Copyright sometimes encourages new work, it often discourages it. Some of humanity’s greatest art comes from a time before copyright. Some of the earliest English stories come from a tradition of essentially “fanfic”. People took the Arthurian legends and wrote another story in that setting using those same characters. That would be illegal under copyright.
There may be an optimal copyright term that both encourages artists to pursue it, but then allows remixes while the art is still relevant. But, we don’t know if that optimal copyright term is 14 years, 3 months or 2 centuries. (Personally, I doubt it’s 2 centuries, but the current copyright terms are headed in that direction.)
Also, different types of works should probably have different copyright terms. Computer code is not going to be relevant in a century, it’s probably loses half its relevance in something like 5 years. OTOH, a novel might take 5+ years to write, and might remain relevant for decades, even centuries. Music can be relevant for centuries, but it also often fits in a short zeitgeist, and being able to remix it while still in that cultural moment would be beneficial to everyone.
Maybe the real solution is some kind of universal basic income and no copyright terms at all. That way, you don’t need a day job to pursue a passion that doesn’t make you money. There’s also nothing to stop you from finding patrons who will provide additional support because they love your work.
It all comes down to what the goal of copyright is. Are we trying to make art as a career possible? Do we want copyright behemoths like Disney? Do we want people to express themselves freely? Should cultural works be freely available to people while they’re relevant?
Copyright sometimes encourages new work, it often discourages it. Some of humanity’s greatest art comes from a time before copyright. Some of the earliest English stories come from a tradition of essentially “fanfic”. People took the Arthurian legends and wrote another story in that setting using those same characters. That would be illegal under copyright.
There may be an optimal copyright term that both encourages artists to pursue it, but then allows remixes while the art is still relevant. But, we don’t know if that optimal copyright term is 14 years, 3 months or 2 centuries. (Personally, I doubt it’s 2 centuries, but the current copyright terms are headed in that direction.)
Also, different types of works should probably have different copyright terms. Computer code is not going to be relevant in a century, it’s probably loses half its relevance in something like 5 years. OTOH, a novel might take 5+ years to write, and might remain relevant for decades, even centuries. Music can be relevant for centuries, but it also often fits in a short zeitgeist, and being able to remix it while still in that cultural moment would be beneficial to everyone.
Maybe the real solution is some kind of universal basic income and no copyright terms at all. That way, you don’t need a day job to pursue a passion that doesn’t make you money. There’s also nothing to stop you from finding patrons who will provide additional support because they love your work.
It all comes down to what the goal of copyright is. Are we trying to make art as a career possible? Do we want copyright behemoths like Disney? Do we want people to express themselves freely? Should cultural works be freely available to people while they’re relevant?