Canada’s copyright protection for artistic works was extended as 2022 came to a close from life of the author plus 50 years—to life of the author plus 70 years. The change was the result of international trade negotiations in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), requiring Canada to bring its terms closer to that of the U.S.
"Trade" agreements seem to be 90% a backdoor way to get corporate-friendly laws. Does anyone believe US-Canada trade would have been harmed if Canada had a "mere" life+50 years copyright?
And since 50+ year old works bring in negligible profit for all but a small handful of exceptional works, it's not even the case that the copyright extension is about squeezing out more profit from them.
What it's really about is reducing competition on an already oversaturated market, so new works don't have to compete with freely-available old ones.
I think even 50 years is too long, but don’t your first and third paragraphs contradict each other?
If this is about ensuring new works in Canada don’t have to compete with freely-available older works, doesn’t that suggest that it will increase trade in new works?
Only if one uses the flawed metric of measuring trade in dollars. Otherwise, mutually-beneficial "trade" would still happen - but in the form of sharing older, out-of-copyright works.
After all, it's mutual benefit that economists tout as the motivation for increasing trade, not the siphoning of money from consumers to media oligopolies.
It's also a huge market inefficiency - how many millions, if not billions, are wasted on creating new works, when in many cases older works would satisfy consumer demand just as well? Oddly, economists have little to say on this - they only speak up against inefficiency when doing so aligns with corporate interests.
5 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 26.3 ms ] threadAnd since 50+ year old works bring in negligible profit for all but a small handful of exceptional works, it's not even the case that the copyright extension is about squeezing out more profit from them.
What it's really about is reducing competition on an already oversaturated market, so new works don't have to compete with freely-available old ones.
If this is about ensuring new works in Canada don’t have to compete with freely-available older works, doesn’t that suggest that it will increase trade in new works?
After all, it's mutual benefit that economists tout as the motivation for increasing trade, not the siphoning of money from consumers to media oligopolies.
It's also a huge market inefficiency - how many millions, if not billions, are wasted on creating new works, when in many cases older works would satisfy consumer demand just as well? Oddly, economists have little to say on this - they only speak up against inefficiency when doing so aligns with corporate interests.