DancingMaenid said:
What I don't care for is the implication that wanting your family to have control over your work when you die is the only thing that makes sense and that the rest of us are "weird" for not wanting that.
I'm not sure anyone really thinks it's weird. We can understand your POV. I think it's an emotional reaction to what we perceive as being an unfair attitude. It's perfectly fine to want your work to go into the public domain upon your death or even earlier, and there are ways for you to do that under the current architecture. So if we get "our way," and copyright can go to grandchildren, you can still set yours up the way you want with wills or creative commons licenses, etc. But if you [the general short-copyright "you"] get "your way," then those of us who want to leave copyright to our heirs don't have any recourse. We feel having decently long copyright coupled with plenty of options for those who want to put their work into the public domain sooner is fair for both sides (at least the side who feels like you do... this still doesn't help the "stories want to be free!" side).
What would make it easier to make alternative arrangements? Maybe we should start a larger movement supporting some of that. I'm in favor of everyone having options.
Albedo said:
How many generations of heir should be entitled to a share? Should it be indefinite? It was asked above, but again, should publishers of Shakespeare's works be seeking out his 21st century descendants and paying them? Because that's what eternal copyrights would mean.
Emotionally, I would like for the copyright to extend long enough to let the author's grandchildren profit because, like Aruna, I believe most authors would want copyright to extend to those they know and love, which would, on average, include the third generation. There are some grandparents who never get to meet their grandchildren... my grandmother has been able to watch all of her grandchildren grow into at least preteen stage and she's still very healthy, so it's conceivable she'd possibly even meet a great-great grandchild. I don't actually have a horse in this race because I don't have children, but as the world's greatest aunt, I'd like for my neices and nephew to benefit from any future sales of my work.
I do truly understand that there are a lot of valid arguments against very long copyrights, and imo, a lot of attention needs to be paid to the balance of things. As a compromise, I would say that I'd be amenable to a life+25, which, in most cases, would cover an infant child through to adulthood. But then again, this doesn't really help cases where special needs dependents need continuing support throughout their entire lives. In general, I would think it ridiculous to extend copyright to a generation of heirs who, at that point, don't really have any idea of what it's for—just that they get money from something that's legally theirs. At some point, there's an emotional disconnect between the heirs and the ancestor, and I definitely don't think copyright should outlive that.
The trouble with talking about all of this is that we all place value on different things. To some people the "greater good" is to keep as much literature in existence and free to read and adapt as much as possible to the exclusion of other concerns. For others, the need to provide for family, even after your death, is the greatest concern. And there are people all over the spectrum between the two ideas. A lot of us can mentally wiggle around in the middle of the spectrum, but it's much more difficult for those on opposing ends to understand what's driving each other.
TheNighSwan said:
For the house analogy to be similar, it would mean that not only your children inherit your house, but also that no one is ever allowed to build a similar house without paying money to your children.
It can, in some ways, be pretty similar.
We're inheriting property from my grandparents. I have siblings, so the property has been put in trust, and we will jointly pay taxes on it and receive a portion of the rental income on it. There are grandchildren who will then also inherit the trust, and their children will inherit the trust... this will go on, I suppose, indefinitely? That's nearly as complicated as multiple generations inheriting copyright. None of us worked or plan to work that land. In theory, it eventually should go to the family who has been leasing it this whole time, no?