Comment Lifespan of copyright holder of no importance (Score 2) 30
AMK wrote that extending copyright protection past the holder's lifespan is useless because the holder receives no benefit from his work after death.
I disagree. The economic value of a copyright is a function of its longevity. Let's say, for example, that I write the Great American Novel. I decide that I want to sell/license the copyright forever and use the money to buy a jet. Any potential buyer will base his offer for my work on the basis of how much profit he can make from selling it. Since my novel will be read in English classes for generations, the length of the copyright is significant in this computation (I know, the present value of those payments will be low, but still significant). Thus, there is value for the holder in extending the current copyright length.
I am NOT arguing that the concept of intellectal property is valid/ethical/moral. I only state that an extension of the copyright length is rational.
Shabby
I disagree. The economic value of a copyright is a function of its longevity. Let's say, for example, that I write the Great American Novel. I decide that I want to sell/license the copyright forever and use the money to buy a jet. Any potential buyer will base his offer for my work on the basis of how much profit he can make from selling it. Since my novel will be read in English classes for generations, the length of the copyright is significant in this computation (I know, the present value of those payments will be low, but still significant). Thus, there is value for the holder in extending the current copyright length.
I am NOT arguing that the concept of intellectal property is valid/ethical/moral. I only state that an extension of the copyright length is rational.
Shabby
