[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Before 1900 pretty much all you had were book publishers....

I concur that there have been huge changes in media and distribution of content -- changes which in most cases actually justify the longer copyright terms. But the fact still stands that changes to copyright durations are uncommon, difficult to arrange, and therefore it is not justifiable to assume that we will have extensions every 20 years like clockwork.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

To answer your second point: yes, the GPL etc. make use of existing copyright legislation, but only to ensure people can't take stuff from the PD and steal/licence it themselves. If you take away copyright altogether, you surely take away the enforcement mechanism, but you also take away their right to claim it's theirs.

Even the Free Software Foundation (which holds the most extremist views on the subject) acknowledge that putting works directly into the public domain opens the possibility that a given work may get re-absorbed into proprietary software -- i.e. that putting their code directly into public domain strips the code of all protection. Their idea of "Copyleft" explicitly relies on the powers of copyright to protect the open nature that they want to see for software. In their own words: "Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible."

So if you want to release your content freely, and only want recognition rather than royalties, in a world with copyright you can do just that. In fact, you can use copyright to ensure that no one charges anyone for your content, if that's your preference. If everything goes into PD, your work has zero protection.

And while totally "free" software (as in, source code and all derived code is required to be open) can work and work well for some projects, it won't work for medium- or large-scale works like operas, many feature films, and so forth.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

The point you seem to be missing is that the most problematic point about copyright is the "time-limited monopoly". While publishers etc. would certainly still be able to publish, print and sell books, they would not be able to claim a monopoly on the text, nor claim it can't be distributed online.

To be clear, I am certainly not missing the potential and actual problems associated with extensive copyright terms. I'm just aware that this arrangement is not 100% negative, and that the problems are not so severe that they justify total abandonment of copyright -- especially given the protections offered by copyright to every content creator, no matter how limited their resources. Also, I'm aware that in a world without copyright, the publisher has no obligation to pay royalties and content creators of any size will lose significant protections of their work.

Sorry to use a cliché, but even if there are excellent reasons to reduce copyright terms, there is no justifiable reason to toss out the baby with the bath-water.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

You don't need copyright to sell books; why else are publishers still making money off of Jane Austen?

A publisher can make money off of a Jane Austen or other public domain book because at this point, it costs nothing to procure the rights. You don't have a writer who is due royalties, wants an advance, or needs to recoup research costs; you don't have to pay editors or agents; marketing costs are minimal.

(Are you sure you want a scenario where the publisher can print up and sell whatever books they want, without any obligation to pay the author?)

For ebooks, the only way you can make money off of public domain is to add something of value, such as convenience, new content (e.g. an interpretive essay) or superior formatting to a free version. By now though, most electronic PD content is free and/or offered by non-profits like Gutenberg, and the window for a publisher to earn money off of PD is rapidly evaporating. (At best, PD will become a loss-leader for the retailers.)

In terms of "monopolies," you should also keep in mind that copyright does not require that an author grant exclusive publishing rights to one company. For example, a photographer offer a series of photos to a magazine, and retain the right for a different company to publish those same photos in a monograph, as well as the right to sell prints in gallery exhibitions. Or you could stipulate in your contract that the publisher has exclusivity for only 25 or 50 years. You are also welcome to start a publishing house that does not require exclusivity. I don't know how long it would survive, but who knows, it could be a huge success. The salient point is that nothing in copyright itself requires that the content creator surrender exclusive rights to a publisher; copyright is highly flexible in this regard.

And just to be explicit on the point, I fully support PD. But putting everything directly into PD is not a sustainable model for most new content, especially other artworks that require collaborative work by professionals. A sci-fi TV show may be able to produce special effects at a far lower cost and higher quality than it did in the 1970s, but will still clock in at $1-2 million per episode. "Free" in an era where advertising rates are plummeting may be able to do cheap Hong Kong soap operas with novice actors, but not much more than that.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

(Re your silly band example: read those posts by courtney love etc? band aren't making money off cd sales anyway, and even tours organized by Sony et al are pretty hard to make money off of when you're financially stupid. Sure they won't be able to do a "big" tour without help, but then, they won't be going bankrupt being ripped off by the RIAA members either. It seems a win-win.)

Courtney Love has about as much credibility as Bernie Madoff. She's a terrible choice to hold the "copyright reform" banner.

As to my example, calling it "silly" does not alter the fact that a band which does all that work by itself or is on a small label is going to be severely limited in reach and scope. The band may prefer that environment -- they may be like being independent or on a small label, may be satisfied with smaller sales with higher royalty rates, and might not want the pressures or financial responsibilities of attempts to gain large-scale success. But the fact remains that it is still rare for a musician band to gain national or international prominence without a major label.

I might add that many record company executives -- who, if I read your earlier comments correctly, you view as "parasites" who offer no value to artists -- have actually earned the respect of many musicians, who acknowledge their contributions to music: Clive Davis, Ahmet Ertegun, John Hammond, Rick Rubin, Teo Macero, Russell Simmons, Rudy Van Gelder, George Martin, Bill Graham et al. Not to mention dozens of radio DJ's, clubs, and yes, labels that have all become a vital part of the intricate history of contemporary music.

Bad business deals or unscrupulous behavior by record labels ultimately doesn't have much to do with copyright. If a label demands you sign a deal memo before signing a contract, or isn't paying you what they owe, or is harassing you rather than supporting you, copyright is not the cause or even exacerbating the problems.