How long should a copyright last?

[samy2]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Why humans only? Is it because you don't want authors to make money?

Till now I took authors to be human beings.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

1. Do you also believe that all other property belonging to the parent should be confiscated on their death?

Actually, I do.

I think people need to *get over the idea* that someone's kids are getting an unfair advantage over you be being able to inherit the rights to a book that mom or dad wrote.

Why?

The other reason to avoid a life-only copyright term is because it is too unpredictable.

And does that matter? The author certainly doesn't care, because he will be dead by then.

This means that the works of older or ill authors will be devalued because it's likely to go into PD sooner than the work of someone younger. This also makes investing much money in copyright riskier, since you may not want to invest much money buying the rights to the Jack Reacher series knowing that if Lee Childs is hit by a bus tomorrow, you've wasted all of your money because the works are all now PD.

Well, so stop giving all the money to the publishers? It doesn't mean the work won't be available, on the contrary. Free works are alive and doing quite well on the interwebz.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Why humans only? Is it because you don't want authors to make money? Or do you have an irrational hatred of corporations?

Because it is ownership of imaginary property by corporate persons that has created the current mess.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Do you understand that no individual is going to *ever* risk $300 million to make something like "Lord of the Rings?"

This is a specious argument. A corporation doesn't have to own the copyright to "Lord of the Rings" to make the investment in a movie based on it.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Corporations are not some evil boogey man that exist to oppress you.

This is just condescending.

[ficbot]

The other argument for a fixed copyright term is that authors and creators do not create in a vacuum. They were themselves enriched, educated and inspired by works which came before theirs and so as part of the social contract of copyright, their works are meant to fall into the common culture eventually so that others may benefit from and be enriched by them, without having to do so at the whim of corporate overlords or rights-holders who are not capable enough to make the work suitably available.

Of course, the author does do the work of creation and so should benefit from being able to control that creation during their lifetime. But to lock it up for three generations is not fair because it could prevent people from drawing upon it them same way the author themselves drew upon the work of others.

Of course, if the heirs want to later profit from it, they can do so regardless of copyright---they just would not have the *exclusive* right to do so. For instance, Anne of Green Gables is no longer in copyright, but Montgomery's heirs own the title to her house and they continue to (a house is a physical object that can be bequeathed indefinitely). So they can---and do---charge money for tours of the house, souvenirs from the gift shop etc. One of Bran Stoker's heirs, to use another example, published a Dracula sequel. I am sure the 'Stoker' name on there helped sales. And of course this new work is protected to that author for HIS lifetime. So why should he stop other people from profiting in the same way he did?

[exscentric]

Poll seems flawed, should be an option for copyright forever. Never ceases to amaze me how interested people can be in other's property. Especially how much control they think they should have over it.

Can't imagine those that want other's property feeling it fair to give up your home after so many years for others to control. Or some of those classic cars that are around. Maybe we should all raid Jay Leno's collection and make it public property.

An honest question here. What is the interest in a shorter copyright? Is it so the book can be had for free? Not saying free isn't good if the author wants :-) Or are there benefits that escape me. Just asking!

Edit: Just reread the pole and "Fixed length only (state length in post)" would cover forever if one so desired.

Did not vote, but it really does not matter to me what length exists or if it exists since I copyright only for protection of the work from change, not that it is any real protection. :-)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Let me introduce you to the at least three thousand year old distinction between "property" and "labor." Labor is something you do. Property is something you own. People will pay you for either. If you do labor, people will pay you for the labor, and not pay you if you don't do the labor. If you own property, people will pay you to use the property, and not pay you if they can't use the property.

Works of art aren't unique in being property - people who own stocks can make money from the stocks and pass them on to their kids. Business owners can pass businesses on to their kids. Landlords can pass their properties on to their kids. Etc.

Bill Gates founded a very successful company when he was very young; as a consequence of that, his descendants for the next several generations may not need to work. That's how property works (and if he hadn't given away 40% of his net worth, he probably could have gotten a few more generations out of it.)

Most of the time, creating property entails that you invest money to do it; sometimes a lot of money, and that money will be at risk, more often than not.

Writing a book nowadays costs only time, and after you're done, you can drop it onto the market through self-publishing. No risk at all; the only thing you need is a bit of luck (and maybe some promotion) so that it becomes a hit.

Nowadays, the arts are one of the easiest ways to create property with regard to risk and investments. The only reason why so few people are doing that is because it's not guaranteed to sell. Labor *always* sells, because other people ask you to do something. In the arts, you do something and then try to convice others to pay for it.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by exscentric

Poll seems flawed, should be an option for copyright forever. Never ceases to amaze me how interested people can be in other's property. Especially how much control they think they should have over it.

Copyright is not property. It is a temporary exclusive right granted by law.

[exscentric]

"Copyright is not property." I set it down to paper or disk - seems like property to me.

[Istvan diVega]

Of course copyright isn't the same as property. Try looking up the definition.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by exscentric

"Copyright is not property." I set it down to paper or disk - seems like property to me.

The paper is property, as is the disk. The right to copy them is not.

[exscentric]

"The paper is property, as is the disk. The right to copy them is not." "Of course copyright isn't the same as property. Try looking up the definition."

Correct.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by exscentric

Poll seems flawed, should be an option for copyright forever.

Some people are actually for that.

Not that I am. After a few hundreds years, the rights holders, if known, will probably consist of hundreds of heirs due to some partial rights holder having died intestate long ago. Once the rights can't be easily established, it becomes impractical to legally distribute a copyrighted eBook.

After a thousand years, most people on earth would probably have a portion of the rights of most books. I mention this to point out the absurdity of perpetual copyright.

Some on this thread would address the above-mentioned problems by requiring copyright registration. But requiring copyright formalities is against international law for the good reason that with 207 countries each having slightly different copyright laws, only the richest publishers and authors could afford to do it correctly.

Originally Posted by exscentric

What is the interest in a shorter copyright? Is it so the book can be had for free? Not saying free isn't good if the author wants :-) Or are there benefits that escape me. Just asking!

Books written in the couple decades after 1922 are mostly unavailable as eBooks. Not just unknown authors. Authors like Conrad Richter and Winston S. Churchill, who won Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, have works unavailable as eBooks because of what I consider excessive copyright.

That's the big reason for me personally, due to my reading interests.

Another reason I like limited copyright is that it has some of the same effects as an inheritance tax. Isn't it about time that F. Scott Fitzgerald's heirs have to live on what they earn, as I do? That argument, I'm sure, is more controversial.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Some people are actually for that.

Not that I am. After a few hundreds years, the rights holders, if known, will probably consist of hundreds of heirs due to some partial rights holder having died intestate long ago. Once the rights can't be easily established, it becomes impractical to legally distribute a copyrighted eBook.

After a thousand years, most people on earth would probably have a portion of the rights of most books. I mention this to point out the absurdity of perpetual copyright.

I am not in favour of permanent copyright either, but I think this is a straw man argument. There are all sorts of property that have been inherited throughout the centuries, and I assure you that very little of it is partially owned by me, alas. What is more likely is that a single heir will receive it, or the collective heirs will either sell their shares to a single heir, or the estate will monetize the copyright by selling it to someone or some corporation, or if no heirs are found, it will be go to the state. In the long run, I expect that there would be a few publishing houses that would buy up most of the unwanted copyrights (presumable for next to nothing for anything out of print). If you think the "Happy Birthday Song" copyright issue is ridiculous, this would only make it a billion times worse.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

While the author may be in a position to make money from the work, not any more so than anyone else, which doesn't seem right somehow.

You're right, it doesn't seem right. On the other hand, many injustices exist because one injustice cannot be eliminated without creating another. I selected the words of Darwin and M.L. King Jr. because those words are of tremendous value to society. Note that I say the words, because those words are as important as the ideas. The reality is that you can rewrite Darwin's ideas and King's ideas and still get the point across. The reality is that you can improve upon those ideas in the process of rewriting them, because we know more about biology and social equity today than we did in the past. Yet those original words carried a lot of power. They carried so much power that we still talk about Darwin and King today. We use those words to ensure that their legacy continues to live.

In my mind, it would be a grave injustice to society if those words were in private hands rather than being treated as a public asset. Just as we have roads, and libraries, and hospitals, and parks as a public trust we should have particular words from particular people being held in a public trust. While many people profit from the availability of roads, libraries, and hospitals we do not let one entity do so. (By that I mean businesses use roads and libraries, healthcare exists as much to ensure a healthy workforce as it does for compassionate reasons.) Why does the same have to be true for every word written over the past 100 years?

Now I'm not saying that every author, or orator, is as valuable as the examples that I brought up. Yet there are certainly many authors who have made valuable contributions, even "best sellers" of times gone by. It is probably easiest to let every authors words slide into the public domain and let society choose, rather than fighting to appropriate those words in specific cases.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Most of the time, creating property entails that you invest money to do it; sometimes a lot of money, and that money will be at risk, more often than not.

Writing a book nowadays costs only time, and after you're done, you can drop it onto the market through self-publishing. No risk at all; the only thing you need is a bit of luck (and maybe some promotion) so that it becomes a hit.

Nowadays, the arts are one of the easiest ways to create property with regard to risk and investments. The only reason why so few people are doing that is because it's not guaranteed to sell. Labor *always* sells, because other people ask you to do something. In the arts, you do something and then try to convice others to pay for it.

You have just explained why copyright exists. If a person has a certain amount of time they could choose to spend that time to write, or they could sell that time as labour - earning money they can pass on to their heirs. Without copyright the work potentially has no financial worth, greatly reducing the incentive that anyone will risk the time it takes to create it.

And "costs only time" is a curious way to phrase it. Even if we assumed that people only read ebooks (which is far from true), the amount of time to create a published work is significant. The saying goes that it takes ten thousand hours to become an expert. If there is not even potential value in the end result, why would anyone bother? Then there is the difference between the initial creation and what gets published. There can be as much, or more, time spent editing and refining a work to get it ready for an audience as there is in the initial creation. If a writer writes because they want to, where is the incentive to put in the work required for publication if there is no possibility of financial reward at the end? Then there are the out-of-pocket costs of editing, cover design, formatting and marketing. "only time"?

"No risk at all"? You explained the risk yourself. A person has spent all this time becoming an expert, creating the work and refining it for publication, and all they have is the possibility - the very slim possibility if you look at the stats - that it might sell. It is possible the work, even as things are now, will never recover actual out-of-pocket costs, it is very likely that the work will never repay the time investment at all, even at burger-tossing labour rates.

Yes, copyright also protects the works of those that don't spend the time to become an expert, but how many of those are the ones whose works become valuable? "the only thing you need is a bit of luck" doesn't bear much resemblance to reality.