[DrScientist]

For inventions if you don't make money off it in the first 20 years you are unlikely to ever make any money off it - as the invention space moves on.

That's not the same for a work of fiction or a piece of music. Case in point apparently books sales for the Odyssey are massively up - when it was originally written in 7-8 BC :-)

Also most books etc don't make much, if any money - an publisher/author might rely on a the cummulative effect of a number of revenue streams built over time.

Also the effect of exclusivity is different - for patents you are potentially blocking the area of innovation you have patented by your exclusivity.

That's not the same societal effect as somebody not being able to copy mickey mouse.

So they aren't exactly the same - however I'm not proposing a 3000 year copyright :-)

[delecti]

My personal preference is actually a flat 50 years. I think that if an author writes something at 25 and it doesn't blow up until they're 75, I think that's given them more than a fair chance to capitalize on it.

My real point though is that IMO, whatever duration we pick shouldn't depend on the creator. It would tend to undervalue their later creations, treats corporations differently from people in a way that doesn't seem relevant to copyright, and oddly might lead to the untimely demise of creators.

I find your Odyssey example to be relevant. Homer's death means people today can release their own translations or adaptations. I can find a public domain version from 100+ years ago, or a modern translator can profit from their work so that I can see their take. I can watch the Italian 1911 silent film version for free on youtube [0], or pay for Nolan's modern take. The expiry of copyright gives me options.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbR97hqfG2o

[DrScientist]

Ultimately the existence of the Odyssey doesn't stop you writing your own story - the creative universe is infinite.

This is completely different from IP around an invention - you don't want a single entity owning the rights the wheel forever - that would stymie human progess.

So I don't think it's right to conflate the two.

[account42]

50 years is too long - you should be able to build on your childhood experiences in your lifetime.

[account42]

> That's not the same for a work of fiction or a piece of music. Case in point apparently books sales for the Odyssey are massively up - when it was originally written in 7-8 BC :-)

And it was written without copyright. So why should the rest of us give up part of our free speech rights for longer than 20 years in order to enrich authors, when its proven that we can get great works without doing that?

The question is not whether longer copyright ever lets authors profit more, it's whether society benefits as a whole.

[DrScientist]

> it's whether society benefits as a whole.

There is a big difference between not being able to republish or cut and paste from the works of JK Rowling and not being able to make and sell an electric motor.

ie my point was that in terms of societal benefit there is a big difference between IP protection and copyright.

JK Rowling managed to write Harry Potter series despite it reusing lots of well worn tropes. I fail to see how it's existence is stopping other people being equally creative.