Optimal Copyright Length? 14 Years, Says Economist

[TinCow]

The proper course of action to take on Copyright Law is not to fiddle with the length of protection, but the manner of it. I do agree that Life + 70 is way, way too long, however dropping it to 14 is also very problematic. A properly effective system would protect the rights of the author while still giving access to the work to the public domain within a reasonable time frame. Specifically, I believe the best solution is to give different time frames for different aspects of copyright.

The author should maintain full control over the actual work he or she created for a significant period of time, perhaps something like Life or 50 years, whichever is longer (to provide benefits to the author's heirs in the event of an early death). However, the right to create derivative works should become available to the public after a much shorter period. 14 years sounds good to me on that one. This will allow innovation and elaboration to continue without removing the author's ability to profit from his actual creation. Combine this with a statutorily strengthened Fair Use doctrine and you have the beginnings of a legitimately fair system.

[Papewaio]

Life + X for fiction seems ok.

If this also applies to factual works (such as say encyclopedias) which in turn could be used for say the next cure for cancer then 14 years seems better for the public good.

[Lemur]

The author should maintain full control over the actual work he or she created for a significant period of time, perhaps something like Life or 50 years, whichever is longer (to provide benefits to the author's heirs in the event of an early death). However, the right to create derivative works should become available to the public after a much shorter period. 14 years sounds good to me on that one. This will allow innovation and elaboration to continue without removing the author's ability to profit from his actual creation. Combine this with a statutorily strengthened Fair Use doctrine and you have the beginnings of a legitimately fair system.

This is pretty darn sensible. I've never considered separating aspects of copyright protection, and it certainly sounds reasonable at first blush. Makes me wonder, however, what sort of legal thicket you would get into trying to define "derivative works" versus the original work.

Obviously, Weird Al changing the lyrics of a song would be protected, if in poor taste. What if I published a John Grisham novel, changing only the names of the characters? Would I be protected as having created a derivative work? Where and how would the law delineate between theft and mutation?

[TinCow]

This is pretty darn sensible. I've never considered separating aspects of copyright protection, and it certainly sounds reasonable at first blush. Makes me wonder, however, what sort of legal thicket you would get into trying to define "derivative works" versus the original work.

Obviously, Weird Al changing the lyrics of a song would be protected, if in poor taste. What if I published a John Grisham novel, changing only the names of the characters? Would I be protected as having created a derivative work? Where and how would the law delineate between theft and mutation?

US Copyright Law already has a pretty acceptable definition of derivative works. The determination as to whether a new work is a copy of the original or a derivative of the original should be left up to the courts. It's impossible (well, probably possible, but certainly impractical) to legislate such a difference any better than it already is.

Another thing that needs to be done is to start differentiating between types of works. Literature is one thing, but computer code is entirely another. Allowing a company 95 years of exclusive use of computer code after they publish their software is incredibly stifling to the industry. Most computer code is obsolete even 5 years later. What use will it be to the public to allow free access to MSDOS source code in 2075? So, we need to start splitting off the types of works as well as the peripheral rights.

All in all, a HUGE revision is needed to make it equitable and beneficial to the public. However, that requires that Congress stop taking Disney money every time Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain. The odds of that happening are dubious at best.