quoted 7 lines For authors, it's lifespan plus a large chunk of years (50? 95?). I
> >For authors, it's lifespan plus a large chunk of years (50? 95?). I
> >assume it's similar for music (different time limits for compositions and
> >recordings perhaps?). The basic thing about copyright is that if you fail
> >to defend it, you lose it.
>
> Not true. I suggest you start reading here:
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
You might be right, but the argument at that site is pretty insubstantial.
There's the legal term "laches," defined as "Culpable negligence;
especially delay in asserting a right or claim," which is a real defense
against copyright and other claims which are pursued too long after the
fact. It serves to protect the vigilant, and prevent the lazy from suing
when they see they can cash in, as well as preventing people from
selectively enforcing their copyright (as in "I haven't ever enforced it
until now, but I'm going to make a special exception and sue your rich
ass").
But then again, I don't doubt that a good lawyer will be able to argue
around any delay in pursuing a copyright claim. My point is just that the
law isn't usually on your side if you aren't vigilant from the get-go.
More clarification would be appreciated. Have there been precedents which
show laches no longer holds any water? I'm curious.
Sam