https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Five
You ever think you've found some neat little niche song that nobody else had heard of, only to find out it's the #1 top selling song of all time in its genre?
I will ask: Does a 66 year old song really need government copyright protection? Does a 66 year old song really need another 29 years of copyright protection? The guy who composed the song died in 1977. So he died, he could have had boomer kids, gen X grandkids, millennial great grandkids, zoomer great great grandkids, gen alpha great great great grandkids, gen beta great great great great grandkids, and gen gamma great great great great great grandkids who are finally cut off from the benefit of getting paid for a song written in the post world war 2 period. (the red cross gets the proceeds in the case of this song, but that's immaterial to my point) -- if the purpose of copyright is to promote the arts, I don't think the guy who died in 1977 is going to be producing more material just because there's another 29 years of copyright left on the song.
I put my money where my mouth is on this point. My books all have it in the legal page to release to the public domain 15 years after publication because if I can't make my money back in 15 years then maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
Honestly, my first book is now 3 years old, and I'm already at a point where I just want to move on from it. Creatively speaking, there's only so much you can extract from one work before it's just time to make something new.
You ever think you've found some neat little niche song that nobody else had heard of, only to find out it's the #1 top selling song of all time in its genre?
I will ask: Does a 66 year old song really need government copyright protection? Does a 66 year old song really need another 29 years of copyright protection? The guy who composed the song died in 1977. So he died, he could have had boomer kids, gen X grandkids, millennial great grandkids, zoomer great great grandkids, gen alpha great great great grandkids, gen beta great great great great grandkids, and gen gamma great great great great great grandkids who are finally cut off from the benefit of getting paid for a song written in the post world war 2 period. (the red cross gets the proceeds in the case of this song, but that's immaterial to my point) -- if the purpose of copyright is to promote the arts, I don't think the guy who died in 1977 is going to be producing more material just because there's another 29 years of copyright left on the song.
I put my money where my mouth is on this point. My books all have it in the legal page to release to the public domain 15 years after publication because if I can't make my money back in 15 years then maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
Honestly, my first book is now 3 years old, and I'm already at a point where I just want to move on from it. Creatively speaking, there's only so much you can extract from one work before it's just time to make something new.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
@sj_zero You seem to have been mislead - copyright is not a form of protection, it's a government monopoly.
Rather than wrote "copyright protection", you should write "copyright restrictions" or just copyright.
It's a mistake to consider heirs as deserving a cent if such heirs didn't contribute any creativity to the work.
Yes, excessively long copyright terms are just to serve Disney, not to enhance creativity.
Rather than wrote "copyright protection", you should write "copyright restrictions" or just copyright.
It's a mistake to consider heirs as deserving a cent if such heirs didn't contribute any creativity to the work.
Yes, excessively long copyright terms are just to serve Disney, not to enhance creativity.