Which classics fall out of copyright in 2012?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure they can. If you're in a company pension scheme, that pension will (generally speaking) continue to pay money to your wife after you die. Royalty payments are a writer's pension fund.

First, I have to pay for that. Second, as soon as as my partner dies, our children won't see a cent anymore...

[HarryT]

Certainly it's not precisely the same, I agree; I was using it as a counter to the previous poster's assertion that copyright holders were "unique" in being able to earn money after death. They are not. Pretty much all of us can do it who are members of company pension schemes.

An author's royalty payments are the legacy he leaves to his family. Let's say an author writes a massively popular bestseller, which is published the week before he dies. The publisher will earn a shed-load of money from it; the bookstores will earn money from it; is it really right that the author's family should have no entitlement whatsoever to the income it generates?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly it's not precisely the same, I agree; I was using it as a counter to the previous poster's assertion that copyright holders were "unique" in being able to earn money after death. They are not. Pretty much all of us can do it who are members of company pension schemes.

An author's royalty payments are the legacy he leaves to his family. Let's say an author writes a massively popular bestseller, which is published the week before he dies. The publisher will earn a shed-load of money from it; the bookstores will earn money from it; is it really right that the author's family should have no entitlement whatsoever to the income it generates?

Let's say an author writes a massively popular bestseller, which is publishes 30 years before he dies. The publisher will earn a shed-load of money from it; the bookstores will earn money from it; is it really right that the author's family should still earn a lot of money for it, for 70 years after the death of the author?

I think that most people agree that there should be a copyright for x amount of years. And I think also that most people agree that this copyright can be extended beyond the death of the author. But why bind the copyright to the life of the author, instead of the life of the book? Even if an author writes a book in his teens, if the copyright age isn't changed, only the start date, he'll still have a steady income till he's probably dead or at least reached a high age...

The question wouldn't be: when did the author die, but rather, when was the book first published. How many books would fall out of copyright then?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I think that most people agree that there should be a copyright for x amount of years. And I think also that most people agree that this copyright can be extended beyond the death of the author. But why bind the copyright to the life of the author, instead of the life of the book? Even if an author writes a book in his teens, if the copyright age isn't changed, only the start date, he'll still have a steady income till he's probably dead or at least reached a high age...

The question wouldn't be: when did the author die, but rather, when was the book first published. How many books would fall out of copyright then?

Personally, I completely agree with you. I'd be entirely happy to see, say, a 30 year copyright term from the date of initial publication. Unfortunately, though, that's not the way it is.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not "separate from all other forms of human endeavour". If you buy shares in a company, you can leave those shares to your family, who will be able to "harvest money" from them after your death. An author's legacy to his family is the income from his books.

For equity, those shares should revert to public domain after 70 years for the benefit of society

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Personally, I completely agree with you. I'd be entirely happy to see, say, a 30 year copyright term from the date of initial publication. Unfortunately, though, that's not the way it is.

Ditto. It's a great shame that the Berne Convention was established with a "Lifetime + 50" minimum copyright length rather than a "Publication + 50".

[HarryT]

Some forms of copyright are more sensible. A typographical copyright, for example, has a fixed 25-year term from the date of publication. Musical performance copyrights are fixed term too (or has that changed now?).

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, there is; to provide an income for an author's dependents. The question is, though, how long after death is reasonable. Most people here probably feel that 70 years is too long.

That is purpose of term life insurance.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid you've completely lost me there. Care to elaborate?

Well, Harry, for the reader of pbooks, what does it matter if the book is in PD or not? You have to buy one, anyway. (The other options, borrow from a friend or the library are available whether the book is in PD or not). For pbooks the only difference is that the publisher/printer doesn't have to pay any royalties and that everybody could publish it, which could depress prices. So, the length of copyright for books was basically of no importance to readers in the past.

But only with the advent of ebooks can the reader get PD books of free. So, coming back to your example, Charles Dickens, the question (as far as our discussion here is concerned) remains how much readers spent on ebooks of his works. My guess is not zero, but very little. And most of those buyers probably didn't know they could get free versions.

Yes, Penguin Classics just came out in ebook form, but that hardly will be a big money maker, definitely a lot less than what they would make if no free versions were available.

[AnnaJMcIntyre]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's because a bunch of people made these distinctions and created laws based on them. They could just as easily ignore these differences and nullify these laws. There's nothing sacrosanct about any of this.

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to pass on property of any kind to their heirs for an indefinite period of time. It's their property and I'm tired of society fabricating rationalizations so they can justify its theft.

These laws are antiquated and need changing; but I don't see it happening. At least the same system that created these unjust laws has the decency to keep extending copyright. So there is a silver lining in this cloud.

I've been skimming through this thread, and I want to say, I believe you have an excellent point.

I don't see why a family should have the right to hold onto real property for an indefinite time, yet intellectual property is limited. Why is a builder's heirs entitled to a house he built without limits, while my heirs are limited in regards to the book I write?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by AnnaJMcIntyre

I've been skimming through this thread, and I want to say, I believe you have an excellent point.

I don't see why a family should have the right to hold onto real property for an indefinite time, yet intellectual property is limited. Why is a builder's heirs entitled to a house he built without limits, while my heirs are limited in regards to the book I write?

Stop comparing a book to a house! They're not the same and can't be compared. Yes, you publish a book, one copy. This one you rent out. No other books are ever published. Only then can you compare that book to a house.

Why should the heirs of an author get up to 70 years after the death of that author get money, while a farmer won't get money from a plant he created even 26 years after he created it? Even if that farmer is still alive?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Why should the heirs of an author get up to 70 years after the death of that author get money, while a farmer won't get money from a plant he created even 26 years after he created it? Even if that farmer is still alive?

Because that's the way that intellectual property laws work.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's the way that intellectual property laws work.

That's a cheap way out. Why does it work that way?

The answer is simply money. Money creates money. Publishers are so powerful that they simply buy the lawmakers into doing their bidding.

But my question remains:

Why should the heirs of an author get up to 70 years after the death of that author get money, while a farmer won't get money from a plant he created even 26 years after he created it? Even if that farmer is still alive?

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

But my question remains:

If your father is a builder, builds a house, rents it, suddenly dies, you (and the other heirs) will get all the income from the rental.
If your father is a writer, writes a book, sells many copies, suddenly dies, you (and the other heirs) will get all the income from the book. Where is the problem?
One can debate about the 70 years, but in general it is a good regulation that copyright lasts on after the author has died. There are many many injustices in this world, this really is a very minor one.

There is also another thing that makes having copyrights after the author has died a good thing: copyright is not only about making money but also about being able to decide how and where and if at all the work of an artist will be distributed. It includes the publication of such things as diaries, private letters and unpublished works that now can be kept being handled according to the wishes of the artist and not the public.
And it involves the unchangeability of a work.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Billi

There is also another thing that makes having copyrights after the author has died a good thing: copyright is not only about making money but also about being able to decide how and where and if at all the work of an artist will be distributed. It includes the publication of such things as diaries, private letters and unpublished works that now can be kept being handled according to the wishes of the artist and not the public.
And it involves the unchangeability of a work.

You raise a very good point there, Billi. If all the works of an author fell into the public domain instantly upon death, that would permit the unrestricted publication of things like private letters and diaries against the wishes of the family. Families do have a right to privacy.