What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?

[wodin]

I once knew a writer of TV sitcoms, have you ever sat through the credits on any TV show or movie and seen all of the writers’ names scroll by? Well, Bob was pretty much living on the “residuals” of all of those shows he wrote. In addition to his up front salary, every time someone aired a rerun, Bob would get a check. If one was at all prolific, it would be a tidy retirement!

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Kitabi

I mean what yardstick do they use to come up with a number like 70 or 95 years after death? These numbers sound as random as 28 or 56 years to me.

The last two (or is it three) laws extending copyright terms in the US have, purely by coincidence, of course, just happened to coincide with the first Mickey Mouse cartoon (Steamboat Willie, IIRC) being about to go in to the public domain.

[Lemurion]

I believe in Copyright. I also believe the current term in the US is too long. I like Life+50 as a good compromise.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I believe in Copyright. I also believe the current term in the US is too long. I like Life+50 as a good compromise.

I'm also a fan of the concept of copyright. Personally, I'd rather see a fixed term based on publishing date rather than life+whatever, simply because it makes it easier to determine when the copyright expires.

As for how long the term should be, I'd really like it to be based on evidence, rather than simply picking a number out of the air. I doubt that'll happen any time soon, though.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's actually a lot easier now (everywhere except the US, that is). All you need to know to determine whether or not a work is in copyright or not is the date of the author's death. You don't have to search copyright registers, worry about renewals, or anything else of that nature.

HarryT, I think a copyright based on publication date is easier that creator life + x. You may not be able to find the the death of the author, but each copyright product has its copyright date stamped (sic) on it...

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Current copyright laws have extended the period of copyright protection to ridiculous lengths. In Germany we also have death +70 and an extreme example is the well known author Ernst Jünger. He published his famous diary of WWI "In Stahlgewittern" (Storm of Steel) in 1920. He then went on to live to the ripe old age of 103 years and died in 1998. His war diary will therefore only enter into the public domain in 2068, a nice 148 years after its publication. No one can reasonable argue that this is required to give incentive to creativity.

If you're ever in the US, you can legally download it from Gutenberg.

[screwballl]

I think at the time it was extended, it may have been useful. Today technology and so many things change so quickly that something (technology based) manufactured and copyrighted even 5 years ago is almost useless when compared to modern technology. Faster processors, more memory, faster refresh rates, faster read and write rates, higher power cameras in smaller devices, and so on.
I do believe that as far as US copyright goes for technological, it needs to be cut in half effective for all works and items created after 1990, and most everything else set to death + 10 years OR 25 years after creation, whichever comes first.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Other people's creative lifework isn't supposed to be the freebie playground for society.

Nobody creates in a vacuum. Everyone's creative lifework builds on their experiences, which involve other people and lines of people going back to the dawn of time, and the words, ideas, and writings of other people. Just as their works draw from the well of society, they should in time return to it.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by Fbone

If you're ever in the US, you can legally download it from Gutenberg.

Can someone in the US gift (email) a copy to him/her? It is not a violation of copyright to possess it if someone else "brought" it over there?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Kitabi

I mean what yardstick do they use to come up with a number like 70 or 95 years after death? These numbers sound as random as 28 or 56 years to me.

They aren't entirely random.

"Life plus" generally makes sense, in part because the creator can perish at any moment after the content is actually created. Does it makes sense that if the author dies 5 days after a book is published, it should go straight into public domain, thus relieving the publisher of any need to pay royalties for the book?

For signatories of the Berne Convention, the minimum term is life + 50, presumably to provide a good incentive and cushion for the estate. In addition, most of Europe was at life + 70 at the time of the last extension in the US. The idea in the US was to both harmonize copyright terms, as well as keep a "trade balance" at least equal in the US. Like it or not, content is a big revenue generator for the United States, and that revenue is largely lost when a work goes into public domain.

I might add that someone somewhere is going to bitch endlessly no matter what term is selected.

Originally Posted by Kitabi

Most of us working stiffs stop getting paid once we die or retire. So, why should a copyright exist after death?

The idea of copyright is to provide the creator a degree of control over their work as well as an incentive to do the work.

Contrary to your claim, today most "working stiffs" do get paid upon retirement by Social Security. You can also pass on revenue generators to descendants. Social Security has survivor benefits; life insurance may pay out; stocks, bonds, mutual funds, interest-bearing savings accounts, and other financial instruments do not evaporate upon the owner's demise, and can be willed to individual(s) and/or organizations.

So, this really isn't much different.

Originally Posted by Kitabi

On the contrary, if you believe that creativity must be rewarded or if you are plain greedy, why not a perpetual copyright?

There are numerous social benefits to works going into public domain after a limited term.

Estates, descendants and families also don't necessarily exist forever. As such, stewards of a perpetual content would inevitably lose track and/or become too divided to be manageable.

[Kali Yuga]

By the way, the most recent US extension was given a thorough review by the Supreme Court. 7-2 in favor.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldrdedo.pdf Decision, written by Ginsburg

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldredd1.pdf Bryer's dissent

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldredd.pdf Stevens dissent

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you wrote for a living, and had a family, wouldn't you want the royalty payments from your sales to go to your family after your death?

First of all, the great majority of books are out of print at time of author's death. So we are just talking here about the few authors who are highly successful.

In that case, I would want my wife to have the royalty payments if she outlives me. But I think that my children would be better off earning their bread from their own efforts rather than knowing their job is financially less meaningful due to that stream of royalty checks.

Under the Berne Convention, my country and yours is obligated to protect copyright until the end of the 50th year following the author's death. There is no good justification I can see for having it go any longer. The fact that it goes longer that the treaty requires, in the US, is a shameful example of the power of lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act

"Both houses of the United States Congress passed the [Copyright Term Extension] act as Public Law 105-298 with a voice vote,[4][5] making it impossible to determine who voted for or against."

[JP36]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

First of all, the great majority of books are out of print at time of author's death. So we are just talking here about the few authors who are highly successful.

In that case, I would want my wife to have the royalty payments if she outlives me. But I think that my children would be better off earning their bread from their own efforts rather than knowing their job is financially less meaningful due to that stream of royalty checks.

Agreed, I'd say 30-50 years after an author's death or maybe a 100 year copyright would be fine to allow it to be fully used by those most connected to the creator. Simply being related to someone who's work was successful isn't a right to easy street sponging off their works for decades.

Would it be 'sad' if a relative of someone who's work turns into a great hit but doesn't get part of it, a little but at that point (x years after the copyright expires) they shouldn't be expecting to cash in on it. If it didn't make money during the copyright period there shouldn't be an expectation of it making future heirs money, that is just 'bad luck'.

[tubemonkey]

Disney films, Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter - any chance these franchises will ever see public domain? Only in a parallel universe.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

If you want to read it, buy it. If you want to publish it, acquire the publishing rights. Especially if the work of is of any value to you. Other people's creative lifework isn't supposed to be the freebie playground for society.

Actually it is, society gives the copyright protection in exchange for it expiring after a time. Read the copyright clause in the US constitution, it says to promote the progress of, not to enrich authors and inventors.