Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday April 24 2015, @02:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the useful-progress dept.

It's election season in the UK, and the Green Party's policy document has been coming under scrutiny recently. In it is a desire to reduce copyright term to 14 years (not life + 14 years, but 14 years from publication).

Unsurprisingly, this has received a bit of a backlash from various parties.

There's no chance the Green Party will form the next government, so this is all academic, but is this a sensible idea? Are people overreacting?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by WillR on Friday April 24 2015, @02:52PM

    by WillR (2012) on Friday April 24 2015, @02:52PM (#174675)
    14 years was the term granted under the Statute of Anne (the first UK copyright law) in 1710. If 14 years was long enough to make money in an era when everything was written, edited, and typeset by hand, it's certainly long enough for an era where authors can click "publish" and have an article in front of a million readers in seconds.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:15PM (#174683)

    1710. What was the average lifespan back then about half of what it is now?

    • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday April 24 2015, @03:57PM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Friday April 24 2015, @03:57PM (#174698) Homepage Journal

      With a 14-year term, the first Harry Potter film would be due out of copyright in 6 months. I was going to say "The Fast And The Furious franchise would have missed out out-living the copyright on the original by weeks", but who knows how many more will splutter out of the pipeline before they finally stop making them?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Friday April 24 2015, @04:03PM

        by wantkitteh (3362) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:03PM (#174702) Homepage Journal

        ...oh, and the whole F&F franchise has a total production budget so far of $844m, it's made $3.5b box so far. I don't think the argument that Hollywood will fall apart if the copyright terms are reduced holds a single drop of water. Couldn't say about other content producers though.

      • (Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday April 24 2015, @04:57PM

        by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Friday April 24 2015, @04:57PM (#174725) Journal

        I just saw something on Facebook saying that Vin Diesel announced something about "Furious 8", so at least one more. (Also what the hell is up with the naming of those movies? I don't mind a little inconsistency but that series is getting ridiculous about it.) On the other hand, agreeing to be in another F&F movie is what got Vin Diesel the rights to the character of Riddick, so hopefully he'll use what he makes off the current and next F&F to make another one of those that *actually* resolves *something* in that universe.

        --
        Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @06:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @06:19PM (#174781)

          Vin Diesel made F&F 7 so we could make a deal on his pet project Hannibal The Conqueror. So we might see htc before the next Riddick.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @03:59PM (#174700)

      ~36 [ourworldindata.org]

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Friday April 24 2015, @04:18PM

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 24 2015, @04:18PM (#174705)

      Life expectancy gives a misleading impression because it is (was) heavily skewed by high infant and child mortality.

      For instance in medieval Britain life expectancy _at_ _birth_ was about 30 - less than half what it is now. However, if you reached the age of 21 (and might be publishing something) then male life expectancy was over 60. By 1700s it would be likely have been higher still, definitely a lot more than half what it is now.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @06:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @06:29PM (#174791)

        So for all we have spent on the medical field all we got was much fewer dead babies and 15 years to enjoy arthritis and altimeters?

        On the low end it is fantastic. On the high end, as someone who has taken care of relatives lingering on for as much as 20 years past what could be considered a life worth living, I am not at all prepared for those "benefits".

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:07AM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:07AM (#174921)

          So for all we have spent on the medical field all we got was much fewer dead babies and 15 years to enjoy arthritis and altimeters?

          To be fair, it is kind of fun seeing how high up you have climbed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @04:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 24 2015, @04:59PM (#174729)
      What was the rate of distribution and supposed innovation and creativity back then compared to today?

      Most popular movies make a fair bit of their money in a few months. 14 years is plenty of time.

      Furthermore 14 years puts more pressure on software companies like Microsoft to make stuff that's actually better than their old stuff rather than shit out whatever crap they have.

      As for those in the music industry, having copyright at 14 years will probably weaken the labels, which is likely a good thing for performers and musicians.