[function_seven]

Yes. Copyright is intended to an encourage artistic works to be published, with the author of those works knowing that they can earn a living creating art. J. K. Rowling has earned quite the bundle from Harry Potter. She has been incentivized.

[jimmydddd]

What about the other 99.99999% of authors?

[Aerroon]

If they wrote a book 20 years ago and it didn't sell much it's not going to sell now either, no?

But I do like the idea of length determined by inverse correlation of size of the creator. 20 years might be too short where an author writes something popular and a movie company just waits 20 years to do something with it rather than pay the author.

[OkayPhysicist]

> If they wrote a book 20 years ago and it didn't sell much it's not going to sell now either, no?

That's not a universal rule. Andrzej Sapkowski wrote a little short story called "The Witcher" in the 80's, that he expanded on into a novel series through the 90's. Then a game development studio made a series of wildly successfully videogames based on his work, which definitely made way more money than his books, to the point that Netflix made a tv series based on his books. I struggle to imagine how it could be just that the videogames and tv show, based on his work, owe him nothing.

[Breza]

You just nailed the difficult balance in copyright law. I agree that life+70 is wayyyyy too long. But you also want to incentivize creators to keep trying to make something of their existing IP. Sapkowski is one example. Another good one is the Dresden Files series, which is 26 books in and still going strong. Each book in the series repeats some of the basics that were covered in the original (often using the exact same phrasing). Then the author extends the story over the course of a few hundred pages. If the original book were already public domain, anybody could write a fairly convincing in-universe book and I have to imagine the author would have moved on to other series.

Personally, I think 50 years strikes the best balance. Everything from the '60s would be fair use, so Spiderman would be public domain but not a wizard named Harry.

[TitaRusell]

He sold his rights to CDPro. Also the videogame made him famous- I for one read one of his books BECAUSE of the game and I'm sure that I am not the only one.

There's a reason why writers want their books to become videogames and or movies. I would not be surprised if the Tolkien estate made more money after the Peter Jackson movie came out than in all the decades before...

And most importantly artists are not children. If they don't have business sense enough to read a contract they should hire an agent.

[OkayPhysicist]

> He sold his rights to CDPro.

Yeah, and why do you think he had those rights to sell? Copyright is a good thing, with flaws in its current implementation.

[ferfumarma]

Nobody is pirating them