New Paper Argues for Reasonable Reduction in Copyright

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Bet recorded here. But I think it was for one cent at evens.

I don't welch on bets, even when there was mis-communication. I will cough up the 1/2 gold if I lose. Personal honor requires it...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I don't welch on bets, even when there was mis-communication. I will cough up the 1/2 gold if I lose. Personal honor requires it...

I shall amend the record.

[Ninjalawyer]

I think it's also important to understand that artists are also the beneficiary of shorter copyright periods. Art tends to be a little bit of creativity and a lot of remixing of expressions you're exposed to, particularly expressions in the same area of art. It's helpful to artists to have more rather than less expressions to reuse and transform, just like it's useful for a carpenter to have more than just a hammer.

A lot of the "extend it forever!" sentiment on copyright seems to come from a childish idea of creation where artists pull new expressions fully-formed from the void in a supreme act of creation, rather than by being built on the backs of old expressions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I think it's also important to understand that artists are also the beneficiary of shorter copyright periods. Art tends to be a little bit of creativity and a lot of remixing of expressions you're exposed to, particularly expressions in the same area of art. It's helpful to artists to have more rather than less expressions to reuse and transform, just like it's useful for a carpenter to have more than just a hammer.

What you say is of course true, but copyright doesn't protect ideas, merely the concrete expression of them. The fact that Rowling wrote the "Harry Potter" books doesn't mean that the idea of writing a book about a boy attending a school for wizards is protected. Anyone can be inspired by Rowling and write such a book; all they can't do is re-use her actual "world", unless they have her permission to do so.

[Laridae]

I understand that US Copyright protection extends the longest of any country in the western world.

To me this suggests an imbalance towards favoring of the interests of the producers over the interests of the consumers and the general public. Therefore, as the report suggests, perhaps it is time these protections in the US were reduced.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What you say is of course true, but copyright doesn't protect ideas, merely the concrete expression of them. The fact that Rowling wrote the "Harry Potter" books doesn't mean that the idea of writing a book about a boy attending a school for wizards is protected. Anyone can be inspired by Rowling and write such a book; all they can't do is re-use her actual "world", unless they have her permission to do so.

I'm aware, and that's why I used the word "expressions" rather than "ideas".

My comment is accurate as written, in that I don't think an author or other artist should have such a long monopoly on a particular expression. I want people to be able to create new stories in the Harry Potter universe if they want (or the Star Wars universe, Star Trek universe, etc.) after a reasonable period of time. How many interesting stories remix and retell (with a twist) a play from Shakespeare?

Copyright is supposed to be a temporary monopoly to encourage creation, but copyright that is too long is stifling because it restricts the new creations that can be made without providing any more benefit. If someone only has a 70 year monopoly on their work, would they be less likely to create than if their monopoly extended to the heat-death of the universe? If the answer is "no", then copyright doesn't need to be longer than that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Laridae

I understand that US Copyright protection extends the longest of any country in the western world.

Nope. Nowhere close to the longest. The US currently has a standard "life+70" copyright term, compared to, for example, Mexico, which has life+100 years.

[pdurrant]

I must admit I've given up hoping that copyright length can be reduced and I now just hope that it won't be extended again. Or at least, that none will be extended in the UK beyond the current maximum life+70.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

...

A lot of the "extend it forever!" sentiment on copyright seems to come from a childish idea of creation where artists pull new expressions fully-formed from the void in a supreme act of creation, rather than by being built on the backs of old expressions.

As far as I can tell, the extend it forever sentiment is driven by two major forces. The first is the financial dynamic of a small handful of uber successful properties such as Disney, Rowling and Tolkien where we are talking about properties that continue to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars (or more) a year. This is a huge gravy train for a lot of very wealthy people.

The second is the view by some artists that their specific works is their property for eternity to do with what they want. In some cases, it's pure emotion (Ellison comes to mind), in other cases it's a combination. I read one author's blog who referred to his fairly substantial backlist as his 401K.

My personal take is a good rule of thumb is that as long as I can buy a work in the medium that I want, at a reasonable price, I have no problem with the artist or the artists heirs getting the proceeds. I take a somewhat different view of the public value of copyright that some seem to. I see the public good being the public having various artistic representations available to them rather than other artists being able to use that work as a starting point.

The public get zero good out of a work that is not publicly available. The value of Huck Finn is that the public at large is able to read the work, not that some guy can write a porno novel based on it. To take an example, if I can't read Doc Smith's Lensman series because it's under copyright and the copyright holder is either unknown or unwilling to make it available, then there is no public good.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope. Nowhere close to the longest. The US currently has a standard "life+70" copyright term, compared to, for example, Mexico, which has life+100 years.

HarryT, this depends upon your definition of nowhere close to longest. The US keep extending existing copyrights, including those that would have fallen into the public domain in almost every other country. So a work released in 1923 in the US may well be in copyright until 2018, even if the author died in the same year. In Mexico it would go PD in 2024. I don't consider 6 years to be "nowhere near close to the longest".

Of course, your mileage probably differs.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

It's helpful to artists to have more rather than less expressions to reuse and transform, just like it's useful for a carpenter to have more than just a hammer..

It might be, but it isn't essential. There's more than enough material freely available for people to use to create their own unique works.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I want people to be able to create new stories in the Harry Potter universe if they want (or the Star Wars universe, Star Trek universe, etc.) after a reasonable period of time.

And I don't. Let them create their own universes.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As far as I can tell, the extend it forever sentiment is driven by two major forces

My extend it forever sentiment is based on one factor - property. If someone creates a work, they should be allowed to keep it forever.

I'm at odds with current laws on property rights and that places me in an extremely small minority around here. To me, property is property. I make no distinction between tangible and intangible property.

Since there's little chance that my views would ever get enacted into law, I strongly favor extensions as the best way to achieve perpetual copyright.

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My extend it forever sentiment is based on one factor - property. If someone creates a work, they should be allowed to keep it forever.

I'm at odds with current laws on property rights and that places me in an extremely small minority around here. To me, property is property. I make no distinction between tangible and intangible property.

Since there's little chance that my views would ever get enacted into law, I strongly favor extensions as the best way to achieve perpetual copyright.

Well, at least you recognize that yours is a minority view! Reminds me of that 'me against the world' stuff of Ayn Rand which I never did get.

But, surely, no man is an island. We are social beings. We are educated mostly at public expense, we benefit from the wisdom of those that went before and, hopefully, in our small way, contribute to the common good and the betterment of society after we're gone.

We stand on the shoulders of others. We are all part of the one and all. And no-one gets to stop the planet and get off if they don't like what's happening.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Clearly these older works have value. This is corroborated by Ralph Sir Edward's comment that corporations are making money off of the works. There are existing laws pertaining to selling commodities for less than their value. The function of these laws is to protect the value of products. Unfortuantely, they do not extend to intellectual property. If many works that are currently copyright became freely available, then it would reduce the value of all of the works, including new ones and ones that have not yet been created. The Personal History of Vincent Sheean being copyright encourages living authors to produce great works, as they do not have to compete with it being available at no cost.

The overwhelming majority of books cease to have value fairly quickly. Eternal copyright has the same effect as book burning: it makes books disappear. English teachers would love it if people were flocking to public domain classics, but they aren't. Those authors who feel that they their books would be selling if it wasn't for the public domain wouldn't be selling even if the public domain was abolished. Write better books, and maybe people would buy them.

@Quantum Iguana. With regards to the symphony orchestras, their economy has changed based on works being freely available. They cannot justify spending money on a work, when other works cost nothing.

I suppose composers might not be capable of entertaining this idea, but it's

just possible

that their work isn't as good as Beethoven's.

Extending copyright well beyond the authors lifetime offers incentives based on their heirs and based on their philosophy. I am not the beneficiary of any such copyrights. I do feel that it is important that works that are of value are not freely available in a capitalist economy.

Capitalism existed for a very long time without such extensive periods of copyright, thus you cannot appeal to capitalism to justify eternal copyright: eternal copyright just isn't an inherent component of capitalism. And no, extending copyright past life+70 would provide no extra incentive for authors. Would any author decide to write a book because their great-great grandchildren could benefit from the book, but decline to write because their great-great-great grandchildren wouldn't be able to benefit? The answer is "no". Exceedingly few books are still commercially viable 70 years after the author's death.

If eternal copyright is such a great idea, then eternal patent should be a great idea too, except that eternal patent would lead to stagnation.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If eternal copyright is such a great idea, then eternal patent should be a great idea too, except that eternal patent would lead to stagnation.

Someone inventing a steam engine wouldn't preclude 19 others from also inventing steam engines. There's always more than one way to do things.