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

Others thought a more modest rollback of the copyright term is in order. "The current term of copyright is obscenely long -- why should your great-grandchildren get royalties on something you created? One of the sanest suggestions I have heard came from Orson Scott Card, someone who makes his living as a writer, who suggests the longer of 100 years or lifetime of the author plus 20 years. On the other hand, since greedy publishers are anxious to force independent writers to perjure themselves by declaring their creations works-for-hire, the copyright on works for hire would be twenty years, not renewable. My own opinion is the pre-1976 law -- 28 years, renewable for another 28 -- struck a balance between giving the author long enough to realize a good return on his/her investment of time and energy and accumulating a healthy public domain."

"The only reason the founding fathers agreed to allow copyright to exist was because they thought it would enrich the public domain," another reader wrote. "If a copyright holder is allowed to capture 100% of the revenue from his creation that leaves 0% for the public domain and defeats the purpose of granting the monopoly. Is two years a good length of time? For software code it might be too long. For movies it seems far too short. The original legislation that enacted the copyright and patent clauses in the Constitution set a duration of 14 years. Given the uninhibited power grabs on the part of well-heeled copyright holders I think it would be good to return to this duration for copyrights at least. Software patents should all be voided since their logical foundations are dubious at best. Patents work fairly well for the pharmaceutical industry."

Another reader wants the duration reduced even further. "I'm not sure even two years are needed -- try zero, perhaps. Modern Internet-based distribution methods mean that you can open source something and it will become widely distributed or not on a meritocratic basis, with the costs of reproduction and distribution also being distributed. So one use for copyright, to get investment in the publishing and distribution infrastructure, is kaput. The other also seems to be, given that 'copylefted' works are proliferating in many domains. It seems there's no shortage of creative output even from those who cannot expect to be remunerated by licensing exclusive rights; they either get their money in other ways that copyright isn't needed for, or they don't care about the money, on an individual basis."

What do you think would the right duration for copyrights? Post your comments about this column on my website or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

Read and post comments about this story here.