Re: Old games and copyrights
24 Mar 95 14:07:47 GMT
In article <3ku21i$7c@umbc9.umbc.edu>, mlevy1@umbc.edu (Michael Levy) writes:
> In article <3kt4st$f5q@jobe.shell.portal.com>,
> Jeff M Lodoen <jlodoen@shell.portal.com> wrote:
>>I've heard worries that copyrights may be made permanent someday.
>>Something movie studios and others would like. (don't know what
>>I think about it... why should they become public property,
>>at any time?)
>
> Why shouldn't they? What public interest is served by extending copyrights
> indefinitely? I know the folks over at Project Gutenberg are going nuts over
> an attempt to extend the law from 75 years to 95 (and I don't have any firm
> position on this, except that everyone else in the world has settled on 75),
> but the only justification I see for extending copyright law to last forever
> is one along Ayn Randian lines. I.e. A viewpoint that denies that there exists
> a public interest.
>
One has only to transfer this proposal to books to see how awful it is.
Should amateur dramatic companies be paying royalties to Shakespeare's
estate every time they put on Hamlet? (Actually Shakespeare has no
estate, interestingly - his family line died out.)
At the moment there is a useful process of rejuvenation of interest
in works when copyright runs out, because it enables publishers to put
out new, cheaper editions, or Tv and radio to adapt the works. It isn't
just about money - the difficulty in getting approval to do anything with
old but still in copyright works is enough to put off many people.
Ask yourself how much Victorian literature would still be in bookshops,
if it weren't for copyright amnesia.
Graham Nelson
Oxford, UK