"Jim Lesurf" wrote

I'd love to see many detailed aspects of copyright law changed. But my
concerns are about works that are 'orphaned' or were produced decades ago
and the original artists/publishers have *already* had many years to
recover payment.


I agree, my particular complaint is the time for which copyright lasts. The
copyright for a work created by an individual last for that persons lifetime
plus 70 years. So if I pay a royalty for the use of such a work say 60 years
after the author's death who is collecting that royalty? his/her
grandchildren?, the shareholders of a publishing company? Why should those
people who did nothing to create the work receive payment for it's use?

The history of copyright law seems to have been to continually ratchet-up
the length of time for which a copyright lasts, and I gather from what I've
read of the 1998 US act known as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act" that some people were seriously suggesting that copyright should last
indefinitely! So should Shakespeare still be in copyright?, or Chaucer? Who
nowadays could claim "ownership" of their works? The whole idea is, IMO,
totally barmy.

Having said all that I do firmly believe that if someone is good enough as
an author, composer, recording artist or whatever to do so professionally
then they should be entitled to protect their income by insisting that those
who wish to enjoy their work pay for it. Similarly if a corporate body has
invested considerable sums in creating a film or whatever then again they
should be entitled to receive a return on that investment from those who
wish to enjoy the results of it.

David.