Reader Voices: Copyright Duration

How long should copyrights last? Most of my readers seem to think that today's rules - Congress has stretched them out to the lifetime of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for works-for-hire -- are excessive. But there is much less agreement over what would be a fair term for copyright duration. A recent story about copyright abuses led one reader to muse on why there is such widespread disrespect for copyrig

How long should copyrights last? Most of my readers seem to think that today's rules - Congress has stretched them out to the lifetime of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for works-for-hire -- are excessive. But there is much less agreement over what would be a fair term for copyright duration.

A recent story about copyright abuses led one reader to muse on why there is such widespread disrespect for copyright law. "It might have something to do with the fact that it has very little to do with 'progress of science and useful arts' these days, and a whole lot more to do with greedy corporations' strategies for lining their own pockets with as little work, especially actual innovation, as possible," the reader wrote. "At bare minimum, copyright terms need to be reined in to something sane, like two years or so. If copyright was needed as per the theory, the current system would produce a lot of 'work until you produce a hit and then promptly retire,' which doesn't actually seem to happen! The other major reform short of outright abolishment would be to make rights non-transferable. While an author could authorize others to distribute copies etc. (or open source would die), he or she could not give up that ability except by placing the work into the public domain. If rights were always held by the individual creator and never by virtually-immortal greedy corporations, things might be different."

That comment led several to protest. "It's very easy to sit there and call us all greedheads without bothering to think about anything other than you own desire and lack of funds," another reader wrote. "The fact of the matter is the vast majority of creative folks never get rich, but they make a modest living by creating LOTS of works that each sell a little over a long span of time. If we do as you propose and limit it to two years, for most of us that's giving away 80% of the revenue. Your points are all very pure and idealistic, but I'd recommend you try looking at the world from the point of view of us who -- if we can't make our modest livings creating stuff -- will be reduced to creating hamburgers at McDonalds because we won't be able to eat or put a roof over our heads otherwise."