Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by ApK

No argument, it's simply not legal, and we're discussing LEGAL availability.
I can get if for free if we're going to ignore copyright laws. I can get the latest Stephen King for free too. So what?

The simple fact is, it's cheaper where it's out of copyright than where it's still under copyright.
It's not 'maneuvering.' It's the reality of the costs of licensing.

ApK

Fair enough. Keep it legal. Maybe I can't see it because I can't see such a small saving being of consequence. In a world where (here) a paperback book can hit forty dollars - and we are over parity with the US, the difference between one dollar - or 99¢ - and eight dollars doesn't seem that great. I still can't see any great advantage to individuals. How many people are really going to rush out and buy huge quantities of very old books if they dropped it back to twenty-eight years? About as many as buy them here - almost no one.

The whole issue is moot in that the likelihood of it happening is pretty close to zero.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

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.)

One of my issues with copyright is that the excessive durations aren't really justified. One perspective:

• Most works only have value for a limited time after their creation. So there is very little value to having copyrights exceeding 28 years.
• Works of lasting value are likely to increase their value to society in the public domain.

A second perspective is that the notion of doing something once and living off the proceeds for the rest of your life is deeply offensive to people who actually have to work for a living. Farmers have to continue growing food to earn a living. Factories have to continue producing goods in order to generate revenues. Heck, even other industries that are driven by other forms of intellectual property (like patents) have to continue innovating because they are only protected for 20 years.

Then how do they survive: they continue producing. If they want to stop producing, then they have to put money aside. In other words, they should do what everyone else does. They should not feel entitled to any more.

[spindlegirl]

One of the first books I got from MR was nineteen eighty four

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

99¢ - and eight dollars doesn't seem that great.

$8 is a tremendous amount for some. Even 99 cents is waste to spend on 'education' or 'culture' when it could buy some food for a starving child.

But that 99 cent is essentially a convenience charge. Since it's PD can be had for free, as you point out, and be available to precisely those people who can't afford it otherwise. People who might presumably have the most to gain in term of improving their lot in society, from having free access to culture, education, the mental stimulus from reading, the empathy gain from seeing the viewpoints of different people...you know, all those thing people say that reading and literature is important for.

It's not just about cheap access to entertainment. That's just a nice dividend.

ApK

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The public domain is the natural state of creation.

There is no "natural state of creation." Public domain is a legal construct, and as such it's every bit as "artificial" as copyright.

Originally Posted by RSE

That creation was premised upon the good of the public, not the good of the creators.

Here's the opening statement of the Statute of Anne:

Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published, books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books....

The origin of copyright was not to provide for the public good, but to protect authors and their families from getting ripped off. It was imposed by the monarchy, not graciously provided by the people.

Originally Posted by RSE

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.

Unfortunately I can't respond fully to this, because that would veer way too much into P&R territory. That said....

People will pirate, period. Music has been available DRM-free, at reasonable prices, in open formats, by several vendors for years -- and it's only legal actions like shutting down Limewire that make small dents in piracy rates.

It's also screamingly obvious that most of the content that's pirated nowadays is far less than 28 years old. What do we see at the top of The Pirate Bay's charts? Adele, Bobby Ocean (a brand new release), Drake, Coldplay, Chris Brown, Linkin Park, LMFAO, the UK Top 40 for 17-06-2012. Almost nothing was published prior to 1984. All of it is available DRM-free at a reasonable price.

Is this what the protest against excessively long copyright terms looks like? Today's Top 40? What grand injustice are these people allegedly protesting, by downloading the entire Rihanna discography?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by plib

Agreed. 100% (I'm just annoyed I don't have your eloquence).

I also strangle lawyers for a very low price....

(That's a joke, ok?)

[plib]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

One of my issues with copyright is that the excessive durations aren't really justified. One perspective:

• Most works only have value for a limited time after their creation. So there is very little value to having copyrights exceeding 28 years.
• Works of lasting value are likely to increase their value to society in the public domain.

A second perspective is that the notion of doing something once and living off the proceeds for the rest of your life is deeply offensive to people who actually have to work for a living. Farmers have to continue growing food to earn a living. Factories have to continue producing goods in order to generate revenues. Heck, even other industries that are driven by other forms of intellectual property (like patents) have to continue innovating because they are only protected for 20 years.

Then how do they survive: they continue producing. If they want to stop producing, then they have to put money aside. In other words, they should do what everyone else does. They should not feel entitled to any more.

Also agreed 100%. And also expressed eloquently. (Damn, I'm feeling dumb today)

[Kumabjorn]

I'm a bit confused.
Isn't this petition for limiting copyright to life +28 years?
Is it strictly 28 years from date of creation (application)?

[plib]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I also strangle lawyers for a very low price....

(That's a joke, ok?)

Yes, but there's more competition in that field!

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There is no "natural state of creation." Public domain is a legal construct, and as such it's every bit as "artificial" as copyright.

Really? Who owns the ten commandments? Cave paintings? Left without law, they are for anyone to use. Law constructs copyright. It merely acknowledges the public domain. It doesn't construct it any more than probate law constructs death.

and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books....

You seem be selectively blind to parts of even what you yourself quote.
You also conveniently left out the OPENING line right before the part you quoted which identifies the act as:
"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning"
http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html

That the mechanism we have chosen to facilitate this benefit to society is the temporary protection of creators rights is not in dispute.

Is this what the protest against excessively long copyright terms looks like? Today's Top 40? What grand injustice are these people allegedly protesting, by downloading the entire Rihanna discography?

Again, selective blindness. Even assuming there is NO societal value to pop music and the like (and I think there actually is) there's a huge body of highly significant culture-- art, literature, philosophy-- that you are ever so conveniently choosing to throw out with your particular choice of bathwater.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

One of my issues with copyright is that the excessive durations aren't really justified. One perspective:

• Most works only have value for a limited time after their creation. So there is very little value to having copyrights exceeding 28 years.
• Works of lasting value are likely to increase their value to society in the public domain.

A second perspective is that the notion of doing something once and living off the proceeds for the rest of your life is deeply offensive to people who actually have to work for a living. Farmers have to continue growing food to earn a living. Factories have to continue producing goods in order to generate revenues. Heck, even other industries that are driven by other forms of intellectual property (like patents) have to continue innovating because they are only protected for 20 years.

Then how do they survive: they continue producing. If they want to stop producing, then they have to put money aside. In other words, they should do what everyone else does. They should not feel entitled to any more.

That is EXACTLY how most of us writers survive--WE KEEP PRODUCING. Yes, you hear lots about certain writers who live off the wealth of one to 7 books/movies/deals. But the VAST majority of us can't make a living EVEN WITH SEVERAL BOOKS IN PRINT--and those of us who do--in order to keep our books in the minds of the readers--MUST, MUST keep producing. Even a year between releases is sometimes too long to remain relevant. Many of us work more than one job as well. I am just like that farmer. I toil away for months and sometimes about 2 years before I get to harvest. Trust me--I'm a gardener and your analogy is way closer than you can imagine. I've had books that do not sell--this after toiling over them for years. This after rewriting (replanting) editing (paying out for help to come in) and so on.

Don't kid yourself. Sure, some farmers might hit it rich by selling their land, finding diamonds, gold or oil on their land, but most of them struggle to get by.

So do I. And I need that copyright protection on my earlier books to allow me to keep writing the next one. Longer copyright is even more important NOW than it was then. My ebooks don't go out of print. I can sell a copy today, just like the first one I sold 5 years ago. I can keep it around, keep talking about it and keep trying to be remembered and relevant.

I'm not making a living off every single book. It's all about producing and continuing to produce and trying to figure out what to grow next. Do I continue the series? Do I try with a different one? Each decision can be years in the making. So is the writing process.

I'm not sitting back after writing since I was 20 and living off of a single miracle book. Most writers aren't. Some of the books I started writing in my 20s barely got published when I was in my 40s. That's longer than most farmers and ranchers have to wait to get a harvest. I had a lot of practicing, learning, attempted selling, rewriting, slow sales, etc going on during that 20 years of planting. So really. Don't feel like I'm not working as hard as that farmer. I've done both. I grew up on a farm/ranch and I still have a small garden plot. They are not all that different.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by ApK

Really? Who owns the ten commandments?

Last I checked, it was Yaweh.

The "natural" argument is an adolescent concept, not a viable legal argument. Humans do not naturally wear clothes, eat potato chips (aka crisps), live in large cities or drive cars. Books, reading, writing, and distributing ebooks for free to millions of your bestest buddies over the Internets are not "natural" conditions.

Originally Posted by ApK

Cave paintings?

Fun fact: Access to many of the cave paintings are in fact restricted, because human activity can severely damage the paintings.

It's also highly likely that the caves, or relevant sections of caves, were originally used exclusively for religious purposes. Access to those sections would have certainly been restricted.

Originally Posted by ApK

You seem be selectively blind to parts of even what you yourself quote.

Uh, no. Allowing learned men to "compose and write books" means the law was motivated by a desire to protect authors.

Originally Posted by ApK

Even assuming there is NO societal value to pop music and the like (and I think there actually is) there a huge body of highly significant culture-- art, literature, philosophy-- that you are ever so conveniently choosing to throw out with your particular choice of bathwater.

Are you even reading the arguments?

RSE is claiming that people pirate because they are refusing to obey what they perceive as an unjust law.

I'm refuting this with the observation that the overwhelming majority of what gets pirated is already available without restriction, without DRM, and would still be protected by a 28-year copyright term. The motivation is not protest, it's the desire for Free Stuff. Protest is a rationalization, not a true motive.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Fun fact: Access to many of the cave paintings are in fact restricted, because human activity can severely damage the paintings.

It's also highly likely that the caves, or relevant sections of caves, were originally used exclusively for religious purposes. Access to those sections would have certainly been restricted.

Again, the restriction is the artificial construct, not the 'natural' (I think we know what he meant by natural) unrestricted state.

I'm refuting this with the observation that the overwhelming majority of what gets pirated is already available without restriction, without DRM, and would still be protected by a 28-year copyright term. The motivation is not protest, it's the desire for Free Stuff. Protest is a rationalization, not a true motive.

The fact that some protesters just want free stuff out of selfish greed does not invalidate the legitimate protestations of others.
However it should provoke a clear 'I'm not with them..." reaction if they don't want folks like you to lump them all together.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There is no "natural state of creation." Public domain is a legal construct, and as such it's every bit as "artificial" as copyright.

The term public domain is a legal construct, as are the legal ramifications. On the other hand there is no natural law regarding the ownership of property. Since the idea of the public domain reflects that, it is a much more natural state of being.

[ApK]

I missed one:

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Uh, no. Allowing learned men to "compose and write books" means the law was motivated by a desire to protect authors.

Uh, no back at you. It means the law was motivated by a desire to get some good works out of authors.

It could have done this by saying all learned men will be chained to a table and flogged until they produced some useful books. I think the protection approach was a better choice.

That's why it's "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning" and not "An Act for the Encouragement of Writing" or "An act to protect authors."

ApK