Hey Rob,

I don't know if you've already read it, but if you haven't, you should get Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. As well as being the founder of Creative Commons he writes very interestingly on a Supreme Court case on whether it would be unconstitutional to further extend copyright, which he worked on and lost.

As an American copyright history it's also very good.

Plus, you can download it for free:

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

Asked and answered - I'd have thought. Given you've come up with one reason why copyright should extend post mortem, it just becomes a debate about for how long.

You might just as well be asked why you think 15 years instead of 70.

Given a concensus that copyright should last after death there has been an ongoing debate about for how long. It used to be 50 years now it is 70. This isn't really surprising. The main people with an interest in this debate are the IP owners. It is obviously in their interest to pass on the fruits of their labours to their heirs.

Other people with an interest in this debate don't have as much tied up in it so appear to have had less influence. As AJT alludes - we are perhaps lucky it doesn't last in perpetuity - many other lagacies do.

M

"Lagacies" was a typo but on reflection I think it quite a good neogolism for a perpetual legacy.

M

It makes no sense to me, either, but everything I've read about copyright law says that it's a pretty nonsensical branch of the law, with rules that are because they are.

I am greatly amused by the picture that goes with this post.

I could be wrong, but I thought the change was promoted by Great Ormand Street Childrens Hospital on the verge of losing the copyright to Peter Pan and with it the income they had enjoyed for half a Century.
Maybe it is ment to encourage other artists to leave their work to Charity so the monetary benefits can be enjoyed by those who need it most?

Surely my body of work belongs to me, just like my car. Sure, I can choose to share work freely, under something like the Creative Commons licence (and I have). Other work, I can choose to manage more carefully.

Point is, the decision is mine as the author. Seventy years, or something similarly lengthy, works for me, because it's beyond the limits of what I can plan for - effectively, it's so far down the road, that it doesn't matter. Those I care about, should I choose to pass my estate to them, will already have benefited as I intended.

My house doesn't become public property fifteen years after I die. Why should my writing?

"Gouge" might be a bit harsh, and 70 years too long. It used to be 50 years here in Australia but went up to 70 when we signed a free-trade agreement with the US in 2004, and I understood that the US had a 70 year period after the death of the author to protect Disney's interest in Mickey Mouse.

Rob, it seems that you think a person's 'idea' is intrinsically public property, and that it's rather good of society to let the creator of an idea benefit from it for a while.

Actually an idea belongs to the person who had it. If they want to keep it, share it, give it away or sell it, that's up to them.

Rob, suppose I am 100 years old when I write something, and I die the next day, do you think that work should immediately become public property?

If keeping copyright during our lifetime 'incentivises' authors to write and is therefore a good thing, then the prospect of being able to leave something to our children incentivises us even more... so surely must be an even better thing?

70 years is the right period because it's a lifetime - just about everyone who knew the author personally will have died by then.