Some mutually incompatible things I want.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I want to live in a society where:

1) If I write a book or paint a picture or record a song that large numbers of people like, I will make money from it; potentially enough money to make a living or to make me rich.

2) I have access to all or most songs, books and pictures over the internet, without having to pay for them.

I do not think that both of these things are possible at the same time, but I am posting this in the hope that someone will prove me wrong.

[county worker]

1. I have a question that goes along with this.

If I bought a song or book over the internet, can I give it to who ever I want for free? When does what I purchase become my property to do with what I want? Or do I only pay for the right to enjoy it myself?

Why do we have libraries? Why don't we charge everyone who reads a book or rents a CD from the library full price for the book or CD?

[bemildred]

2. I favor copyright during the life of the author.

After that, everything enters the public domain. Corporations would not be allowed to own copyrights, since they are already dead.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. I'm sceptical of that for a number of reasons.

One is that it might well make it hard for artists to provide for their descendants - sure, you can leave them what you earned from copyright in your lifetime, but if a large part of your property is going to dissipate at the moment of your death then that will cause you problems.

A second is that it would mean that if two artists, one 20 and the other 90, produce identical pieces of work then only the former will be able to make any profit out of it, because everyone can just wait around for the latter to die.

A third is that reducing the length of time something remains in copyright, and placing restrictions on who/what you can sell it to, would greatly reduce the value of a work of art.

A fourth is that I suspect that rates of piracy wouldn't be much lower under the system you propose than under a more rigorous copyright system - people who won't wait til 25 years after the author is dead won't wait until then either.

So, in summary, while I don't think your proposal would make it impossible to make a living through art, I think it would make it a lot harder, and I'm not sure it would help with the problem of easy disemination of information much either.

[Confusious]

4. When this country was founded

It took 2 months to get to Europe. Better part of 6 months to get across country.

Copyright was 3 7 year terms.

Why does it need to be longer then that in an era of almost instantaneous communication?

One reason. GREED.

It's gotten out of hand.

[bemildred]

5. Nothing is perfect.

How do you feel about forbidding non-humans to own copyrights?

I would also like to point out that it's getting harder to make a living as things are, maybe that's because the copyright system as it is constructed now has no credibility as an effort to reward creative people, most of the money most of the time goes to corporations, which then dole some small fraction out to the artists/engineers/etc.