Indeed I think there's a good argument to simply have a flat rate of say 30-50 years (let's not forget that the original copyright term was just 14 years IIRC). Some people support the idea that someone should have control for the duration of one's lifetime, okay fair enough - but the current situation where it lasts for a lifetime *and* a staggering 70 years after that seems rather ridiculous to me.

If your father wrote a book, then someone made $200 million 50 years later after he died - well tough luck. With that length of time, if something had that much potential, then I would hope movie producers would be contacting him for the rights anyway (and not worry about having to pay him). If he refused or asked an unreasonable price - well after that length of time, and when he's dead, I don't think it should be an issue. Yes I can see your point after 1 year - but after 50 years, you should be earning money like the rest of us, not living off what your father did 50 years ago.

I think a flat term like patents would be fine for copyrights (70 years from creation or 50 from first publication, whichever is up first). I just don't like the idea that dying would in essence nullify ownership of something immediately upon death.

(And to be honest, even after just 1 year, I agree with Antheus; it does seem an extraordinary sense of entitlement to deserve the profits from other people's work - you neither made the movie, nor wrote the book.)[/quote]
Why would it be any different for companies, homes, or other things people own? I don't understand how you could have a double standard between an IP someone owns the rights to and a physical object someone owns being passed down to their relatives.

I don't think it has anything to do with entitlement, more to do with the original owner being able to decide who takes the benefits of their works after they die. If I work my whole life and decide that in the case of my untimely death I want my accrued wealth to make my family's life easier by giving them enough money to pay off their college loans/mortgages/what have you, why is that any different than someone working their whole life and deciding in the case of their untimely death that they want the profits from their IP to benefit the lives of their families similarly? It's not about the family being entitled to anything, it's about the deceased being entitled to give their belongings to whomever they please.

If you died and you're will were ignored, your house burned with any other physical belongings, and your bank account donated to pay off government debt your family would probably be pissed also. It doesn't mean they're entitled to anything; you could have left everything to the church and they'd probably still be just as pissed. It's you who are entitled to have your last will and testament carried out.

If you died and you're will were ignored, your house burned with any other physical belongings, and your bank account donated to pay off government debt your family would probably be pissed also. It doesn't mean they're entitled to anything; you could have left everything to the church and they'd probably still be just as pissed. It's you who are entitled to have your last will and testament carried out.

When you inherit from a deceased relative, everything you inherit is subject to an 'inheritance tax', or an 'estate tax', often quite substantial. This tax is levied on the current market value of the inherited goods.

For a physical good, like a house, market value is easy to assess. But what exactly is the market value of the intellectual property rights on an out of print book? Pretty much nothing. What is the value after that $200 million blockbuster is made from it? Astronomical.

Now, I don't give a fig about estate taxes, but the valuation issue is important. Your relative didn't create that new value (the film producer did, after your relative's death), and therefore it isn't your relative's property to bequeath.

When you inherit from a deceased relative, everything you inherit is subject to an 'inheritance tax', or an 'estate tax', often quite substantial. This tax is levied on the current market value of the inherited goods.

For a physical good, like a house, market value is easy to assess. But what exactly is the market value of the intellectual property rights on an out of print book? Pretty much nothing. What is the value after that $200 million blockbuster is made from it? Astronomical.

Now, I don't give a fig about estate taxes, but the valuation issue is important. Your relative didn't create that new value (the film producer did, after your relative's death), and therefore it isn't your relative's property to bequeath.

Why couldn't you evaluate the estimated cost of an IP like you would a house? Maybe put it up for open auction and just include the sale as part of the estate; then you'd have something with concrete value representing the estimated worth of the ip. Regardless of the number, the writer deserves compensation for the studio licensing the IP, and [s]he deserves to leave that compensation to whomever [s]he pleases.

A more concrete example would be if JK Rowling died in 1998 and her IPs were suddenly public domain. In 1998 her IP was worth ~$2,000,000 for the film rights to the first four books as well as publishing contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars and I think she had revenue sharing on both as well. If her books were suddenly in the public domain at the end of 1998, her estate would be out millions of dollars, which it was already well on course to making even if she stopped actively being involved in Harry Potter in any way.

A more concrete example would be if JK Rowling died in 1998 and her IPs were suddenly public domain. In 1998 her IP was worth ~$2,000,000 for the film rights to the first four books as well as publishing contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars and I think she had revenue sharing on both as well. If her books were suddenly in the public domain at the end of 1998, her estate would be out millions of dollars, which it was already well on course to making even if she stopped actively being involved in Harry Potter in any way.

Huh? When Warner Brothers licensed the IP from her, the agreement would have specified a certain level of future payments - the fact that the estate no longer controlled the IP wouldn't invalidate the pre-existing contract.

Huh? When Warner Brothers licensed the IP from her, the agreement would have specified a certain level of future payments - the fact that the estate no longer controlled the IP wouldn't invalidate the pre-existing contract.

The contract was signed near the end of 1998. I meant for her to have died sometime between the book's US release in 1998 and the contract signing in my example. Still you could make a strong argument for purchasing the exclusive rights to the IP being void once an IP is publicly owned, as you are no longer granted exclusive rights.

I think a flat term like patents would be fine for copyrights (70 years from creation or 50 from first publication, whichever is up first). I just don't like the idea that dying would in essence nullify ownership of something immediately upon death.

A fixed term of being the minimum of 70 years from creation / 50 from first publication, would be fine with me. I still think it's an extraordinary sense of entitlement for people who have done nothing to whine about not getting something, but still, this system would be much better than the lengthy (and ever increasing) terms we have currently.

Why would it be any different for companies, homes, or other things people own? I don't understand how you could have a double standard between an IP someone owns the rights to and a physical object someone owns being passed down to their relatives.[/quote]Because they're not the same thing. A physical object isn't the same thing as the monopoly granted by the state on a creative work. Both of them have laws regulating how they work, but there is no reason why those laws should be the same (and indeed, they aren't the same).

I mean, if this is really what you believe, are you actually arguing that copyright terms should be infinite as with physical objects?

I don't think it has anything to do with entitlement, more to do with the original owner being able to decide who takes the benefits of their works after they die. If I work my whole life and decide that in the case of my untimely death I want my accrued wealth to make my family's life easier by giving them enough money to pay off their college loans/mortgages/what have you, why is that any different than someone working their whole life and deciding in the case of their untimely death that they want the profits from their IP to benefit the lives of their families similarly? It's not about the family being entitled to anything, it's about the deceased being entitled to give their belongings to whomever they please.[/quote]You can already pass on your accumulated wealth during your lifetime. But what you are arguing for is for the IP to keep generating wealth for one person, after the creator is dead. It is not at all the same thing. I might as well argue that when I die, my company should continue paying my salary into my family's bank account.

If you died and you're will were ignored, your house burned with any other physical belongings, and your bank account donated to pay off government debt your family would probably be pissed also.[/quote]Well yes, I think they probably would be upset if those things happened, but not because of any copyright issue... it's hardly ignoring a will, if the will says things that aren't legally possible. I could write in my will that my family should be awarded a million pounds by the state, but that's not going to happen either. If we lived in a world where they weren't entitled to the monopoly granted by the state for my works, then writing that in a will wouldn't be valid either.

It doesn't mean they're entitled to anything; you could have left everything to the church and they'd probably still be just as pissed. It's you who are entitled to have your last will and testament carried out.[/quote]So I can write anything I like in my will, and it must be carried out?

A good point made by swiftcoder about tax. Is IP subject to inheritance tax at all at the moment? If not, that seems even more an unreasonable situation. Would it really work to hit someone with $1 million in tax, on the basis that the deceased's copyright on a book might be worth a lot if they made a movie?

A more concrete example would be if JK Rowling died in 1998 and her IPs were suddenly public domain. In 1998 her IP was worth ~$2,000,000 for the film rights to the first four books as well as publishing contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars and I think she had revenue sharing on both as well. If her books were suddenly in the public domain at the end of 1998, her estate would be out millions of dollars, which it was already well on course to making even if she stopped actively being involved in Harry Potter in any way.[/quote]I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel sorry that someone who's done nothing might have missed out on millions of dollars. I don't mind if the system is such that this situation is avoided (with fixed lengths, as we agree above), but you're not making me feel that anyone would be hard done by here.

If her family are more upset by the money than her death, I think that would say something in itself...

Because they're not the same thing. A physical object isn't the same thing as the monopoly granted by the state on a creative work. Both of them have laws regulating how they work, but there is no reason why those laws should be the same (and indeed, they aren't the same).

Technically the land you own is a state granted monopoly on that land. The state can take it just as well giving fair compensation. The only difference is that land doesn't diminish in value over time (for the most part).

Ideally the lifetime + 70 years figure is intended to be the amount of time for the original holder to have [at least nearly] fully realized the profit from their IP. If an IP is still at it's peak value shortly after the copyright has been granted, I don't see the problem with it receiving fair compensation just like anything else.

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel sorry that someone who's done nothing might have missed out on millions of dollars. I don't mind if the system is such that this situation is avoided (with fixed lengths, as we agree above), but you're not making me feel that anyone would be hard done by here.

If her family are more upset by the money than her death, I think that would say something in itself...
[/quote]
Even if she left it to a charity, I would still be upset if I were in her family. If there were no profit to be made personally it would not affect my displeasure with the situation. It is not about the money. It is about respecting the recently deceased creator. I would be upset if I were her relative, she was alive, and she got screwed over on the license to an IP she owned; why should I not be upset because she's dead and got screwed over on the license to an IP she owned?

You are, quite frankly, missing the point if you think I am arguing that the money is what's important here.

Technically the land you own is a state granted monopoly on that land. The state can take it just as well giving fair compensation.[/quote]

The state can take it because it's protecting that land with its army.

Take the state away and anyone can come and plunder it. And no, owning two rifles doesn't work, since someone else can then come with an army of tanks and or somesuch. In the end, you need to become a state/country with an army and treaties to reach parity.

The taxes we pay as citizens are essentially subsidized protection. All things considered, it's very cheap.

It may sound silly, but it's often forgotten at reasons why states in modern form emerged from feudal and other orders.

I would be upset if I were her relative, she was alive, and she got screwed over on the license to an IP she owned; why should I not be upset because she's dead and got screwed over on the license to an IP she owned?

Because she's dead, and therefore *by definition* cannot own anything.

You, as her inheritor, can profit from what previously belonged to her. But she can't. And your profit (or a charity, for that matter) has nothing to do with her rights/etc.

Because she's dead, and therefore *by definition* cannot own anything.

You, as her inheritor, can profit from what previously belonged to her. But she can't. And your profit (or a charity, for that matter) has nothing to do with her rights/etc.

Then why do you have any rights to land they owned? Land, similarly, is just a monopoly on that land granted by the government. I think the perception of how different IP is from something like land ownership is not representative of the reality. Legally it's actually quite a bit simpler for the government to take away your land than it is for them to take away your IP.