MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

Iznogood · 07-16-2012, 07:05 AM

There are a certain number of factors that I don't think have been mentioned in this debate. I have not read all the posts, so please forgive me and moderators can feel free to delete this post if this has been posted before.

We have discussed back and forth ad nauseam about securing the income of creators of intellectual property and the damage on said creators when (if?) their work fall into the public domain.

But not so much have been mentioned about the possibilities to create new content based on material in the public domain. One good example of this is the book series about the twilight vampires (and of course other vampires also). I haven't read them myself, but I am told that they are popular and have made a lot of money.

The first well-known vampire in literature was Dracula from 1897. Bram Stoker died in 1912. After todays insane copyright rules Dracula would have been under copyright until 1982; and there wouldn't have been any of the films, books and plays based on the book Dracula, nor any stories featuring the character Dracula until then.

In short, the legacy of Dracula would not have been, and I think it is safe to assume that the popularity of the vampire genre (I think the word is gothic) would not have been what it is today if Dracula had not entered the public domain early.

Another example: Disney (one of the companies fighting for the neverending copyright) filmed 20.000 leagues under the sea in 1955 and earned a great pile of money on it. By todays laws, the works of Jules Verne would have been in copyright until 1975, and unavailable to Disney (at least without an agreement with Vernes heirs) at the time.

A third example. The coming film about Jimi Hendrix will not use Hendrix' music because Hendrix' music has been denied for use in the film by Hendrix' heirs even though Hendrix has been dead for many years.

To summarize: many companies and authors earn money today from works in the public domain, and on the legacy on works in the public domain. This without any noticeable effect on the works or creators by said content. When the copyright is too long, it will block innovation and creativity, and actually have the opposite effect from the intended effect.

Note that I do not say that we should abandon all copyright, but life+70 is far too long to be justified from the intention of copyright.

07-16-2012, 07:05 AM	#240
Iznogood Guru Posts: 932 Karma: 15752887 Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Norway Device: Ipad, kindle paperwhite	There are a certain number of factors that I don't think have been mentioned in this debate. I have not read all the posts, so please forgive me and moderators can feel free to delete this post if this has been posted before. We have discussed back and forth ad nauseam about securing the income of creators of intellectual property and the damage on said creators when (if?) their work fall into the public domain. But not so much have been mentioned about the possibilities to create new content based on material in the public domain. One good example of this is the book series about the twilight vampires (and of course other vampires also). I haven't read them myself, but I am told that they are popular and have made a lot of money. The first well-known vampire in literature was Dracula from 1897. Bram Stoker died in 1912. After todays insane copyright rules Dracula would have been under copyright until 1982; and there wouldn't have been any of the films, books and plays based on the book Dracula, nor any stories featuring the character Dracula until then. In short, the legacy of Dracula would not have been, and I think it is safe to assume that the popularity of the vampire genre (I think the word is gothic) would not have been what it is today if Dracula had not entered the public domain early. Another example: Disney (one of the companies fighting for the neverending copyright) filmed 20.000 leagues under the sea in 1955 and earned a great pile of money on it. By todays laws, the works of Jules Verne would have been in copyright until 1975, and unavailable to Disney (at least without an agreement with Vernes heirs) at the time. A third example. The coming film about Jimi Hendrix will not use Hendrix' music because Hendrix' music has been denied for use in the film by Hendrix' heirs even though Hendrix has been dead for many years. To summarize: many companies and authors earn money today from works in the public domain, and on the legacy on works in the public domain. This without any noticeable effect on the works or creators by said content. When the copyright is too long, it will block innovation and creativity, and actually have the opposite effect from the intended effect. Note that I do not say that we should abandon all copyright, but life+70 is far too long to be justified from the intention of copyright.