Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Russell
Xenophon, I understand your position regarding living authors, but what is your position regarding deceased authors?
|
Hmmm... The best way I have to explain that is to try a wee thought experiment or two.
First: Let's consider an successful author late in life -- old enough that she is essentially certain that the copyright on her next book will last far longer than her remaining lifespan. (Yeah, I
realize that there's an issue with the current length of copyright... but just work with me for a moment.) Our hypothetical author has a good track record of writing books that are consistent sellers for years and years, so she sees a fair likelihood that royalties on the next book will continue well beyond her death. Now, she must decide: "Do I write that next book (and spend less time with my grandchildren), or do I skip the book (and have more time for the grandchildren)?" (fill in other activities to your heart's content, of course) Knowing that the income will continue after her death may somewhat increase the value of writing that next book. After all, that continuing royalty stream can be considered as an asset; it can be left to the grandchildren, or her favorite charity -- "Save the gay, baby nuclear whales for Christ" (for example). But the value (today) of directing that asset to the person/charity/institution/usage of her choice depends on the likelihood that it may actually bring in some income. After all, no income from the book after her death means no present value to directing its disposition today. It seems to me that, from a societal point of view, having that income stream after death fulfills the main legitimate goal of copyright: to encourage authors and other creators to produce more works, rather than fewer. (IMHO, your mileage may vary, subject to Consitutional restrictions where applicable, etc.)
Second: The traditional "widows and orphans" version. Jane Bigauthor writes a best selling book, but is tragically hit by a truck and killed before it hits the stands. If we pay for books by dead authors, there can (perhaps) be an income stream for her poor crippled widower husband who is left raising the quintuplets with no income of his own... (cue the sob-story music at this point).
Third: Income from the works of a dead author
may provide a financial incentive for a publisher to keep the work available in the market. Indeed, it _would_ do so for eBooks (given the low marginal cost of keeping them on a server). This one hasn't worked so well for Dead Tree Books (at least in the US), but one can imagine a system that would encourage it.
Now that we're done with the thought experiments, and have returned to the real world, I must note that my personal position is that life+70 is way,
waaaaay too long for a standard copyright duration. I also think that requiring occasional copyright renewal for published works would be a fine way of getting them into the public domain more quickly -- once the value decreases to the point of the work being "orphaned," why
not let it move to PD status fairly quickly. On the other hand, that particular clock should only start ticking
after publication -- otherwise it'd be too easy to lose control of one's own private writings (letters, diaries, journals, etc.).
So get out there and lobby your congresscritters (or MPs, legislators of whatever stripe, dictators, strongmen, thugs, etc.) to bring the duration of copyright back to a semblance of sanity, and to add inexpensive-but-required occasional registration for published works. And also encourage your pals to pay the the works they consume. A sane system would work to the benefit of all!
Xenophon