[Ann Drysdale]

Here's a revolutionary proposal...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...P=share_btn_fb

[John Whitworth]

Another shot in the foot for the Monster Raving Loonies New Style. What is the World Vision behind this?

[Janice D. Soderling]

Just another way to transfer money from the have-nots to the haves. Apparently the Greens have attracted a bunch of peeps who want free music.

What were they thinking of?

[Ann Drysdale]

This looks promising. An immediate response from the only Green MP.

http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/...ts-and-writers

[Michael Cantor]

The proposal consists of less than one tentative line in a document of eighty-something pages. My suspicion is that some fourteen-year old (okay, maybe twenty-one) who has never written anything, or actually held a bound book in his or her hands in her or his digital life, slipped the stupid thing in; and with all the other crap going on, nobody with a half a mind paid enough attention. I know little about this, but I'd be very surprised if that particular proposal remains unchanged for very long.

[Roger Slater]

Yes, it's stupid.

But corporate interests generally favor longer copyright terms as well. Disney fears the day that Mickey Mouse enters the public domain, and that's why the US Congress passed a huge copyright extension bill not all that long ago. Film makers, record producers, publishers and authors alike all want longer terms. To shorten the term would be to transfer money from the haves to the have-nots -- not the other way around.

Personally, I'm generally in favor of somewhat shorter terms, though 14 years is ridiculous. The purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to do what they do and create stuff, and I don't think that any artist is less likely to create stuff if, for example, he knows that the copyright will expire 50 years after his death rather than 75 years after his death.

[ross hamilton hill]

If you believe in the right of inheritence it should apply equally to everything people own. No time limits, no differentiation.

[John Whitworth]

Truth be told it matters not at all what is in the Greens manifesto. Those who want to vote Green will vote green whatever it says and they won't bother to read it. Fun for the rest of us of course.

[W.F. Lantry]

I'm with Roger on this one. American copyright law has been a long story of protecting corporate interests, not individual artists, by repeatedly extending periods of protection. In fact, most of those individual artists make nothing from their creation, since their work was defined as "work for hire." All the profits of those extensions go to corporations.

I'm in favor of shorter lengths, but 14 years sounds awfully short. Right now, in this country, it's life of the author plus 70 years, which seems a bit much.

It would also make sense to make the laws rational. I heard, a few years ago, the works of John Clare are still under copyright!

Thanks,

Bill

[Brian Allgar]

I think copyright should be in perpetuity. If I write a novel, or a symphony, or a song, or a poem, that continues to make money 200 years after my death, why should my distant descendants (not that I have any) not continue to benefit? Provided, of course, that it is the creator rather the commercial parasites who benefits.