This initially seemed like a really good argument.
Then I realized that you could make an even better sounding argument like this: "Imagine if copyright was only 10 years. Look at all the works that would now be public domain: Seinfeld, Friends, The Batman Movies, etc. etc.". This argument will probably be even more persuasive for the people who liked the original argument, since works from 10 years ago are even more recognizable.
In other words, this argument isn't actually saying anything interesting - it's simply an emotional appeal. Why should or shouldn't copyright be 10, 20, or 70 years? Why is the 1978 law wrong? Why was it created in the first place? I don't know from this article.
> Why is the 1978 law wrong? Why was it created in the first place? I don't know from this article.
It's not as wrong (i'm still against it) to extend copyright for new works, but this horrible law extended copyright retroactively for previously created works. There was no compelling reason for extending old works. It breaks all measures of fairness no matter how you approach it.
It's equivalent to having the banks extend your home loan by 30 years and saying you owe additional payments. You get nothing out of it. There is no trade. You get nothing and existing copyright owners get given additional years.
There's a good argument that copyright should be quite short. Corporations generally want a return on their money within five or ten years (or however long the CEO's stock options take to vest), maximum, so a five or ten year copyright term will secure exactly as much investment in copyrighted works as a 500 year term will.
There's a second good argument that Congress ought not to extend the terms of works already created, since that is always just a giveaway to the copyright holders and never does anything useful for society.
The article is making the second argument, not the first.
The reason it isn't 10, 20 or 70 is because this is an argument to reverse the 1978 and other copyright extension decisions and return the laws back to what they were.
Copyright term extensions are continually granted in the interests of the wealthy few, and not in the interest of the broader public.
The argument is summarized as "had congress not bent over in the face of lobbying influence this is what would be public domain today"
In other words, this argument isn't actually saying anything interesting - it's simply an emotional appeal. Why should or shouldn't copyright be 10, 20, or 70 years?
Arbitrary durations are arbitrary. Copyright term is one such arbitrary duration. You are right that there's no reason (other than the pre-1978 status quo) that the article shouldn't have used any other term -- 10 years, 5, 0, a million, etc. That doesn't invalidate the argument that copyright terms are presently out of balance.
Why is the 1978 law wrong? Why was it created in the first place? I don't know from this article.
Then I realized that you could make an even better sounding argument like this: "Imagine if copyright was only 10 years. Look at all the works that would now be public domain: Seinfeld, Friends, The Batman Movies, etc. etc.". This argument will probably be even more persuasive for the people who liked the original argument, since works from 10 years ago are even more recognizable.
In other words, this argument isn't actually saying anything interesting - it's simply an emotional appeal. Why should or shouldn't copyright be 10, 20, or 70 years? Why is the 1978 law wrong? Why was it created in the first place? I don't know from this article.