How Long Should Copyright Last?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by gmw

Yes, the times they are a changin' (thanks Bob), but have some thought for those what started their careers when books were all printed. Put yourself in the author's position: imagine you own a work still in print after 15 years and discover that someone wants to arbitrarily take away your entitlement to that income, all for some strange idea that they are automatically entitled to copy that work for free.

For most of written history, copying others work was expected and encouraged. Copyright is the anomaly. An embarrassment according to Jefferson.

It has been said that ideas cannot be copyrighted but that is simply not true. The form of an ideas expression is tangential to the idea itself. If you must have your copyright, then we must ask for a more limited time than currently given.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by avantman42

While I would like to see copyright laws change, I firmly believe that terms for existing copyrighted material should not change, whether terms are shortened or extended. Anyone who already has copyrighted material has agreed to a given set of rules - I don't think it's fair to change the rules after the agreement has been made.

How about reverting copyright to the length in place when a piece was originally published, which would put a lot of books & movies into the public domain?

Everything published in the US before 1955 would be in the public domain if the laws hadn't been changed. I don't see how putting things back to the expectations that existed when those things were published hurts those authors/musicians/film creators; after all, 28+28 was enough incentive for them at the time.

Or bring back the 28+28 list, and give them 5 years to register anything that's more than 28 years old, and everything before ~1983 that's not registered can fall into the public domain. At the time they published it, re-registration was an expectation; why should that be revoked?

And note that now, "anyone who already has copyrighted material" is EVERY CHILD WHO CAN WRITE. Every 3rd-grade assignment about "what my family does for birthday dinners" is protected by copyright, for Life+70. Every grocery list. Every doodle in the margins of a concert flyer. It is *ridiculous* that all that material, everything written or drawn or posted on the internet, should be locked away from open use for the next hundred-or-so years.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Everything published in the US before 1955 would be in the public domain if the laws hadn't been changed. I don't see how putting things back to the expectations that existed when those things were published hurts those authors/musicians/film creators; after all, 28+28 was enough incentive for them at the time.

Oh, stop being logical for once!

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And note that now, "anyone who already has copyrighted material" is EVERY CHILD WHO CAN WRITE. Every 3rd-grade assignment about "what my family does for birthday dinners" is protected by copyright, for Life+70. Every grocery list. Every doodle in the margins of a concert flyer. It is *ridiculous* that all that material, everything written or drawn or posted on the internet, should be locked away from open use for the next hundred-or-so years.

The post you made above is copyright? Am I in "trouble" for quoting you without your permission? Is this post I just made copyrighted?

Once again I think copyright should last 7 years, and no more than 10 under any circumstances.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by avantman42

While I would like to see copyright laws change, I firmly believe that terms for existing copyrighted material should not change, whether terms are shortened or extended. Anyone who already has copyrighted material has agreed to a given set of rules - I don't think it's fair to change the rules after the agreement has been made.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

How about reverting copyright to the length in place when a piece was originally published, which would put a lot of books & movies into the public domain?

Everything published in the US before 1955 would be in the public domain if the laws hadn't been changed. I don't see how putting things back to the expectations that existed when those things were published hurts those authors/musicians/film creators; after all, 28+28 was enough incentive for them at the time.

I agree. I thought I'd said so, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

The post you made above is copyright? ... Is this post I just made copyrighted?

Yes, every online post, email, and blog post is copyrighted to its author.

Am I in "trouble" for quoting you without your permission?

No. Because (1) I don't mind (and indicate that by participating in discussions here, and quoting other people), which means quoting me in reply is an authorized use of copyrighted material, (2) quoting excerpts in order to reply strongly leans toward fair use/fair dealing, and (3) if I were really, really bitchy about it and wanted to make lawsuit noises, I'd probably have to prove some form of financial or social harm from your use of my words.

There are cases where that might be reasonably argued; this isn't one of them.

I went looking for Mobileread's copyright TOS and couldn't find one, which is refreshingly sane. (Online forums shouldn't need to have copyright policies; we have copyright laws for those issues. The fact that those laws are atrocious at coping with casual social exchange of data is supposed to be a feature, not a bug; they're designed to go after corporate infringements, not individual ones.)

Once again I think copyright should last 7 years, and no more than 10 under any circumstances.

I don't mind the 30-year idea; I'd like the original creator to have the ability to profit not only from a book, but from a movie & spinoff tv series, and those often won't happen in the space of a handful of years. I could even deal with extremely long renewals--but I want those to need to be registered. I want works to start falling into the public domain quickly if there's no specific reason for them to be held under the copyright monopoly.

[tinlizzie]

I have not voted for any of the choices because I, like a lot of others here, think it should be for the lifetime of the author + 10-20 yrs. This would take care of estate costs, as well as surviving spouses which might depend on such support.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

For most of written history, copying others work was expected and encouraged. Copyright is the anomaly. An embarrassment according to Jefferson.

It has been said that ideas cannot be copyrighted but that is simply not true. The form of an ideas expression is tangential to the idea itself. If you must have your copyright, then we must ask for a more limited time than currently given.

I can imagine that copyright was a very difficult thing to cope with when it was originally introduced, there would have been a great many technical and practical difficulties. I think you should think carefully before deciding that you wanted to return to the way things were pre-copyright ... not that that is an option anyway. Things have moved on, now we are faced with different problems.

I am not entirely certain I follow your logic behind "ideas expression is tangential to the idea itself", there may be instances where this is true (or almost so, thinking here about early software battles that tried to use copyright to protect "look and feel" - which didn't work) but it is hardly seems universal, and I think doubtful it is significant.

I find it difficult to find any justification to reduce copyright other than the practical issues surrounding orphaned/unavailable works, and I think there are probably other ways around those problems. All the rest seems a strange sort of acquisitive "I am entitled to it" sort of grab that I simply don't understand at all.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

The post you made above is copyright? Am I in "trouble" for quoting you without your permission? Is this post I just made copyrighted? [...]

When you registered this is what you were told: "By contributing to this forum you grant us royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive permission to publish, use or edit your entry in any way deemed appropriate by us. You also grant us the right to translate your material into other languages."

Strictly legal or not, that pretty much covers what they need I think. You'd have trouble arguing in court that you didn't understand what was going to happen with any material you posted here, even without that disclaimer.

[Murine Press]

I guess you mean life of the author plus x? The voting options were not very specific. Well, they were extended and extended again, and again to the detriment of creative forces and to the benefit of multinational corporations.
Laws made sure nobody can do what Disney did and become....
Watch this and decide....
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gmw

When you registered this is what you were told: "By contributing to this forum you grant us royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive permission to publish, use or edit your entry in any way deemed appropriate by us. You also grant us the right to translate your material into other languages."

I went looking for that and couldn't find it. Is there a link to a TOS that explains that, or does it only show up during original registration?

As a side issue--it grants *the forum owners* the right to distribute one's works. (Which they need, or the content couldn't be distributed to other people's computers.) It doesn't grant every individual member of the forum the right to grab the contents of one's posts and use them at will. Certainly, there's no automatic right to repost all the ebooks here somewhere else. (Some are in public domain, but some are here by specific author permission.)

There's no right for someone in the forum to grab all of someone else's posts, edit them a bit, and sell a book of, oh, 'HarryT's ebook tips & tricks.' (Although the TOS bit mentioned above might allow the forum owners to do just that.)

It doesn't automatically grant the forum owners the right to assign third parties the right to use other people's copyrighted material, which quoting is. However, quoting-with-comments should fall well within fair use-esqe laws.

[LCF]

(without reading anything after the OP)

In my opinion until the author's death, or until the date of his/hers 80th birthday; whichever is longer.

Example: Joe writes a novel while he is 40. So he gets 40 years of copyright, and if he dies with 60, his ancestor benefit from the copyright 20 more years. A bit like continuing a successful family business.

After the copyright time - free domain.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by gmw

I am not entirely certain I follow your logic behind "ideas expression is tangential to the idea itself", there may be instances where this is true (or almost so, thinking here about early software battles that tried to use copyright to protect "look and feel" - which didn't work) but it is hardly seems universal, and I think doubtful it is significant.

I don't see any difference between a brain state that is actually an idea, and a piece of paper that contains an image of that brain state.

Copyright of an idea, it's definitely a human phenomenon. A pact between each member of society, to be nice to each other.

I think free sharing of all ideas and a more adequate distribution of resources would be a lot nicer don't you? Why are we spending so much on bombs when we should be using those funds to get more ereaders and more ebooks into the hands of everyone???

[Fbone]

I am not sure at death is manageable.

Since death may occur at anytime would publishers want to sign a contract with an elderly author worried that their book will enter public domain before recouping their expenses?

Can publishers separate sales by date? If an author dies March 18th, can they determine with accuracy sales before and after that date from all their retail partners worldwide?

I would think publishers and authors would prefer more advanced notice when material would hit public domain.

[MV64]

I think the author and spouse have every reason to expect to profit from their work.

I do not, however, see the point in copyright existing after the author and the spouse have died. But, just to make it so people don't start offing authors hoping to cash in, let's say 10 or 20 years after death. Also, there could be a provision that says if a child outlives the parents, he can keep the copyright until he or she turns 18 or 21, since they can reasonably expect to use profits for living expenses.

The 10 or 20 years would help make publishers more eager to publish works by elderly authors as well, because it guarantees them at least 10 or 20 years of exclusive rights.