How Long Should Copyright Last? - Page 3

HarryT · 03-08-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, but I meant more along the lines of a book being published, for say one small printing. The book is well-regarded, wins awards etc.. One year later, the copyright holder decides to not copy their book anymore and goes to hide in a cave.

Yes, that is an "orphaned work": the situation where the rights-holder of a book decides not to publish it any longer. There are huge numbers of books in that state.

Quote:

I'm trying to say here that if the book is of a benefit to the public, and the rights holder does not want the book to be copied, even though it has been available to the public in the past, what do we do? Wait for the book's copyright to expire? What if no one has a suitable copy of the book to copy from at that point in time?

Currently, your legal option are to find an existing copy of the book (eg in a library - it will be in a "copyright library" such as the British Library, or the Library of Congress, which automatically receive a copy of every published work) or wait for the copyright period to expire. The point of copyright libraries, by the way, is precisely to ensure that the situation you describe doesn't occur: ie, that all copies of a book never disappear.

Giggleton · 03-08-2011, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that is an "orphaned work": the situation where the rights-holder of a book decides not to publish it any longer. There are huge numbers of books in that state.

Currently, your legal option are to find an existing copy of the book (eg in a library - it will be in a "copyright library" such as the British Library, or the Library of Congress, which automatically receive a copy of every published work) or wait for the copyright period to expire. The point of copyright libraries, by the way, is precisely to ensure that the situation you describe doesn't occur: ie, that all copies of a book never disappear.

Ah ok, I thought I was referring to censorhip.

RE: Copies in the library of congress, specifically a single copy of the book described above with an author in the cave who is no longer making copies.

Seriously 1 copy?? What good is that going to do anyone? Don't you think, at least in this situation the Library of Congress should go ahead and make that copy digital to allow for the wonderful ideas contained within the text to be more widespread?

tubemonkey · 03-08-2011, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Although your scheme would need a mechanism to deal with "abandoned" copyrights, as we do with other forms of abandoned property.

Agreed and I'm all for it; even to the point of declaring it public domain.

tubemonkey · 03-08-2011, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Not the company, no; their works, yes, definitely. Disney is a particularly bad example as they themselves profited enormously from works in the public domain.

Well, there is. Whoever fails to to acknowledge that has a (hidden) agenda or is severely lacking in the "abstract thinking skills" department.

More power to them for utilizing PD works in a profitable manner.

So says you.

HarryT · 03-08-2011, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Ah ok, I thought I was referring to censorhip.

RE: Copies in the library of congress, specifically a single copy of the book described above with an author in the cave who is no longer making copies.

Seriously 1 copy?? What good is that going to do anyone? Don't you think, at least in this situation the Library of Congress should go ahead and make that copy digital to allow for the wonderful ideas contained within the text to be more widespread?

There are certainly very strong arguments to be made in favour of allowing non-commercial distribution of orphaned works. I'd be very much of favour of that, myself, although one could debate how long a book had to be out of publication for it be considered "orphaned". Perhaps 25 years might be appropriate?

tubemonkey · 03-08-2011, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Would someone be allowed to copy a work under a perpetual copyright if they did not profit monetarily from the work?

We would definitely run into some problems about what does it mean to profit? But that could be worked out I suppose.

No, they have no right to do so without the copyright holder's permission.

But let's say they did copy it and the only thing they did was to read it. That's a form of profit.

tubemonkey · 03-08-2011, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, what I meant was things that were once published commercially and well admired by the market, and then one day the rights holder says, "I don't want that to be copied anymore."

Under perpetual copyright, what would happen to those works? Gone forever?

Yes, gone forever. It's his property.

Soldim · 03-08-2011, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Should a company like Disney go into public domain 70 years after the death of Roy Disney? He and his brother (Walt) built this company up and turned it into a valuable piece of property. Why should their work be allowed to be passed on forever and an author's work not?

Disney is an interesting example, no other company I know of uses so much public domain material to create contents.

Personally, I'd consider a copyright period of twice 10 or 15 years sufficient. The creation of intellectual property never happens in a vacuum, but always within a society that provides ideas and inspiration. That the intellectual property eventually moves back to society seems a logical consequence in that light.

doreenjoy · 03-08-2011, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

But let's say they did copy it and the only thing they did was to read it. That's a form of profit.

Technically true, but the copyright holder would be hard pressed to prove any damages in court.

rogue_librarian · 03-08-2011, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's entirely irrelevant what a few people in a different country 250-odd years ago thought was its purpose in THEIR society. What we have to deal with is what its usefulness is in TODAY'S society, which is very different to that of the late 18th century.

True, but as long as the constitution is not changed it still applies to our society (well, theirs anyway) today.

rogue_librarian · 03-08-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

... I would say the copyright period should be equivalent. Something like 40 years or so. Maybe 48.

Make it 50 years after publication, and split in two halfs, once renewable (at moderate cost). If there's a commercial interest renewing the copyright won't be an issue, otherwise works enter the public domain after 25 years.

The current system of life + 70 years is just ridiculous. It certainly isn't needed to encourage creators to produce their works (does anybody really think they'd create less if they could only reap the benefit for the remainder of their life?) The current system benefits heirs and corporations, nobody else.

rogue_librarian · 03-08-2011, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that is an "orphaned work": the situation where the rights-holder of a book decides not to publish it any longer. There are huge numbers of books in that state.

That's why we need a "dead man's switch" for copyright. Are you still there? Are you still interested in that work? Please show your continued interest by renewing the copyright every, I dunno, two decades.

Hamlet53 · 03-08-2011, 07:41 AM

I am another of those who feel that the options should have included lifetime of the author/creator. That or 10-20 years with as many renewals as the author wishes in his lifetime. This it to explain my pick from the options offered of 50+ years; that being too long in some cases and not long enough in others. Having a public referendum to nullify? Yeah sure leave it to a vote as to whether or not an author has any intellectual rights.

I have to strongly disagree, as others have, that what was said in the United States Constitution on the issue is no longer valid for United States law. The Constitution is still the preeminent law of the land.

The current ridiculous state of copyright law in the United States, lifetime plus 70 years, is really all about the undue influence of corporate lobbying. M-I-C … K-E-Y … M-O-U-S-E.

Final comment on this whole topic being raised again. There are a significant number here that just do not accept the idea of intellectual property rights.

HarryT · 03-08-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I have to strongly disagree, as others have, that what was said in the United States Constitution on the issue is no longer valid for United States law. The Constitution is still the preeminent law of the land.

The point I am making, though, is that what the US Constitution says on the matter is not what's currently done. The Constitution authorises Congress to "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" by means of a copyright law. Do you really believe that current US copyright law is doing this? I'm afraid that I don't.

Quote:

Final comment on this whole topic being raised again. There are a significant number here that just do not accept the idea of intellectual property rights.

I'm certainly not against intellectual property rights. Far from it!

pdurrant · 03-08-2011, 08:21 AM

What I dislike most about current copyright laws is the "lifetime + fixed term" aspect of them. It seems very odd that an author's earliest (and usually weakest) work should have the longest copyright.

I'd much rather see a "fixed term, or lifetime, whichever is longer", where the fixed term is 50 years or less.

Sadly, I don't see any way that that could be brought about with the current system of international agreements.

And there isn't even a poll option that's anywhere near my position.

View Poll Results: How Long Should Copyright Last?
In Perpetuity	7	3.66%
50+ Years	32	16.75%
20-30 Years	50	26.18%
10-20 Years	33	17.28%
10-20 Years with renewal option for 10-20 more	45	23.56%
25 Years with option for public referendum to nullify	4	2.09%
10 Years with option for public referendum to nullify	15	7.85%
What's Copyright?	5	2.62%
Voters: 191. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Science Fiction Long, Frank Belknap: Frank Belknap Long Omnibus. V1. 16 Jan 2010	crutledge	BBeB/LRF Books (offline)	0	01-16-2010 11:32 AM
In Copyright? - Copyright Renewal Database launched	Alexander Turcic	News	26	07-09-2008 09:36 AM
Government US Copyright Office: Report on Orphan Works. US Copyright Office. PDF	Nate the great	Other Books	0	01-03-2008 07:16 PM
Long, long time...	Chaos	Introduce Yourself	6	04-26-2007 11:34 PM

03-08-2011, 07:41 AM	#43
Hamlet53 Nameless Being	I am another of those who feel that the options should have included lifetime of the author/creator. That or 10-20 years with as many renewals as the author wishes in his lifetime. This it to explain my pick from the options offered of 50+ years; that being too long in some cases and not long enough in others. Having a public referendum to nullify? Yeah sure leave it to a vote as to whether or not an author has any intellectual rights. I have to strongly disagree, as others have, that what was said in the United States Constitution on the issue is no longer valid for United States law. The Constitution is still the preeminent law of the land. The current ridiculous state of copyright law in the United States, lifetime plus 70 years, is really all about the undue influence of corporate lobbying. M-I-C … K-E-Y … M-O-U-S-E. Final comment on this whole topic being raised again. There are a significant number here that just do not accept the idea of intellectual property rights.

03-08-2011, 08:21 AM	#45
pdurrant The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠 Posts: 73,948 Karma: 315160596 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norfolk, England Device: Kindle Oasis	What I dislike most about current copyright laws is the "lifetime + fixed term" aspect of them. It seems very odd that an author's earliest (and usually weakest) work should have the longest copyright. I'd much rather see a "fixed term, or lifetime, whichever is longer", where the fixed term is 50 years or less. Sadly, I don't see any way that that could be brought about with the current system of international agreements. And there isn't even a poll option that's anywhere near my position.