Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 8654752" data-attributes="member: 907">See, you're coming at this from the perspective of "What brings the most money to creators and/or owners?". I don't. I'm coming at this from the perspective of "What gets the most creative stuff done?"People generally don't write* things with the expectation that they'll make it big when someone makes a movie of it 30 years from now. The decision to write and publish a book is made in the here and now: will this book make enough to recoup the advance we're paying the author as well as other expenses like editing, overhead, etc? Should Hollywood decide to make a movie from it, that's bonus money.And since people generally don't have 30-, 50-, or 100-year perspectives on what to create and publish, having a copyright term that long doesn't help getting more things created. And therefore, the copyright term shouldn't be that long. If the problem is "But how do aging creators eat?", that can be solved in other ways.* or paint, or compose, or whatever their creative endeavor is.McCartney appears to have been amply compensated when those records were released in the 60s and 70s, and for quite some time afterwards. Does he really need to keep being compensated? I mean, I go to work every day, and get paid at the end of the month, but no-one's paying me for the work I did a year ago. I need to keep working. Why should creative work be different?</blockquote>