Which is a good reason to discuss returning the current limits to something healthier. Life of the author plus 25 years is good with me.

I think we should return to the original limit of the Constitution: 15 years and stop.

I'd just go with life of the author, myself, but I have Thoughts about inheritance in general that influence my perspective there.

Genuine question, what would happen to innovation if we treated patents the same. They’re both creative processes.

I’m not a writer but I think a better way would be life of the author, spouse, or dependent reaching age of majority. That way the immediate family is provided for by their works even if they unfortunately die young.

The object of copyright, as I understand it, is to encourage art by ensuring the artist gets the financial benefit for some time. It was originally, I think, 25 years.Now, if you live to 80, you, your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren get the benefit - of having you as an ancestor.

Neil, I have no idea why people are so upset about this, but I just want to say that I love The Sandman, and thanks for being a decent human.

And with a truly robust tradition of Fair Use / Fair Dealing to allow cultural engagement between creators

Hey Neil, love your work. Is life-plus-x over a set period of time something you’d prefer? Perhaps a pedantic question, as any reform to copyright won’t be so drastic as either proposals.

Citing a real case , I would also add to honor the request of the author. Porgy and Bess had its own scandal with white singers claiming to be African American to skirt the requirement of black singers.

So given current systems where say someone comes up with a movie/cartoon/game etc and sells the rights to it to a big company like a netflix or a sony, to get it made, would it make sense to require that company to pay the estate of the creator after they’d died to maintain copyright maybe?