Bottom line of my opinion is that nobody has a right to free stuff when the person who made the stuff is still breathing.
This is the only part of your post that has anything to do with what I asked, so I'll take it that, yes, you believe that only the purchaser of a book should ever read that copy and only the purchaser of a movie should ever see that copy play. Up until the copyright expires, of course.
And that that copyright should never expire within the life of the author/creator.
Bottom line of my opinion is that nobody has a right to free stuff when the person who made the stuff is still breathing.
This is the only part of your post that has anything to do with what I asked, so I'll take it that, yes, you believe that only the purchaser of a book should ever read that copy and only the purchaser of a movie should ever see that copy play. Up until the copyright expires, of course.
And that that copyright should never expire within the life of the author/creator.
Wait, what? How the hell does neverending copyrights help promote the creation of more works?
The idea of copyrights extending past the lifespan of the author is a relatively new one, you know. The original idea of copyright is to create incentive for authors to create works. Works. Plural. Not one work and then live off that for the rest of your life.
This comparison is myopic and stupid. Adobe wants people familiar with using their products because when these people work professionally in a graphic design field, they'll want to use Photoshop and they/their business will need legitimate, legal copies to publish with. Valve gains no similar benefits from people knowing how to play HL2 successfully. And you think it's going to increase mod sales? That's asinine. TF2, Day of Defeat: Source, and Counter-Strike: Source are their three in-house HL2 mods and I doubt anyone purchased one just because HL2 was such a great game. They're entirely different games - the only valid similarity you might point to is the HUD/engine, and I can't think of the last game I bought on the basis of its Heads-Up Display alone. "Man, that damage indicator really has the Valve sheen to it!"
Also you can't "beat" photoshop.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Bottom line of my opinion is that nobody has a right to free stuff when the person who made the stuff is still breathing.
This is the only part of your post that has anything to do with what I asked, so I'll take it that, yes, you believe that only the purchaser of a book should ever read that copy and only the purchaser of a movie should ever see that copy play. Up until the copyright expires, of course.
And that that copyright should never expire within the life of the author/creator.
It really shouldn't. But I do think that copyright should be surrogated with consumer rights - namely you can't just choose not to provide what you created to the public if you want to retain copyright. Copyright should only be allowed where the copyright holder has demonstrated reasonable intention to market new copies of the work.
So you guys think it's okay for, like, Penguin or Random House to make money on books for decades... but not the author?
What?
Ever hear of Project Gutenburg?
I've heard of it.
Doesn't stop prints.
Like I've said, I especially don't like the idea of someone OTHER than the creator getting to profit off of a work when the creator gets nadda.
It's just really fucked up.
Should we be tracking down Shakespeare's heirs, then?
edit: Look, I see where you're coming from, but when you factor in corporate-owned works what you're calling for turns into infinite, unending copyright.
So you guys think it's okay for, like, Penguin or Random House to make money on books for decades... but not the author?
What?
Ever hear of Project Gutenburg?
I've heard of it.
Doesn't stop prints.
Like I've said, I especially don't like the idea of someone OTHER than the creator getting to profit off of a work when the creator gets nadda.
It's just really fucked up.
Jumping in really late here...
You really shouldn't be buying any games at all, should you? To my knowledge, there is not a single game out there with royalties going directly to the creators (unless you don't care about the actual creators, but just their bosses). The publisher will of course take a chunk out of continued sales, but games just are not on a royalty system.
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on cases such as this?
Should we be tracking down Shakespeare's heirs, then?
edit: Look, I see where you're coming from, but when you factor in corporate-owned works what you're calling for turns into infinite, unending copyright.
Again: Why should corporations get to make money off of it but not the creator or descendants?
If you want to make something free, or make it "you can't stop us, but we have to give you a cut," fine.
But making it so a corporation can make money off of something but not the actual holders of the original copyright is backwards.
--
I have no experience with British copyright at all, so I don't feel I'm in any position to know what the hell makes sense there.
--
How many games have single creators...?
Modern games are usually a corporate product, not an individual product.
Modern games are usually a corporate product, not an individual product.
to come out meaning that you still believe
Like I've said, I especially don't like the idea of someone OTHER than the creator getting to profit off of a work when the creator gets nadda.
Essentially, it seems that you would rather your money go the the people that funded the work, while saying you'd rather it go to the people that created it.
I agree with wanting to fund the artist as much as possible (tempted to say eleventy billion percent), I just don't see how this at all reflects reality.
Let me explain. When I "cast my vote" by buying a book brand new, or seeing a movie opening night (because really, does any other night count?), I do it knowing that I am possibly securing them the chance to write another book or movie. Not because I want them to make money on this individual one. (It should be noted that my entire family, fiance included, completely disagree with me on this.)
Am I saying I hope they die poor? Of course not. I just don't have any illusions that they see any of my 10 to 20 bucks.
Edit: Also, if the comment on British law was directed at me, I'm pretty sure this is not a British case.
The people did not just rent out the corporation's studio.
I am also perfectly comfortable with the idea of everyone who worked on a project getting money based on sales rather than based on work done. Whichever method they prefer.
The people did not just rent out the corporation's studio.
I am also perfectly comfortable with the idea of everyone who worked on a project getting money based on sales rather than based on work done. Whichever method they prefer.
Whichever method they sign their work contract for, you mean, right? Obviously it's going to be whichever method the employer prefers in the real world.
Again, how does your "lifetime of the author" thing work for corporate-owned works?
The people did not just rent out the corporation's studio.
I am also perfectly comfortable with the idea of everyone who worked on a project getting money based on sales rather than based on work done. Whichever method they prefer.
I can see your viewpoint, but every ounce of being in my body rejects it. I don't think I am capable of seeing a corporation as something that created anything. I also miss the days when games had developer's names on them. (Looking fondly at my Monkey Island boxes.)
To me, the same logic that sees a corporation as the creator of anything, sees shoes that were made by Nike, and not some poor 12 year old in China. After all, it has Nike's name on it, not the kid's. (I think I just used a modified Godwins. Or whatever the name is.)
Seriously though, do you honestly believe that the artists behind all of the games we have done deserve no specific credit because they were unable to generate a market for their work?
Again: Why should corporations get to make money off of it but not the creator or descendants?
If you want to make something free, or make it "you can't stop us, but we have to give you a cut," fine.
But making it so a corporation can make money off of something but not the actual holders of the original copyright is backwards.
At this point the corporation isn't so much making money off the work, as making money off the service of printing the work. Speaking of the public domain, of course. Anybody who feels the burning need can print themselves up a copy of Great Expectations or Moby Dick and sell it. You could do it if you wanted. The only reason anybody still pays for copies of books that are in the public domain is because it's more convenient than printing your own copy. You're not paying for the words anymore.
Which, of course, is why it's usually possible to find incredibly cheap editions of such books...and not so much for, say, Starship Troopers or Lord of the Rings.
And again, this is how the public domain is supposed to work. If you don't believe in the public domain, I don't think there's much point in talking about this any more.
It really shouldn't. But I do think that copyright should be surrogated with consumer rights - namely you can't just choose not to provide what you created to the public if you want to retain copyright. Copyright should only be allowed where the copyright holder has demonstrated reasonable intention to market new copies of the work.
Bah. I still say setting a length of time makes more sense, especially with things like collaborative works or works for hire, or any other more complex issues. Make copyright last for X years, where X is sufficiently long that nearly any author/artist will have more than enough time to profit from their work. Like 30, 40 years. Then it's done. Over. Public domain. No concerns for living authors, no concerns for continuing marketability, that's it. Limited time offer.
EDIT: I'd have a longer term (long enough to cover the author's likely lifetime, but still a set number of years) for derivative works, though. If a publisher wants to distribute cheap copies of a work (or people want to make their own or distribute them digitally) that's one thing...but if somebody's looking to, say, make a movie from a book with its own copyright protection I'd say that the original creator should be paid (which is why I'd extend the term to cover their lifetime).
I don't even notice this shit. If you've been a PC gamer all your life, the idea of used games is weird. That shit just doesn't happen in the PC gamers market.
Exactly. Shit, we've had practically uncontrollable piracy for many, many moons now. I kinda feel like Steam has finally evolved PC gaming in many ways. Besides, I don't understand the concept of a used PC game market, since PC games are broken down into two categories: 1) Offline games, which you can pirate easily if you really feel like it, because to the publisher that's the same as buying used as they see no money from it either way, and 2) Online games, where piracy is limited because only one person can be online at a time.
Steam hasn't changed those two categories. You can pirate steam games and play them offline. You can also share your steam account for online games, however only one person can play online at a time.
It's the same goddamn thing.
Also, I have never once associated Steam and DRM, probably because I would gladly buy, DRM or not, all Valve games. Also to me the fucking AMAZING convenience of never, ever having to worry about losing a game disc or serial number again is a godsend. I've spent so much time over the years pirating games that I purchased at one point but lost. Yes this means I'm horribly unorganized, but still to me this is a great invention.
And I'm also tired of this "customer satisfaction" bullshit. Someone said that "there is never a limit to customer satisfaction." This is wrong. If steam decided to allow some sort of "ebay" option it wouldn't satisfy or make me happier at all. In fact I would be thinking to myself "God, I wish they spent that time and money on getting more fucking games on steam instead of some useless shit."
//Steam fanboy out
(Oh, and for the record I spent a couple of years hating steam in my head at the time they forced people to convert over to steam in order to play classic TFC and CS online. I thought they were the devil. Oh how wrong I was. )
(Oh, and for the record I spent a couple of years hating steam in my head at the time they forced people to convert over to steam in order to play classic TFC and CS online. I thought they were the devil. Oh how wrong I was. )
I still wish they had carried over the feature from WON where you could see the server's console settings before you joined - class limits, for example.
I don't even notice this shit. If you've been a PC gamer all your life, the idea of used games is weird. That shit just doesn't happen in the PC gamers market.
Exactly. Shit, we've had practically uncontrollable piracy for many, many moons now. I kinda feel like Steam has finally evolved PC gaming in many ways. Besides, I don't understand the concept of a used PC game market, since PC games are broken down into two categories: 1) Offline games, which you can pirate easily if you really feel like it, because to the publisher that's the same as buying used as they see no money from it either way, and 2) Online games, where piracy is limited because only one person can be online at a time.
Steam hasn't changed those two categories. You can pirate steam games and play them offline. You can also share your steam account for online games, however only one person can play online at a time.
It's the same goddamn thing.
No, no it's really not. One actually respects the idea of copyrights, the other does not. Plus there is at least some mathematical difference between the two, revenue-wise.
Also, I have never once associated Steam and DRM, probably because I would gladly buy, DRM or not, all Valve games. Also to me the fucking AMAZING convenience of never, ever having to worry about losing a game disc or serial number again is a godsend. I've spent so much time over the years pirating games that I purchased at one point but lost. Yes this means I'm horribly unorganized, but still to me this is a great invention.
Yeah, I felt this way for the first two weeks too. Not to rehash the first couple pages of troubleshooting, but let's just say the whole thing seemed less shiny and beautiful when my internet went down and I couldn't play HL2 anymore.
And I'm also tired of this "customer satisfaction" bullshit. Someone said that "there is never a limit to customer satisfaction." This is wrong. If steam decided to allow some sort of "ebay" option it wouldn't satisfy or make me happier at all. In fact I would be thinking to myself "God, I wish they spent that time and money on getting more fucking games on steam instead of some useless shit."
It really shouldn't. But I do think that copyright should be surrogated with consumer rights - namely you can't just choose not to provide what you created to the public if you want to retain copyright. Copyright should only be allowed where the copyright holder has demonstrated reasonable intention to market new copies of the work.
Bah. I still say setting a length of time makes more sense, especially with things like collaborative works or works for hire, or any other more complex issues. Make copyright last for X years, where X is sufficiently long that nearly any author/artist will have more than enough time to profit from their work. Like 30, 40 years. Then it's done. Over. Public domain. No concerns for living authors, no concerns for continuing marketability, that's it. Limited time offer.
EDIT: I'd have a longer term (long enough to cover the author's likely lifetime, but still a set number of years) for derivative works, though. If a publisher wants to distribute cheap copies of a work (or people want to make their own or distribute them digitally) that's one thing...but if somebody's looking to, say, make a movie from a book with its own copyright protection I'd say that the original creator should be paid (which is why I'd extend the term to cover their lifetime).
I think I agree with this, though I do worry about people who might experience delayed success on works they produce. I mean, when you set around 10 years as a limit, it's not entirely impossible that someone might find success a long way down the line on any particular work they produce. Is it really fair that they lose out on any profit from such a work? Life isn't fair maybe, but I worry about whatever type of social effects could follow on from this - people are going to worry about their short term marketability if they run the risk of disclosing to the public domain and losing the copyright before they can make any money.
Are people here truly worried about the creators of the work here? Are you all so naive as to assume that any penny you spend on a game accurately reflects any amount of money that went towards the actual creators? Even years down the line? I'd be willing to bet the opposite. Unless it has someone's name prominently displayed on it, and this is not their first venture, the creators will not see a dime.
So, while I can still appreciate the sentiment, I just do not buy it under the current system we have setup. (Also, to compare this to piracy is absolute fear mongering. Do you also chide people that sing songs they know without sending a check to the person that wrote it? What about learning musicians that play a popular song? People that buy a book only to then sell it? They are all, to an extent, pirates in this definition.)
Past that, how is this not directly in line with what the First Sale Doctrine is for? There are specific cases where the law has addressed "unbundling" software. That was what this entire thread was originally about. (The OP talked about having the Orange Box. The physical box.)
As for Disney, I think the biggest irony in them is that their largest works at the beginning were based upon public domain stories. Do you think the living heirs to Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, if you prefer) saw one dime from the movie? (If I'm wrong on this, do let me know.)
I think I agree with this, though I do worry about people who might experience delayed success on works they produce. I mean, when you set around 10 years as a limit, it's not entirely impossible that someone might find success a long way down the line on any particular work they produce. Is it really fair that they lose out on any profit from such a work? Life isn't fair maybe, but I worry about whatever type of social effects could follow on from this - people are going to worry about their short term marketability if they run the risk of disclosing to the public domain and losing the copyright before they can make any money.
This is why I think a longer limit is appropriate...at least in the 25 year range, if not upwards of 40 or 50.
Yes, it's still possible that somebody's work could suddenly become popular during their life, 40 or 50 years after it's written...but unlikely, and that's the balance that should be struck between concern for the artist and for society at large. Not consumers, really (though I've used that word), but society. Which I think is enriched by having a healthy, vibrant, and growing body of public domain works.
I just think people should see things enter the public domain within their lifetime. The works (movies, for instance) I enjoyed as a child should be freely available to my grandchildren, or at least great-grandchildren. The music my parents enjoyed as children should be freely available to me when I reach middle age. People shouldn't be still paying to see or hear music and movies from WWII; I think culture as a whole would be enriched if those were free, because honestly I think more people would bother to watch them/listen to them if they didn't need to make a financial decision to do so.
And yes, I realize libraries exist. But for one, they have to spend money on these older works as well...which is less money they have to spend on newer works, or more branches. Two, not everybody has easy/convenient access to libraries. For instance, where I live if I want to actually check out materials (which for music/movies is pretty necessary) I have to drive 40 miles over a mountain pass that's often snowed over. Yeah, right.
The main thing is avoiding situations where a twenty year old writes a great book that doesn't sell much... then twenty years later someone important discovers it, and suddenly publishers are making a mint off of it, and all the while the author is sitting in a ditch somewhere eating dog food.
The main thing is avoiding situations where a twenty year old writes a great book that doesn't sell much... then twenty years later someone important discovers it, and suddenly publishers are making a mint off of it, and all the while the author is sitting in a ditch somewhere eating dog food.
Except then the publishers wouldn't necessarily be making "a mint" off it either. If it's in the public domain, any publisher could print it up and sell it, allowing for some pretty serious competition on price.
I can get a copy of many public domain books for like $3-$4 off the shelf nowadays. You're basically paying for the paper/binding, shipping, and whatever meager markup the publisher and retailer can ask before somebody else undercuts them on price, because anybody can compete with them. Or customers can just download it in some eBook format. Or whatever.
I think the longer period for derivatives (at least commercial ones) would help, too, because if it really gets that popular somebody's likely going to want to make a movie/TV show/miniseries. Then he can sell those rights and bump up to canned tuna.
EDIT: But yes, I think a longer term in general, like 40 years, would probably be more appropriate given longer lifespans of both artists and their audience.
Maybe a provision that allows someone to "reopen" their copyright if there is an extremely large amount of money being made off of it by not-them...
At least until freebie media becomes more universal.
Yeah, no. Like I said, if there's one thing that should not be a consideration in copyright terms, it's "economic viability." Shakespeare is still pretty popular, and you could make a lot of money selling it...should it suddenly leave public domain?
EDIT: Yes, I realize the guy's dead. But since nothing has entered public domain for like a hundred years, anybody whose work is in the PD will be.
Posts
And that that copyright should never expire within the life of the author/creator.
Wait, what? How the hell does neverending copyrights help promote the creation of more works?
The idea of copyrights extending past the lifespan of the author is a relatively new one, you know. The original idea of copyright is to create incentive for authors to create works. Works. Plural. Not one work and then live off that for the rest of your life.
Also you can't "beat" photoshop.
What?
Ever hear of Project Gutenburg?
I've heard of it.
Doesn't stop prints.
Like I've said, I especially don't like the idea of someone OTHER than the creator getting to profit off of a work when the creator gets nadda.
It's just really fucked up.
edit: Look, I see where you're coming from, but when you factor in corporate-owned works what you're calling for turns into infinite, unending copyright.
Jumping in really late here...
You really shouldn't be buying any games at all, should you? To my knowledge, there is not a single game out there with royalties going directly to the creators (unless you don't care about the actual creators, but just their bosses). The publisher will of course take a chunk out of continued sales, but games just are not on a royalty system.
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on cases such as this?
Again: Why should corporations get to make money off of it but not the creator or descendants?
If you want to make something free, or make it "you can't stop us, but we have to give you a cut," fine.
But making it so a corporation can make money off of something but not the actual holders of the original copyright is backwards.
--
I have no experience with British copyright at all, so I don't feel I'm in any position to know what the hell makes sense there.
--
How many games have single creators...?
Modern games are usually a corporate product, not an individual product.
work with
to come out meaning that you still believe
Essentially, it seems that you would rather your money go the the people that funded the work, while saying you'd rather it go to the people that created it.
I agree with wanting to fund the artist as much as possible (tempted to say eleventy billion percent), I just don't see how this at all reflects reality.
Let me explain. When I "cast my vote" by buying a book brand new, or seeing a movie opening night (because really, does any other night count?), I do it knowing that I am possibly securing them the chance to write another book or movie. Not because I want them to make money on this individual one. (It should be noted that my entire family, fiance included, completely disagree with me on this.)
Am I saying I hope they die poor? Of course not. I just don't have any illusions that they see any of my 10 to 20 bucks.
Edit: Also, if the comment on British law was directed at me, I'm pretty sure this is not a British case.
They hired the people to make the game for them.
The people did not just rent out the corporation's studio.
I am also perfectly comfortable with the idea of everyone who worked on a project getting money based on sales rather than based on work done. Whichever method they prefer.
Again, how does your "lifetime of the author" thing work for corporate-owned works?
I can see your viewpoint, but every ounce of being in my body rejects it. I don't think I am capable of seeing a corporation as something that created anything. I also miss the days when games had developer's names on them. (Looking fondly at my Monkey Island boxes.)
To me, the same logic that sees a corporation as the creator of anything, sees shoes that were made by Nike, and not some poor 12 year old in China. After all, it has Nike's name on it, not the kid's. (I think I just used a modified Godwins. Or whatever the name is.)
Seriously though, do you honestly believe that the artists behind all of the games we have done deserve no specific credit because they were unable to generate a market for their work?
At this point the corporation isn't so much making money off the work, as making money off the service of printing the work. Speaking of the public domain, of course. Anybody who feels the burning need can print themselves up a copy of Great Expectations or Moby Dick and sell it. You could do it if you wanted. The only reason anybody still pays for copies of books that are in the public domain is because it's more convenient than printing your own copy. You're not paying for the words anymore.
Which, of course, is why it's usually possible to find incredibly cheap editions of such books...and not so much for, say, Starship Troopers or Lord of the Rings.
And again, this is how the public domain is supposed to work. If you don't believe in the public domain, I don't think there's much point in talking about this any more.
Bah. I still say setting a length of time makes more sense, especially with things like collaborative works or works for hire, or any other more complex issues. Make copyright last for X years, where X is sufficiently long that nearly any author/artist will have more than enough time to profit from their work. Like 30, 40 years. Then it's done. Over. Public domain. No concerns for living authors, no concerns for continuing marketability, that's it. Limited time offer.
EDIT: I'd have a longer term (long enough to cover the author's likely lifetime, but still a set number of years) for derivative works, though. If a publisher wants to distribute cheap copies of a work (or people want to make their own or distribute them digitally) that's one thing...but if somebody's looking to, say, make a movie from a book with its own copyright protection I'd say that the original creator should be paid (which is why I'd extend the term to cover their lifetime).
Exactly. Shit, we've had practically uncontrollable piracy for many, many moons now. I kinda feel like Steam has finally evolved PC gaming in many ways. Besides, I don't understand the concept of a used PC game market, since PC games are broken down into two categories: 1) Offline games, which you can pirate easily if you really feel like it, because to the publisher that's the same as buying used as they see no money from it either way, and 2) Online games, where piracy is limited because only one person can be online at a time.
Steam hasn't changed those two categories. You can pirate steam games and play them offline. You can also share your steam account for online games, however only one person can play online at a time.
It's the same goddamn thing.
Also, I have never once associated Steam and DRM, probably because I would gladly buy, DRM or not, all Valve games. Also to me the fucking AMAZING convenience of never, ever having to worry about losing a game disc or serial number again is a godsend. I've spent so much time over the years pirating games that I purchased at one point but lost. Yes this means I'm horribly unorganized, but still to me this is a great invention.
And I'm also tired of this "customer satisfaction" bullshit. Someone said that "there is never a limit to customer satisfaction." This is wrong. If steam decided to allow some sort of "ebay" option it wouldn't satisfy or make me happier at all. In fact I would be thinking to myself "God, I wish they spent that time and money on getting more fucking games on steam instead of some useless shit."
//Steam fanboy out
(Oh, and for the record I spent a couple of years hating steam in my head at the time they forced people to convert over to steam in order to play classic TFC and CS online. I thought they were the devil. Oh how wrong I was. )
No, no it's really not. One actually respects the idea of copyrights, the other does not. Plus there is at least some mathematical difference between the two, revenue-wise.
Yeah, I felt this way for the first two weeks too. Not to rehash the first couple pages of troubleshooting, but let's just say the whole thing seemed less shiny and beautiful when my internet went down and I couldn't play HL2 anymore.
True.
I think I agree with this, though I do worry about people who might experience delayed success on works they produce. I mean, when you set around 10 years as a limit, it's not entirely impossible that someone might find success a long way down the line on any particular work they produce. Is it really fair that they lose out on any profit from such a work? Life isn't fair maybe, but I worry about whatever type of social effects could follow on from this - people are going to worry about their short term marketability if they run the risk of disclosing to the public domain and losing the copyright before they can make any money.
So, while I can still appreciate the sentiment, I just do not buy it under the current system we have setup. (Also, to compare this to piracy is absolute fear mongering. Do you also chide people that sing songs they know without sending a check to the person that wrote it? What about learning musicians that play a popular song? People that buy a book only to then sell it? They are all, to an extent, pirates in this definition.)
Past that, how is this not directly in line with what the First Sale Doctrine is for? There are specific cases where the law has addressed "unbundling" software. That was what this entire thread was originally about. (The OP talked about having the Orange Box. The physical box.)
As for Disney, I think the biggest irony in them is that their largest works at the beginning were based upon public domain stories. Do you think the living heirs to Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, if you prefer) saw one dime from the movie? (If I'm wrong on this, do let me know.)
This is why I think a longer limit is appropriate...at least in the 25 year range, if not upwards of 40 or 50.
Yes, it's still possible that somebody's work could suddenly become popular during their life, 40 or 50 years after it's written...but unlikely, and that's the balance that should be struck between concern for the artist and for society at large. Not consumers, really (though I've used that word), but society. Which I think is enriched by having a healthy, vibrant, and growing body of public domain works.
I just think people should see things enter the public domain within their lifetime. The works (movies, for instance) I enjoyed as a child should be freely available to my grandchildren, or at least great-grandchildren. The music my parents enjoyed as children should be freely available to me when I reach middle age. People shouldn't be still paying to see or hear music and movies from WWII; I think culture as a whole would be enriched if those were free, because honestly I think more people would bother to watch them/listen to them if they didn't need to make a financial decision to do so.
And yes, I realize libraries exist. But for one, they have to spend money on these older works as well...which is less money they have to spend on newer works, or more branches. Two, not everybody has easy/convenient access to libraries. For instance, where I live if I want to actually check out materials (which for music/movies is pretty necessary) I have to drive 40 miles over a mountain pass that's often snowed over. Yeah, right.
The main thing is avoiding situations where a twenty year old writes a great book that doesn't sell much... then twenty years later someone important discovers it, and suddenly publishers are making a mint off of it, and all the while the author is sitting in a ditch somewhere eating dog food.
Except then the publishers wouldn't necessarily be making "a mint" off it either. If it's in the public domain, any publisher could print it up and sell it, allowing for some pretty serious competition on price.
I can get a copy of many public domain books for like $3-$4 off the shelf nowadays. You're basically paying for the paper/binding, shipping, and whatever meager markup the publisher and retailer can ask before somebody else undercuts them on price, because anybody can compete with them. Or customers can just download it in some eBook format. Or whatever.
I think the longer period for derivatives (at least commercial ones) would help, too, because if it really gets that popular somebody's likely going to want to make a movie/TV show/miniseries. Then he can sell those rights and bump up to canned tuna.
EDIT: But yes, I think a longer term in general, like 40 years, would probably be more appropriate given longer lifespans of both artists and their audience.
I'm pretty sure this would be the case. If not then yeah, it should be.
At least until freebie media becomes more universal.
Yeah, no. Like I said, if there's one thing that should not be a consideration in copyright terms, it's "economic viability." Shakespeare is still pretty popular, and you could make a lot of money selling it...should it suddenly leave public domain?
EDIT: Yes, I realize the guy's dead. But since nothing has entered public domain for like a hundred years, anybody whose work is in the PD will be.