Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[Billi]

No, I guess I wasn't very clear. Sorry.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Conde Nast bought Smith and Street; that's how they gained ownership of a lot of the old pulp stuff (and the fact that they really do own it is not in dispute).

That seems certain at least as far as the law is concerned as their lawsuit was successful, but my point was that there was a site at one time that did sell books on CD (the only problem being they apparently didn't have the rights to the books). That's where the site got into trouble. And rights are a very hard thing to acquire it seems.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by teh603

My parents were cheapskates, and the city library really didn't like us folks who live "out in the county." They still don't really like us, but it'd look bad if they cancelled the current program that lets kids who go to school in the city get city cards.

Every system is different. In NM, the libraries are paid for by county taxes--that covers several small towns, one small city and outlying areas. So even though we lived 40 miles away, our taxes covered our participation. They had a book mobile for us for a while. Ah, the nostalgia of running out to the book mobile!

Texas has a "techshare" program where I can get a library card at Austin because I am paying in my city of Cedar Park. But I still have to DRIVE there to get the books. What is really weird is that sometimes the libraries won't tell you about their partner programs. You have to ASK. My library is definitely like that. So I drill in when I go to any library asking about programs like ebook sharing (my library shares overdrive with 3 other libraries), getting "partner" cards, interlibrary loan, and so on.

I'm glad you had/have a library. They are special places and they do what a lot of this topic is about: make books accessible to many. WOOT!

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And those before 1978? Can they get reclaimed? And what about all those creators whose work has been adjudged to be "work for hire". Do they get anything?

This was introduced in the 1976 law, hence the 1978 cutoff date. Prior to that law being passed, contracts for transfers of copyright had no expectation of being terminated, and were not negotiated with that in mind.

If you bought a classic car from someone, and next year Congress passes a law stating "ownership of a car can be reverted to the original owner after 15 years," it would be profoundly unfair to make that law retroactive. You bought the car with the expectation that the transfer of ownership was permanent, not that the car could be taken away from you at a future date. However, if you buy it after that law was passed, it's caveat emptor.

Thus, anyone who was on the receiving end of a transfer of copyright (i.e. the publishers) was essentially informed that the content creator could reclaim the copyright after 35 years, and should have negotiated accordingly.

Further, you cannot waive your right to terminate the transfer in advance. A publisher cannot include language in the contract that overrides your ability to reclaim the copyright.

If it's work for hire, then you never owned the copyright, and have no grounds to terminate the transfer.

Originally Posted by RSE

And note: 1978 + 35 = 2013. Any bet that MPAA/RIAA might want to ...ahem...extend the 35 year reclaim?

The RIAA already tried, and failed, to change the law to exclude sound recordings.

There are no subsequent indications of anyone trying to change the law.

The law has already been tested in courts. Pre-1978 recordings basically cannot be terminated (Bob Marley case). However, partial rights can be terminated without requiring co-authors to also file for termination. Thus in May, a federal court upheld that 1 of the 3 co-authors of "YMCA" could terminate his transfer, without requiring the other co-authors to also file.

There is a chance record companies will claim that sound recordings were "works for hire," but this is highly unlikely to work in most cases. No one is going to believe Bruce Springsteen was an employee of Columbia Records.

Originally Posted by RSE

In other works, if you have negotiation power, you will get residuals - maybe.

Filing for the termination of transfer of copyright gives the content creator that negotiation power. They can maintain the status quo; they can demand a change to the contracts; or they can reclaim their initial copyright and self-publish it.

So as I said earlier: This is a clear example of how copyright law is not constructed in favor of the middle man. If anything, this part of the law is decidedly tilted in favor of the content creator, not the middle man.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward View Post
And those before 1978? Can they get reclaimed? And what about all those creators whose work has been adjudged to be "work for hire". Do they get anything?

Work for hire has never gotten any residuals. It's one of the reasons that I often point out that if there is no threat of making money or a continued revenue stream, writers would stop writing or not put their heart and soul into it. Writing for hire for publishers (despite their best efforts) has never taken off. There have been a few publishers who have tried it (and essentially ghost writing is the only area where it has any kind of success) but writers don't want to do it long term. Some do it to get a foot in the door, but ultimately, there's no reason to put your heart and soul into something that is a one-time payment, walk away, watch the publisher make the money. Generally work for hire is also very much spelled out as to exactly what you must write. Shoot, Harlequin, which isn't work for hire, spells out pretty clearly what they want to happen by page 4. Their various lines dictate how much foul language there can be, how graphic the descriptions, HEA, etc.

But most writers want to create and innovate and put their heart and soul into things--and even have the threat of making some money, gathering a following and if luck strikes, maybe having something picked up by a larger following. Work for hire is just another job. Almost all of us writers pick up some work freelance, whether it's resume writing, editing, etc and believe me, there is a vast difference to it versus writing a novel.

Every writer I know who writes with her heart and soul is hoping to strike that special note with an audience. To do that and keep doing that, you have to have a lot of belief in yourself, a money stream of some sort, the ego to take a lot of hits, but still know when to take advice, sheer stubbornness, a will of iron and a modicum of talent.

There are few who can sit back for a long period of time and dedicate themselves to work for hire. It's not the same thing as other writing and requires a different mentality. One is survival, the other is a nurtured creativity. If an artist is to ever find genius, it is generally in the mix if heart, soul and survival, not just survival.

That is why I support patents and copyright. It is not a perfect answer, but it lends credibility to the idea that the art is WORTH something and that price should be set and controlled by the rights' holder. The copyright period should, at the very least, cover the life of the author and IMO, probably the first generation (Because if a writer dies with young children, the writer probably hoped that the income from writing was going to allow those children to have food and shelter.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Work for hire has never gotten any residuals. It's one of the reasons that I often point out that if there is no threat of making money or a continued revenue stream, writers would stop writing or not put their heart and soul into it. Writing for hire for publishers (despite their best efforts) has never taken off.

But most writers do indeed do "work for hire". Far more people make a living as journalists, writing advertising copy, etc, than make a living from writing fiction.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But most writers do indeed do "work for hire". Far more people make a living as journalists, writing advertising copy, etc, than make a living from writing fiction.

Sorry, I should have said work for hire writing novels. Yes, there are plenty of writers making a living off various other works for hire, but that is not the type of work to which I was referring. Sorry for the confusion.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

This was introduced in the 1976 law, hence the 1978 cutoff date. Prior to that law being passed, contracts for transfers of copyright had no expectation of being terminated, and were not negotiated with that in mind.

Nor were they negotiated (with the public) with the concept that copyright was to last for more that 56 years, maximum.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

If you bought a classic car from someone, and next year Congress passes a law stating "ownership of a car can be reverted to the original owner after 15 years," it would be profoundly unfair to make that law retroactive. You bought the car with the expectation that the transfer of ownership was permanent, not that the car could be taken away from you at a future date. However, if you buy it after that law was passed, it's caveat emptor.

The same should hold true for copyright. If a copyright was granted for a particular length, it should not be ex post facto (retroactively) altered. To do so is no more fair to the public that granted it (if extended) or to the creator (if shortened) than the example above.

When people like myself point out how (to quote you above - "profoundly unfair to make that law retroactive"), All we get out of you is a big grin and "If you don't like it, change the law". Never an acknowledgment that the law is "profoundly unfair".

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Thus, anyone who was on the receiving end of a transfer of copyright (i.e. the publishers) was essentially informed that the content creator could reclaim the copyright after 35 years, and should have negotiated accordingly.

Further, you cannot waive your right to terminate the transfer in advance. A publisher cannot include language in the contract that overrides your ability to reclaim the copyright.

If it's work for hire, then you never owned the copyright, and have no grounds to terminate the transfer.



The RIAA already tried, and failed, to change the law to exclude sound recordings.

There are no subsequent indications of anyone trying to change the law.

The fact that a major consortium of middlemen has already tried to change the law, is not very optimistic that there won't be another change attempted.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The law has already been tested in courts. Pre-1978 recordings basically cannot be terminated (Bob Marley case). However, partial rights can be terminated without requiring co-authors to also file for termination. Thus in May, a federal court upheld that 1 of the 3 co-authors of "YMCA" could terminate his transfer, without requiring the other co-authors to also file.

There is a chance record companies will claim that sound recordings were "works for hire," but this is highly unlikely to work in most cases. No one is going to believe Bruce Springsteen was an employee of Columbia Records.



Filing for the termination of transfer of copyright gives the content creator that negotiation power. They can maintain the status quo; they can demand a change to the contracts; or they can reclaim their initial copyright and self-publish it.

So as I said earlier: This is a clear example of how copyright law is not constructed in favor of the middle man. If anything, this part of the law is decidedly tilted in favor of the content creator, not the middle man.

Except for all art from 1923 to 1978. Which has already been extended twice, with a third extension slated for around 5 years from now....

Kali, when are you going to admit (at least to yourself) that copyright extension may be legal but it is "profoundly unfair"?

If you took away copyright extensions, and kept the 35 year clawback for post 1978 copyright, the corporate holders might find much of the "orphan work" problem goes away. And you might get more respect for copyright in general. But hey'd lose money, and that cannot be allowed to happen....

And for the pre 1978 works, creators usually got 8-15% royalties. And the corporation keeps 85-92% of the gross. Follow the money....

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Work for hire has never gotten any residuals. It's one of the reasons that I often point out that if there is no threat of making money or a continued revenue stream, writers would stop writing or not put their heart and soul into it. Writing for hire for publishers (despite their best efforts) has never taken off. There have been a few publishers who have tried it (and essentially ghost writing is the only area where it has any kind of success) but writers don't want to do it long term. Some do it to get a foot in the door, but ultimately, there's no reason to put your heart and soul into something that is a one-time payment, walk away, watch the publisher make the money. Generally work for hire is also very much spelled out as to exactly what you must write. Shoot, Harlequin, which isn't work for hire, spells out pretty clearly what they want to happen by page 4. Their various lines dictate how much foul language there can be, how graphic the descriptions, HEA, etc.

But most writers want to create and innovate and put their heart and soul into things--and even have the threat of making some money, gathering a following and if luck strikes, maybe having something picked up by a larger following. Work for hire is just another job. Almost all of us writers pick up some work freelance, whether it's resume writing, editing, etc and believe me, there is a vast difference to it versus writing a novel.

Every writer I know who writes with her heart and soul is hoping to strike that special note with an audience. To do that and keep doing that, you have to have a lot of belief in yourself, a money stream of some sort, the ego to take a lot of hits, but still know when to take advice, sheer stubbornness, a will of iron and a modicum of talent.

There are few who can sit back for a long period of time and dedicate themselves to work for hire. It's not the same thing as other writing and requires a different mentality. One is survival, the other is a nurtured creativity. If an artist is to ever find genius, it is generally in the mix if heart, soul and survival, not just survival.

That is why I support patents and copyright. It is not a perfect answer, but it lends credibility to the idea that the art is WORTH something and that price should be set and controlled by the rights' holder. The copyright period should, at the very least, cover the life of the author and IMO, probably the first generation (Because if a writer dies with young children, the writer probably hoped that the income from writing was going to allow those children to have food and shelter.)

Life + 70?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Nor were they negotiated (with the public) with the concept that copyright was to last for more that 56 years, maximum.

The public may be a beneficiary of public domain, but they aren't a stakeholder here. The public did not create the work, they were not a party to negotiations, and they did not pay for the rights.

Originally Posted by RSE

The same should hold true for copyright. If a copyright was granted for a particular length, it should not be ex post facto (retroactively) altered.

Public domain is not ownership. No one owns or controls a work that's in public domain. The public does not pay anyone when a work goes into public domain.

PD is a revocation and thus absence of all protection for a work.

Originally Posted by RSE

The fact that a major consortium of middlemen has already tried to change the law, is not very optimistic that there won't be another change attempted.

Again: They tried, and they failed. This provision was completely untouched by the last major update to the copyright law, the CTEA. Optimism may in fact be justified.

Artists are already filing, and the record labels are already losing in the courts.

Maybe, just maybe, you ought to be a bit thrilled to be wrong here, since this is a good thing for the content creators. Actually, I'm not very optimistic about that happening.

Originally Posted by RSE

Kali, when are you going to admit (at least to yourself) that copyright extension may be legal but it is "profoundly unfair"?

Right around "never."

I agree life + 70 is a bit too long, but it hasn't had the devastating effect that its detractors insist. There is no sign of Europe or the US adding further extensions, even though the CTEA is already 14 years old.

Originally Posted by RSE

If you took away copyright extensions, and kept the 35 year clawback for post 1978 copyright, the corporate holders might find much of the "orphan work" problem goes away. And you might get more respect for copyright in general. But hey'd lose money, and that cannot be allowed to happen....

Publishers will lose money with the termination of transfer, and that's going to happen. It's already started.

And no, shortening copyright terms is not going to get rid of piracy or increase respect for copyright. We see just as much distaste and corporate gamesmanship over patents, which have a very short duration.

The bottom line is that people want free stuff, and are happy to construct all sorts of rationalizations to get that free stuff. Shortening copyright terms won't change that.

[BearMountainBooks]

The public may be a beneficiary of public domain, but they aren't a stakeholder here. The public did not create the work, they were not a party to negotiations, and they did not pay for the rights.

Exactly.

Actually I agree with a few other things you said as well.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The public may be a beneficiary of public domain, but they aren't a stakeholder here. The public did not create the work, they were not a party to negotiations, and they did not pay for the rights.

This is one reason why, even though I earlier advocated the 28 years, I've changed my mind.

After Life + some decades, the team involved in planning, creating, and financing the book is gone. Since I'm not a great fan of inheritance rights, except for spouses, I do see the public as having rights as good as anyone else's at some point after the author, agent, etc., have died. But in 28 years, everyone could still be kickin'. Also, there is a danger that if every early 1980's published best-seller was on Mobileread, we would buy a lot fewer current books.

There is an advantage to having a single international copyright standard. Since Canada's is pretty much etched in stone, I advocate the Berne Convention Life + 50 standard, first agreed to in 1887 and now followed in Canada, China, and many smaller countries, adopted elsewhere.

As for the effects on the new book marketplace of Life + 50 vs. Life + 70, I don't think there would be much. Both standards mean that if you want to read about life as lived today, public domain will not do. As for piracy, perfectly legal web sites like Project Gutenberg Canada, and this one, could be getting some Americans and Europeans used to baby-step piracy, leading to the real thing. Standardize on Life + 50, and this site can stand just a little taller. Yes, moderators, I agree that we already stand tall

I know that this is a highly-book centered approach to copyright issues, but, well, that's what I care about.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Sure he could have. He would have just had to pay for the rights. Like Peter Jackson (or whoever) did for the LOTR movies. People produce derivative works of in-copyright works *all the time*. James Bond movies. Star Trek novels. The Avengers. Star Wars chess sets (suggesting that it's not always a good idea).

But they can only do so where the copyright holder approves; there's no statutory requirement to allow derivative works for a given fee - unlike what I understand to be the case with music licensing.

(If the copyright holders on the books had their way, Jackson wouldn't have made the LOTR movies. Unfortunately for them Tolkien sold the rights decades ago. But that meant Jackson had to work with the studio who had the rights; he wouldn't have been able to produce the movies under anyone else's aegis.)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The public may be a beneficiary of public domain, but they aren't a stakeholder here. The public did not create the work, they were not a party to negotiations, and they did not pay for the rights.



Public domain is not ownership. No one owns or controls a work that's in public domain. The public does not pay anyone when a work goes into public domain.

PD is a revocation and thus absence of all protection for a work.



Again: They tried, and they failed. This provision was completely untouched by the last major update to the copyright law, the CTEA. Optimism may in fact be justified.

Artists are already filing, and the record labels are already losing in the courts.

Maybe, just maybe, you ought to be a bit thrilled to be wrong here, since this is a good thing for the content creators. Actually, I'm not very optimistic about that happening.



Right around "never."

I agree life + 70 is a bit too long, but it hasn't had the devastating effect that its detractors insist. There is no sign of Europe or the US adding further extensions, even though the CTEA is already 14 years old.



Publishers will lose money with the termination of transfer, and that's going to happen. It's already started.

And no, shortening copyright terms is not going to get rid of piracy or increase respect for copyright. We see just as much distaste and corporate gamesmanship over patents, which have a very short duration.

The bottom line is that people want free stuff, and are happy to construct all sorts of rationalizations to get that free stuff. Shortening copyright terms won't change that.

Kali, who made copyright? The public, through it's government. It granted all copyrights. It set the terms and conditions of copyrights. To claim the public aren't stakeholders is ridiculous. They set the rules!

You state that -

"Public domain is not ownership. No one owns or controls a work that's in public domain. The public does not pay anyone when a work goes into public domain."

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The public domain is the natural state of creation. Copyright exists as an artificial ownership, a limited monopoly, to be precise, granted to encourage the creation of new works. That creation was premised upon the good of the public, not the good of the creators. The public receives it's benefit at the end of the copyright period. The creator receives the economic benefit from the limited monopoly, that is his/her encouragement.

That's the way it's always been since modern Western copyright. See The Statue of Anne (1714), The U.S. Constitution, or read McCauley (1842).

In the end, though, you can make any law you want. People will only follow them if they are perceived to be fair and just. Otherwise, they will break them. Often privately, but they will break them. And copyright, as it is currently envisioned, fails the fair and just perception.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I haven't seen 1984 legally available anywhere it's in copyright for 99¢.

It's out-of-copyright status that makes things very cheap or free.

It is currently listed on Amazon's Kindle store for 99¢. Are you suggesting that Amazon is not a legal outlet?