Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyBob
Well, let me preface this by saying that I was speaking from the assumption that the replacement copyright was strictly shorter than the existing. e.g. 25 years renewable 3 times, not 25 years renewable indefinitely.
So, quite briefly, it benefits me more because it increases the availability of books, and it particularly increases the availability of free books. If a book is free, rather than $5.99, that benefits me, regardless of how easily available it is under the current scheme.
Similarly, probably half of what I read isn't new fiction. I read lots of science fiction that is 20-50 years old. Most of it isn't currently in print, so at a minimum I have to hunt for a used copy somewhere, and possible pay an inflated price. If copyright were renewable for a fee, these books would either be in the public domain and almost certainly available online, or they would be currently for sale new at a reasonable price. Both of those options benefit me.
Sure. But I am not willing to spend a week's salary on a book, and since I won't pirate it, either, I will regretfully read something else.
If you could have gotten those books at a cost based on the worth of the book, rather than on its scarcity, that would have benefited you, too.
|
The books were worth it to me or I wouldn't have spent the money. I spent a fair chunk of money on Knuth's books and various statistical analysis books. Hobby related, not for school or work. A far larger impact for me was spending almost $20 on a book as a teenager instead of the exceptionally elegant dress I wanted. I was making $0.40 cents an hour then and that really was a tough decision at that age
I can still remember the emotions that were going through me at the time.
I am under the impression that much, probably most of the science fiction of 20-50 years ago is available still and that a lot of the authors are still alive. And vast amounts are available used at a pretty cheap price and available in libraries. You must have very specific and esoteric tastes.
I am not against lowering copyright and I am not an author so have nothing to lose. I probably read more older books than new, so I would not be sorely bereft personally if all the authors went on strike.
I am inclined to agree with suggestions of life plus 20-30 with a minimum term of maybe 40-50 years after publication.
Anything less IMO would be unfair to the majority of creators who make very little annually from sales. And a person who makes a lot of money, author or not, either by luck or talent? I may envy them slightly, but that is no reason they should not benefit as well.
I have the unpopular opinion that money made from intellectual property is just as deserved as money made from real property. My heirs could rent my property, which they did nothing to earn, for as long as they live and their heirs after them. Perhaps the world might benefit more if that situation was changed to life plus
Helen