[spellbanisher]

Outlander78 (entry 7)agrees with someone, probably piper, that copyrights are too long. He adds that copyright doesn't just protect entertainment media, but also things like word processors, tax software, applied science, more efficient cars. He says hobbyists will make stuff in their garages, “but who is going to put them together to make and sell iphones?”

Well, to put bluntly, outlander78 is conflating copyright with patents. Patents only last fifteen years, which probably would be within the “not-too-long” time frame for outlander78. What copyright covers is expression, not technique.

Dulin's Books calls Giggleton's arguments gobbledygook (and for some odd reason has quotations around the word) and Andrew H. says Giggleton's arguments are uninformed drivel.

Sircastor(entry 10) says that though he/she believes in the necessity of copyright, “long copyrights are a horrible tragedy.” He contends that excessively long copyrights are the primary culprit in the “inflated culture of piracy.” He contends that if creative works fell into the public domain during an artists lifetime, artists would have more incentive to create. Furthermore, other artists would be able to take advantage of newer works that fall into the public domain and extend their value. This would also encourage more collaboration. The consequences of extended copyright, he argues, is a society of producers who are afraid of losing their golden egg and that they “live in a climate of scarcity where they will never make money again.”

His contention that a long public domain discourages productivity would only be valid if artists were motivated by a purely economic desire to do as little work for as much gain. This simply isn't true. The most successful artists are often the most prolific. Enormous wealth has not and did not discourage writers like Stephen King, James Patterson, or Ernest Hemingway from writing throughout their lives. It is pretty standard these days for popular authors to publish every six months to a year. In fact, success often encourages artists to create more. Writers write because it is their passion or obsession; they support copyright because they believe that they have the right to say what can and can't be done with their works. Additionally, about 98% of works have no commercial value after 50 years, and the most of the rest have little value. Most works have no value after a few years. So in this assertion he would be right. Shorter copyrights might actually benefit artists more, because future artists would be able to revive their works. This would not benefit them monetarily, but at least it would preserve them some sort of legacy and maybe even revive their name recognition enough to help fuel sales of art still copyrighted.

Though I agree with him that shorter copyrights would potentially allow artists to add value and revive works that no longer have commercial value I don't see how this would encourage collaboration. Perhaps a writer whose work has fallen into the public domain might grudgingly work with another writer wanting to use his work, if only to maintain some semblance of control of his creation. I also think that the argument that longer copyrights is bad for creativity is greatly overstated. Copyright only covers a specific and tangible expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The fact that “The Lord of the Rings” is copyrighted has not prevented thousands of fantasy writers from almost blatantly copying J.R.R Tolkiens masterpiece. I could steal the plot of the novel, rename all the characters and places, rewrite the sentences, and voila, I have avoided copyright infringement. Copyright does not prevent borrowing or infringement, just blatant stealing. A lot of people use Disney as an example of somebody who was able to take advantage of works that had just passed into the public domain to create and revive old works and overall enrich culture. This is true. But the stories Disney retold, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves to Beauty and the Beast, are almost nothing like the originals. Disney could have just as easily renamed these movies to avoid copyright infringement.

His point about the induced culture of scarcity is also a valid point. Publishers want as many works under copyright so they don't have to compete against free. Still, every era has its tastes. Publishers aren't threatened by works written 200 years ago, because no matter how good they were, they do not conform with modern taste. The question is how long does it take for tastes to change dramatically? But this makes the false assumption that most readers will read anything that fits their tastes. Readers read for many reasons. They read the latest work because it is popular or trendy. They read classics because they bestow cultural prestige. The average reader only wants the latest (and remember, if you are visiting this site you are not the average reader). An academic or “hardcore” reader will always be willing to pay for value, whether it is to a writer they greatly admire or for an edition of a work that has added value (like a classic novel with essays). We spend on what we care about, and dedicated readers will always be willing to spend on their passion. Most other readers will consume whatever is on the New York times bestsellers or what they can get at Amazon or Wal Mart because it is convenient and has a brand. Most readers will not go to the internet to find some fifty year old work they will enjoy. The culture of scarcity is unnecessary.

Where I believe shorter copyrights are a detriment is in the realm of commentary and and scholarship. For any classic novel you can find numerous scholarly editions, but for a work in copyright you will find only editions approved by the copyright holders. Much more value can be added to a work in the public domain than a work in copyright, which is part of the point that sircastor originally makes. Longer copyrights can also undermine a writers oeuvre. Take Sinclair Lewis, for example. His works “Babbit” and “Main Street” are well-known and well-read, whereas his novel “Elmer Gantry” has become his forgotten third masterpiece. Why is that? Can't be sure, but “Babbit” and “Main Street” are in the Public domain, at least in the U.S., whereas “Elmer Gantry” is not.