MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Will there be another US copyright extension?

Worldwalker · 04-06-2011, 08:52 AM

Copyright should enable authors to make a living, not enable people who were born after the author and everyone who knew him has died to get rich. Although, realistically, they don't do the latter; they allow a small number of corporations to get rich (see: Disney) and, by and large, do nothing much for authors' descendants, because few but the bibliophiles care all that much about a book a hundred years or more old; most people would rather buy the latest Tom Clancy.

Look at the discussion elsewhere of William Faulkner ebooks. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers in English of the 20th century, and has been called the greatest writer ever to live. His writing won him a Nobel prize, his books are standards in schools, and so on. Yet how many people, realistically, are going to buy ebooks of his works? How many who are not forced to (i.e., for reading lists) buy pbooks of his works? For an actual author, as opposed to a corporation, there's a "shelf life" for their writing after which it fades off into obscurity, even for a Faulkner or a Hemingway. The people who make the money aren't the authors, or their children, or their great-great-grandchildren, because even if their ancestor was someone like Faulkner, the market isn't there; if their ancestor was Joe Schmoe, the market probably wasn't there even when he was alive and actively selling his books. The people who make the money are companies like Disney, which can keep updating and re-using that mouse and marketing the results, essentially forever. (comments about Zombie Mickey can go in the chat box....) The entire market for writing, which was good enough in its previous form for Shakespeare and Twain, has been subverted to meet the desires of a few companies like Disney who make enormous profits from Mickey Mouse clocks and pillowcases. There's no benefit, and often net harm, to the public (whom the whole "promotion of Science and the useful Arts" was meant to benefit), no benefit to the authors (they're dead), but a whopping benefit to Disney. And guess who has the money?

04-06-2011, 08:52 AM	#6
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	Copyright should enable authors to make a living, not enable people who were born after the author and everyone who knew him has died to get rich. Although, realistically, they don't do the latter; they allow a small number of corporations to get rich (see: Disney) and, by and large, do nothing much for authors' descendants, because few but the bibliophiles care all that much about a book a hundred years or more old; most people would rather buy the latest Tom Clancy. Look at the discussion elsewhere of William Faulkner ebooks. Faulkner is considered one of the greatest writers in English of the 20th century, and has been called the greatest writer ever to live. His writing won him a Nobel prize, his books are standards in schools, and so on. Yet how many people, realistically, are going to buy ebooks of his works? How many who are not forced to (i.e., for reading lists) buy pbooks of his works? For an actual author, as opposed to a corporation, there's a "shelf life" for their writing after which it fades off into obscurity, even for a Faulkner or a Hemingway. The people who make the money aren't the authors, or their children, or their great-great-grandchildren, because even if their ancestor was someone like Faulkner, the market isn't there; if their ancestor was Joe Schmoe, the market probably wasn't there even when he was alive and actively selling his books. The people who make the money are companies like Disney, which can keep updating and re-using that mouse and marketing the results, essentially forever. (comments about Zombie Mickey can go in the chat box....) The entire market for writing, which was good enough in its previous form for Shakespeare and Twain, has been subverted to meet the desires of a few companies like Disney who make enormous profits from Mickey Mouse clocks and pillowcases. There's no benefit, and often net harm, to the public (whom the whole "promotion of Science and the useful Arts" was meant to benefit), no benefit to the authors (they're dead), but a whopping benefit to Disney. And guess who has the money?