samgower wrote:Anyone have an opinion on what cc and I were talking about above?
I believe sam meant the following idea (and subsequent posts associated with it):
it might perhaps be appropriate for the government to "rent out" copyrights for a fee (say, on a yearly basis), which increases with every renewal. The rights holders will then need to decide for every renewal whether they stand to make a profit or loss.
I also think there might be something there, and would be interested in people's opinions on that idea. My concern is that it may favour the "big money" over the small-time copyright holders, though that may not be the case as the two usually operate quite differently.
Another issue that requires our attention is the transitional period after such laws go into effect. If, for instance, we manage to pass a law for strict 15-year terms, many existing copyrights will immediately expire; I associate that with a bubble bursting (in the economic sense), which is not a desirable outcome as that has catastrophic results. Any solution that we decide upon must make provisions for a smooth transition that minimises the fallout.
peterbrett wrote:Well, I courteously disagree, as you know.
I wholeheartedly agree with Peter on that matter.
jez's post makes me realise that copyright terms have been extended several times already, and some arguments must have been presented to push through those extensions. Does anyone here know what those arguments were (or can find out)? I would say knowing those will be pivotal to us creating counter-arguments to refute them.