Comments on: The right to "unlock" your cellphone is just the start

By: Jambe

Jambe — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:06:00 +0000

fwiw, copyright originally lasted 14 years in the USA with an optional one-time 14-year renewal. Then it was rights-mongered up to its current state of 95/120 years for corporate copyrights and life of author + 70 years for other stuff (thanks, Disney & Bono).

By: Tynam

Tynam — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:36:00 +0000

LSE did an economic study a few years back, taking into account changes in economics, and came up with an optimal term of 14 years. There’s room to question the assumptions, but 40 is almost certainly way too long.
(Up to 15 is when most of the income happens anyway.)

I’ve never liked “death of the artist” as a factor; it’s a stupid plan. Why give publishers a motive for murder? Why should my royalty payments be affected by whether I’ve had a heart attack so they’re going to my heirs instead?

By: oasisob1

oasisob1 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:00:00 +0000

10 years seems a bit short, really. Make it 30-40 or death of the artist, whichever comes first.

By: Ianto_Jones

Ianto_Jones — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:02:00 +0000

Additionally, copyright law in general needs to be completely rewritten so that it benefits individual artists and society as a whole, not just a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations. We can start by reducing the copyright term to 10 years before something enters the public domain. No more “Life + 100 years + infinite extensions”.

By: Stooge

Stooge — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:40:00 +0000

The “right” to unlock your cellphone doesn’t solve anything that an obligation doesn’t solve better.
Consumer interests are far better served by obliging carriers to:
i) unlock all phones for international roaming
ii) unlock all phones sold without a contract
Ii) automatically unlock phones at the end of the contract or upon payment of an early termination charge.