Originally Posted by Sammy2
I'm thinking a limited time is a couple years or so.. maybe 7 to 10 at the most.. not what could amount to 150 years or so... That's a couple generations out of the public domain. This is part of why so many crappy movies are released because the studios just think they'll make it up on the media sales and don't have to cover the cost of the movie in the theater.
The point being, and I think you agree, is that Congress works for the 1% or less and not the rest of us.
That said, the studios are going to have to find a better way to get paid for "their" content. I really don't care if some multi-millionaires that have been raking in millions on a lot of crappy movies take it in the shorts.
Well, it's never been anything close to that short, and a couple of years wouldn't be remotely fair to creaters of artistic works. You know, this applies to books, textbooks, works of art, and whole lot of things. It was 28 years way back in the 1780s. And with electronic storage, retrieval, and distribution, written and visual works have a lot longer "useful life" than they used to have.
Should Bob Dylan no longer receive any royalties for all the covers of the songs he wrote in the 60s that people continue to make today? Should a movie theater or HBO or ABC be free to making money by showing Lawrence of Arabia, or the Bridge on the River Kwai, or The Godfather, or Star Wars or even, with your timing, the Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator, without paying a dime to the people who made it?
I think your timing is really not fair nor sufficient to compensate the creators of these works. At the same time, the propriety of 95 years is also doubtful.
That Congress isn't responsive to consumers is our own fault. We're the idiots who routinely return 90% of Congress to Washington every two years. Why would you expect them to be responsive to people who have the power to hold them responsible but simply never bother to do so?