On 29/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How long should copyright last
Well it should almost certianly be an absolute value, i.e. not Death + N years just N years. Measuring from the authors death is somewhat tricky if you can't find out exactly when the author died. Even finding out who the author is can be tricky, you may know the persons name, but as an Computer Scientist will tell you name is not a unique identifier. No one checks the no 2 people have the same name. In fact it's not uncommon for people to share your name (Just Google It). This is the problem with "Orphaned works". Now all we need to do is chose N. I propose 5 because it's a nice number. Though 7 is a nice number too. They are both prime. Yes choosing random prime numbers is probably not a scientific method of constructing a time for something to last, but who precisely was Death + 50 constructed? So I vote for either 5 or 7 years (Not 6 though, it's not prime!). Though the article raises a good point (well several actually): > Producer lobbies are far more powerful than difficult-to-organise consumer > ones. > From: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/29/comment.intellectualproperty Shouldn't the Government do what is best for the entire population, not allow the rich to "buy legislation"? Has anyone conducted a survey to find out what the population actually think the length of copyright should be. More interestingly has anyone conduct a survey to find out if the population actually knows what the length of copyright is? (I have to admit I though it was 70 years after the death of the author, so theres one incorrect answer for you). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
