Reader Voices: Copyright Duration

How long should copyrights last? Most of my readers seem to think that today’s rules – Congress has stretched them out to the lifetime of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for works-for-hire — are excessive. But there is much less agreement over what would be a fair term for copyright duration.

A recent story about copyright abuses led one reader to muse on why there is such widespread disrespect for copyright law. “It might have something to do with the fact that it has very little to do with ‘progress of science and useful arts’ these days, and a whole lot more to do with greedy corporations’ strategies for lining their own pockets with as little work, especially actual innovation, as possible,” the reader wrote. “At bare minimum, copyright terms need to be reined in to something sane, like two years or so. If copyright was needed as per the theory, the current system would produce a lot of ‘work until you produce a hit and then promptly retire,’ which doesn’t actually seem to happen! The other major reform short of outright abolishment would be to make rights non-transferable. While an author could authorize others to distribute copies etc. (or open source would die), he or she could not give up that ability except by placing the work into the public domain. If rights were always held by the individual creator and never by virtually-immortal greedy corporations, things might be different.”

That comment led several to protest. “It’s very easy to sit there and call us all greedheads without bothering to think about anything other than you own desire and lack of funds,” another reader wrote. “The fact of the matter is the vast majority of creative folks never get rich, but they make a modest living by creating LOTS of works that each sell a little over a long span of time. If we do as you propose and limit it to two years, for most of us that’s giving away 80% of the revenue. Your points are all very pure and idealistic, but I’d recommend you try looking at the world from the point of view of us who — if we can’t make our modest livings creating stuff — will be reduced to creating hamburgers at McDonalds because we won’t be able to eat or put a roof over our heads otherwise.”

Others thought a more modest rollback of the copyright term is in order. “The current term of copyright is obscenely long — why should your great-grandchildren get royalties on something you created? One of the sanest suggestions I have heard came from Orson Scott Card, someone who makes his living as a writer, who suggests the longer of 100 years or lifetime of the author plus 20 years. On the other hand, since greedy publishers are anxious to force independent writers to perjure themselves by declaring their creations works-for-hire, the copyright on works for hire would be twenty years, not renewable. My own opinion is the pre-1976 law — 28 years, renewable for another 28 — struck a balance between giving the author long enough to realize a good return on his/her investment of time and energy and accumulating a healthy public domain.”

“The only reason the founding fathers agreed to allow copyright to exist was because they thought it would enrich the public domain,” another reader wrote. “If a copyright holder is allowed to capture 100% of the revenue from his creation that leaves 0% for the public domain and defeats the purpose of granting the monopoly. Is two years a good length of time? For software code it might be too long. For movies it seems far too short. The original legislation that enacted the copyright and patent clauses in the Constitution set a duration of 14 years. Given the uninhibited power grabs on the part of well-heeled copyright holders I think it would be good to return to this duration for copyrights at least. Software patents should all be voided since their logical foundations are dubious at best. Patents work fairly well for the pharmaceutical industry.”

Another reader wants the duration reduced even further. “I’m not sure even two years are needed — try zero, perhaps. Modern Internet-based distribution methods mean that you can open source something and it will become widely distributed or not on a meritocratic basis, with the costs of reproduction and distribution also being distributed. So one use for copyright, to get investment in the publishing and distribution infrastructure, is kaput. The other also seems to be, given that ‘copylefted’ works are proliferating in many domains. It seems there’s no shortage of creative output even from those who cannot expect to be remunerated by licensing exclusive rights; they either get their money in other ways that copyright isn’t needed for, or they don’t care about the money, on an individual basis.”

What do you think would the right duration for copyrights? Post your comments about this column on my website or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

Read and post comments about this story here.