[crankylinuxuser]

The reason why it was "life plus X years" was to provide a means for the family if the creator had an untimely death. After all the logic is that the world has their creation, and compensation shouldn't be snuffed out simply cause (s)he died early.

[grey-area]

The reason why it was "life plus X years" was to provide a means for the family if the creator had an untimely death.

While that was the ostensible reason, corporations who have had rights assigned to them want to milk those rights after the author's death, indeed often the creator's death is a catalyst for higher sales, which will usually go mostly to the publisher/media conglomerate, not their family.

[noxToken]

I always wonder how low the IP for Mickey will sink when that copyright expires. Disney can usually produce good enough content with Mickey including some games (Kingdom Hearts series) and animation for kids. It might not hit the mark for everyone, but I think Disney prides itself on never producing shovelware - even if the content is bland.

Imagine the App/Play Store (or whatever exists then) once it expires though. If you thought the Flappy Bird spam was bad...

[berbec]

IANAL - but Mickey Mouse will continue to be protected as a trademark of the Disney company even after Steamboat Willie expires.

[dragonwriter]

> The reason why it was "life plus X years" was to provide a means for the family if the creator had an untimely death.

Doesn't make any sense; a fixed term copyright as is used for corporate-author works (currently 90 years) does that just as well.

All a “Life plus X” term for, in terms of expected to benefit, is give decreasing expected copyright term as your age increases (well, as remaining life expectancy given known facts decreases, more precisely.)

I suspect “Life plus” was more about eliminating disputes about creation date for individually-authored works that aren't immediately published, not about what it provides to author’s families. With a “Life plus” term, creation dates become immaterial in computing the end of the copyright term, if you know who the author is then, once their death date is known, expiration of all copyrights is known even if the exact creation date of some works is not known.

[Joeboy]

I get that if somebody's partner dies an untimely death it's unkind to simultaneously remove their family income, but 70 years seems like a ridiculously long buffer.

[tialaramex]

When these rules were invented, the ostensible concern really was about destitute artist families.

Today it's just an excuse, wheel out Jimmy and have him say about how his grandfather just wanted to do right by the kids and imply that people using Jim's granddad's story idea now it's entering the public domain are "stealing" from him and this is an outrage.

Copyright is by its nature rent-seeking, you get income from owning something, and not by actually contributing anything of value. Even in the rare cases where it really _does_ keep some artist's recently bereaved family out of poverty we ought to be asking why aren't we keeping _everybody_ out of poverty?

The original argument tried to justify this rent-seeking by saying we are getting something from it, these brilliant ideas might never get published if Copyright doesn't ensure there's a reward. And if they're not published we'd never know about them, you can't riff on Mickey if nobody has ever seen a Mickey Mouse cartoon. And you know what, I don't agree but if the bargain had stuck at 28 years I'd hold my nose. But of course it didn't. We managed to get _Big Pharma_ to put up with a genuinely limited exclusivity period for their drugs, and a world where generic medicines not only exist but thrive - yet somehow Big Content got extension after extension for some guy's idea for a cartoon mouse (among many other things).

[crankylinuxuser]

That is true, initially with extensions past the creator's death. But as you also point out, it is very much rent seeking behavior by companies.

However to understand why we even have copyright, you have to know your renaissance European history. Prior to copyright/patents, you had the guild system. Knowledge was hidden, obfuscated, and destroyed. Those whom wanted to share the secrets of the guild were imprisoned and/or killed.

Fast-forward to the creation of the USA - most of the people here were second sons whom had little to no claims on European riches. They also knew of the guilds, and the danger they have. So, they posited copyright, trademark, and patent. It wasn't cause they were the best tools, but they were better than the guilds that preceded them.

It's about time we revisit the idea of copyright, patent, and trademark and how they apply in the 21'st century.

[angus-prune]

Your IP history is wrong.

Patents originated in 15th Century Venice and Copyright in 17th Century Britain and trademarks in France in the (iirc) 19th Century.

Patents were, indeed, a way to encourage people to share their inventions rather than keep them as trade secrets, but this doesn't apply to copyright (rampant book piracy after the invention of the printing press) or trademark (consumer protection and counterfitting).

I have never heard of any link the the USA or second sons etc, and the way these laws developed doesn't support your hypothesis.

Absolutely with you that these things need modernising though (and not in a Digital Millenium way)

[tialaramex]

Yup, Trademarks are fine, the insistence on muddling Trademark, Patent and Copyright together is bad mojo and people (even lawyers!) need to cut it out.

The same principle as Trademarks even pre-date the formal existence of registrable trademarks, because everybody can see that if "Jameson Beans" are considered to be good quality beans then buying some crap beans and selling them on as "Jameson Beans" is clearly not OK. English law has a tort of "passing off" which is committed when you trick customers in this way, and you can still use it for unregistered marks today, it's just harder than the Registered Trademark law.

[contras1970]

copyright was a british invention to limit proliferation of "uncomfortable" works.

[guelo]

If I die my family doesn't keep getting my paycheck. The living are expected to work. Financially comfortable "heirs" are not a good that society needs to protect.

[Joeboy]

The reasons your family wouldn't keep getting your paycheck are practical though (you'd stop doing the work that earns your employer an income). Those reasons don't really exist in the case of "Intellectual Property", and it seems unnecessarily mean to make their loss harsh just because other people's losses are harsh. Although I think it should be more like a few years' buffer rather than a lifetime income.

[mcny]

> I get that if somebody's partner dies an untimely death it's unkind to simultaneously remove their family income, but 70 years seems like a ridiculously long buffer.

at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think we can eliminate a lot of this "friction" if we have an effective basic income. I get that eliminating things like copyright could lead us back to an age where only art that people make is basically with some wealthy feudal lord's patronage but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.