and deny others what they got to build from.
And here we are today.
I personally think 40 is pretty great. Others want 0, others want hundreds of years.
I also believe overly long terms will result in counter, protest culture. Won't be easy to monetize, will ignore DRM, law, and will exist to deny the established scheme, because fuck them and their greed. Or something along those lines.
Hence, copyright should be a maximum of 7 years, consisting of 3.5 years initial and a explicitly asked for 3.5 years extension. Go back to the officially request copyright and if not done it is automatically public domain.
This would be the most beneficial to authors and the public as we really need to discount any benefit to the gatekeepers.
There are jurisdictions where an author cannot legally commit his/her work into the public domain as the law forces protections they do not want on to them.
It is way too much now. Culture suffers today, and the older I get the more I can see it.
But, some one could do a Felix the Cat, Betty Boop, Steamboat Willie mashup.
Promoting the arts definitely sounds like extracting maximum value.
A compromise between two or more people with the power to influence such things.