Quote:
Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks
Yeah, I'm not seeing the upside to this for me at all, not even as a reader. Good Gads, I'm trying to make a living from my writing. I really don't quite understand all the negativity towards copyright lately. For the most part books are still one of the cheapest entertainment going and there are multiple ways buy or borrow them too.
Sure, I get that a 25 dollar ebook that can't be lent is steep. But a 25 dollar hardback can be lent, sold or shared--or bought used for half or less than half.
I'm a buyer of art and books. While making a bunch of artwork public domain so that I could use it for a cover might sound nice, it isn't practical to put the artist out of work. They make a pittance as it is for the most part.
Lately I wanted to try a bunch of new authors, but didn't want to spend 8 to 10 bucks a book. I was able to borrow them from the library for 2.50 each. That's a total bargain.
I know authors who have stopped writing because there wasn't enough money in it. One of them was a favorite author from way back. She had to move on to other things. Yeah, there are other books. Yeah, some people don't care. But there's nothing wrong with giving people a chance at their dreams and a chance to make a living. Copyright law even as long as it is today is not keeping anyone from being able to read what they want if they are willing to go find it.
|
Copyright (as it is currently used in the US), is best thought of a price supports for artists. Sorta like the old "soil banking" for farmers (I.e. paying a farmer
not to farm so prices will stay higher for those farmer who do farm their land). It keeps the old works off the shelves, competing with the new art.
That may not have been the intention, but that is the use today. An enormous amount of art was made in the US prior to 1976. The golden age of Hollywood, the golden age of Radio shows, painters and illustrators like Maxfield Parrish, et. al., the maturation of the pulps to literature, like the golden age of detective fiction, science fiction, ect., Jazz and Big Band music, and on, and on...
Nobody complained that they couldn't create art because copyright was too short, instead, they created and made (or lost) money. Artforms rose and fell, but not because copyright was too short.
But now, under the old rules, much of that would have fallen into the Public Domain. And the P.D. doesn't cost anything. This leads to a two-fold situation.
#1. If P.D. stuff is free, why should somebody pay for the latest? Why not be cheap and get old (but new to you) art? Of course, not everybody will take that attitude, but for every one that does, that's one less sale of current material.
#2. If enough people actually wants that old stuff, the extended copyright holders can re-issue it (if they bother to choose to) for a profit. actually a bigger profit that new stuff, because, for the most part, the upfront expenses have already been paid. Nobody wants to look at this way but by selling it as near or at new retail price, the old works don't undercut the current art pricing.
BearMountain - how much worse off,
as a reader, to have all the US works before Jan 1 1955 in the Public Domain? As a writer, yes, because of the tremendous amount of low cost competition, but as a reader? I don't see the problem.
If you say this will cause a drop in new art creation, the market for people who want
new, will always be there. What you will lose is the market of those who are forced to pay for old at the same rate as new, and who therefore may opt for new, instead. And frankly, the world doesn't owe you that market...