Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[spindlegirl]

Has anyone ever tried copyright until a certain ceiling of dollars has been earned vs the passage of time? Say, after 100K has been profited to the author...

That way, someone who had slower success still stands a chance of earning as much as someone who is big name for doing the same amount of work (maybe even more than) as the big author who everyone grabs their novel sight unseen? Or if someone's novel isn't just that great, or not trendy, then they can receive that money when it does "hit".

I knew someone who wrote knitting patterns - sort of - that way. They charged a fee for a pattern until they had earned back in time what they had put into it and profited... then they made it free (while not yet public domain).

Probably a silly idea, but it's a way to encourage earning income... No different than if I build a house, it would earn me a wage, but then to earn more i'd have to build another house...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because they can make other derivative works about vampires without infringing upon someone else's copyright. I thought authors were imaginative and creative?

No, they can't. Bram Stoker mined the public domain for Dracula. If copyright had been eternal, he couldn't have written Dracula. Walt Disney made a living in the public domain. Eternal copyright is book burning.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

My library is fairly small so a lot of what I read is interlibrary loan--and that costs me 2.50 per book.

As for most of this, I'll just have to respectfully disagree. I think it's okay to protect the copyright holder for at least a lifetime if not longer. Saying it isn't public domain does not mean the public doesn't have access (as someone above said that I gained from previous works and built upon that--well those works would still be available for me to purchase. Just because they aren't public domain doesn't mean I don't have access to them.) I value books and I value the work that went into them. I don't mind paying something for them. I pay taxes to the library and they buy books. That helps support authors, publishers and innovators.

As for my favorites, and whether older stuff would be my favorites--I have access to even older works now whether they are public domain or not. There's plenty of older stuff out there, some of if PD and some not. And in my case making it public domain would not encourage me to seek it out. It's a recommendation that causes me to seek out a work and the act of paying for it would not keep me from accessing it, assuming it's a fairly accessible fee. If it is not, I will find something else to read and wish luck and happiness on those who can afford the price--just like I might want to drive an Aston Martin or a Lexus, but won't be doing that. I hold no ill will that it's not in my budget, nor do I think that the technology or the car is owed to me as a "public" domain right.

It's fine with me if people want to read only pubic domain works, but it's also fine with me if other authors/writers/publishers attempt to sell that work.

I do believe that copyright should last for the lifetime of a creator (or some comparative span for corporations), to give someone a long time to create more works. I wouldn't mind seeing a small extension after death, so that the author's wishes could be respected in the time after his death the estate can be wrapped up, and if there are still any profits coming in, it could help with the expenses of the author's passing.

As far as your comment about not seeking things out if made public domain, well, that's just you. Also, one of the most common things I've heard of, is people who read stories when they were younger, but now that they're older the books are out of print, the author is long since dead with no clear owner of the copyright, and they're wanting to read those books again. That's a common scenario where people are trying to seek older stories and are hampered by how the copyright system currently is.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I disagree. I don't see eternal copyright as a restriction upon creativity. For example; even if Dracula was still under copyright, there'd still be plenty of room for innovation in the genre of vampires since Dracula was based upon folklore passed down for centuries. Anyone would be free to create their own stories based upon this folklore without infringing upon Dracula's copyright.

The problem is, the way copyright is being used, it would block similar works too. If it were copyrighted still, you'd have issues writing stories about brainwashed lackies, Royalty with a monsterous nature, etc.

Plus in the case of Dracula, you can very apparently see the details from the folklore it was based on. If any of that had been copyrighted, Dracula couldn't have remained as is.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Plus in the case of Dracula, you can very apparently see the details from the folklore it was based on. If any of that had been copyrighted, Dracula couldn't have remained as is.

Copyright laws shouldn't allow copyrighting details found in folklore.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright laws shouldn't allow copyrighting details found in folklore.

It doesn't. Anyone can write a book based on a public domain source and, even though the book is copyrighted, it doesn't prevent someone else writing a book based on the same source material.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Has anyone ever tried copyright until a certain ceiling of dollars has been earned vs the passage of time? Say, after 100K has been profited to the author...

That way, someone who had slower success still stands a chance of earning as much as someone who is big name for doing the same amount of work (maybe even more than) as the big author who everyone grabs their novel sight unseen? Or if someone's novel isn't just that great, or not trendy, then they can receive that money when it does "hit".

I knew someone who wrote knitting patterns - sort of - that way. They charged a fee for a pattern until they had earned back in time what they had put into it and profited... then they made it free (while not yet public domain).

Probably a silly idea, but it's a way to encourage earning income... No different than if I build a house, it would earn me a wage, but then to earn more i'd have to build another house...

The problem with that is you'd have some people who would get to the limit almost instantly, where as others you'd never even approach the limit. The lesser known works would fall even further into obscurity, especially after they are no longer in print. Also, you'd have to constantly revise the law to adjust the limit for inflation, and you'd have so many people arguing for different limits. Disney wouldn't be happy unless it is several billion dollars (because their properties can obtain over a billion dollars in total), while a lesser known author would barely be able to squeak out a living wage on their work, and never even come close to anything the big boys would get.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright laws shouldn't allow copyrighting details found in folklore.

That's not an option. The only reason it was in "folklore" was because it was in the public domain. If your proposal had been adopted in the past, this folklore could not have existed, as it would have been copyrighted the moment someone created it.

Your proposal would mean an end to folklore. Folklore and the public domain are the same thing.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

What I am saying here is:

• Copyright law is not designed to favor the middle man. It's designed to favor the rights holder.
• Both copyright and public domain are social constructions. Thus the term "natural" does not apply.
• Short copyright terms will not solve any issues, and will not dissuade anyone from violating copyright.

The problem is, copyright law does favor the middleman right now, because he's the one with enough money to buy out copyrights from the actual creator. Look at a lot of the recent lawsuits between patent troll companies and business that're actually trying to make a product. The small guys who originally came up with the ideas being fought over aren't getting a penny, and probably sold for a pittance just to put food on the table.

Are you willing to make copyrights no longer tradeable as property, to ensure the right people benefit?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Walt Disney made a living in the public domain.

And there's nothing stopping someone else from doing the same thing with the same material.

[HarryT]

As indeed did Shakespeare.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Has anyone ever tried copyright until a certain ceiling of dollars has been earned vs the passage of time? Say, after 100K has been profited to the author...

That way, someone who had slower success still stands a chance of earning as much as someone who is big name for doing the same amount of work (maybe even more than) as the big author who everyone grabs their novel sight unseen? Or if someone's novel isn't just that great, or not trendy, then they can receive that money when it does "hit".

I knew someone who wrote knitting patterns - sort of - that way. They charged a fee for a pattern until they had earned back in time what they had put into it and profited... then they made it free (while not yet public domain).

Probably a silly idea, but it's a way to encourage earning income... No different than if I build a house, it would earn me a wage, but then to earn more i'd have to build another house...

I began thinking along the same line, but soon realized that while it might work for a lot of books, it doesn't work for all. A new Stephen King release would be out of copyright within a month, maybe a week. Not to mention hit songs, they'd be out of copyright the day after their release. I could see this work in a socialist society, it would be considered fair that it was in public domain once the copyright holder had earned a specific amount.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I do believe that copyright should last for the lifetime of a creator (or some comparative span for corporations), to give someone a long time to create more works. I wouldn't mind seeing a small extension after death, so that the author's wishes could be respected in the time after his death the estate can be wrapped up, and if there are still any profits coming in, it could help with the expenses of the author's passing.

As far as your comment about not seeking things out if made public domain, well, that's just you. Also, one of the most common things I've heard of, is people who read stories when they were younger, but now that they're older the books are out of print, the author is long since dead with no clear owner of the copyright, and they're wanting to read those books again. That's a common scenario where people are trying to seek older stories and are hampered by how the copyright system currently is.



The problem is, the way copyright is being used, it would block similar works too. If it were copyrighted still, you'd have issues writing stories about brainwashed lackies, Royalty with a monsterous nature, etc.

Plus in the case of Dracula, you can very apparently see the details from the folklore it was based on. If any of that had been copyrighted, Dracula couldn't have remained as is.

What if I die young and have small children? My intent SURELY would be to provide for them. Make it PD too early and those kids could end up on government welfare, when in fact, a parent had the means to provide for them...until that parent died...and copyright expired. I really believe that was the original intent of life Plus. It didn't/doesn't necessarily have to be life plus 70 (as that would be most of the adult life of the child) but what a horrific nightmare for a parent to imagine that her books/income would not be used to support her 3 year old daughter after she died.

As for the out-of-print, that is true today, but should largely be a non-issue in the future. There's no reason ebooks can't be around for much longer than out of print.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Has anyone ever tried copyright until a certain ceiling of dollars has been earned vs the passage of time? Say, after 100K has been profited to the author...

That way, someone who had slower success still stands a chance of earning as much as someone who is big name for doing the same amount of work (maybe even more than) as the big author who everyone grabs their novel sight unseen? Or if someone's novel isn't just that great, or not trendy, then they can receive that money when it does "hit".

I knew someone who wrote knitting patterns - sort of - that way. They charged a fee for a pattern until they had earned back in time what they had put into it and profited... then they made it free (while not yet public domain).

Probably a silly idea, but it's a way to encourage earning income... No different than if I build a house, it would earn me a wage, but then to earn more i'd have to build another house...

Many authors do something similar in that they lower the price of a given work after it has sold a significant amount. I believe we'll see even more of this now that distribution (and cost of) is not such a problem. Authors/publishers don't have the costs of reprinting--they can make a book POD and they can leave the ebook form around. This gives us a lot more flexibility with future pricing, giveaways and whatnot.

It also means that authors can control and give away books if they so desire. But for those who want to continue to charge, for whatever reason, have the freedom to so do.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Who says the public deserves free use of someone else's works?

The public does, hence the creation of copyright acts to encourage the creation of useful works for the public and the encouragement of learning, by means of granting the creators temporary monopolies (to borrow there phrase).

Despite protestation, the fact that that is the reason for copyright is clearly stated in all those cited laws.

That is the principle. Society views knowledge and culture as something that belongs to society for the good of society, and has chosen to secure it for the future by artificially granting a short term private ownership.
I think this is blatantly evident and well documented in the laws themselves and no post saying "no it isn't" should sway anyone who can read.

The only question should be "how long should that temporary term be."

ApK

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

The public does, hence the creation of copyright acts to encourage the creation of useful works for the public and the encouragement of learning, by means of granting the creators temporary monopolies (to borrow there phrase).

Despite protestation, the fact that that is the reason for copyright is clearly stated in all those cited laws.

That is the principle. Society views knowledge and culture as something that belongs to society for the good of society, and has chosen to secure it for the future by artificially granting a short term private ownership.
I think this is blatantly evident and well documented in the laws themselves and no post saying "no it isn't" should sway anyone who can read.

The only question should be "how long should that temporary term be."

ApK

I know and I disagree with the concept. At least the terms are getting longer.