Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[Quexos]

Is that a trick question ?

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Which of these copyrighted books was never made into a movie?

• Gone With the Wind
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Fahrenheit 451
• The Godfather
• Jaws

[GA Russell]

With over 280 posts to this point, I hope that the purpose of the OP is not forgotten, and that people are signing the petition in post #1!

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

With over 280 posts to this point, I hope that the purpose of the OP is not forgotten, and that people are signing the petition in post #1!

Not me

[BearMountainBooks]

Nope haven't forgotten and of course I won't sign.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

With over 280 posts to this point, I hope that the purpose of the OP is not forgotten, and that people are signing the petition in post #1!

And as I am pretty sure I said earlier....

1) Internet petitions aren't worth the electrons they're printed on.
2) Copyright will not be limited to 28 years any time soon. As in, not during our lifetimes.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Everything is government granted; even basic human rights. Copyright is an arbitrary concept applied to a certain type of property. Nothing sacrosanct about it.

You are claiming that there exists a natural right to copyright. You can't then turn around and say that everything is government granted.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Which of these copyrighted books was never made into a movie?

• Gone With the Wind
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Fahrenheit 451
• The Godfather
• Jaws

What's your point? I never claimed that adaptations could not be made from works that were under copyright. If copyright is eternal, once the rights holder can no longer be contacted, no adaptations can be made. Even if we suppose that the rights holder will be able to be contacted in perpetuity, that would mean the rights holder would be able to dictate how the work is interpreted for eternity.

It is funny that you mention Farhenheit 451. All those people preserving all those book, a right which you would deny them. In the meantime, I'll keep defending books from the bookburners.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

With over 280 posts to this point, I hope that the purpose of the OP is not forgotten, and that people are signing the petition in post #1!

I don't qualify. But I would if I could. My husband would if he had an actual USA address. He's technically a USAian but has lived here since he was 2.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

What's your point? I never claimed that adaptations could not be made from works that were under copyright. If copyright is eternal, once the rights holder can no longer be contacted, no adaptations can be made. Even if we suppose that the rights holder will be able to be contacted in perpetuity, that would mean the rights holder would be able to dictate how the work is interpreted for eternity.

I support very liberal orphan laws. If the rights holders can't be determined, then the works go into public domain. If the rights holders can be determined and they refuse, too bad. It's their right.

It is funny that you mention Farhenheit 451. All those people preserving all those book, a right which you would deny them. In the meantime, I'll keep defending books from the bookburners.

I wouldn't prevent them from memorizing books. There's nothing illegal about doing so. Copyright issues would probably ensue if one were to "read it aloud" to a "group" of people. That could be construed to be a performance. Regardless; in F451, copyright no longer exists and those dissidents are lawbreakers.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You are claiming that there exists a natural right to copyright. You can't then turn around and say that everything is government granted.

Everything is government granted. My point in making the statement in question was to point out that everything one has or can't have and does or can't do, is because government allows or disallows it.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And as I am pretty sure I said earlier....

1) Internet petitions aren't worth the electrons they're printed on.
2) Copyright will not be limited to 28 years any time soon. As in, not during our lifetimes.

1) Then why do you feel the need to dissuade people from signing it?

2) It doesn't matter if it's changed back to 28 years or not. It's important to let politicians know if you don't agree with the current life +70. Copyright has got to this ridiculous state because politicians knew that the average citizen doesn't care about copyright. It's not going to change until they understand that citizens are starting to care.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Everything is government granted. My point in making the statement in question was to point out that everything one has or can't have and does or can't do, is because government allows or disallows it.

No. You're claiming a natural right to copyright, which is incompatible with the view that everything is government granted.

You claim " If the rights holders can be determined and they refuse, too bad. It's their right." That is an unequivocal claim to a natural right to copyright.

But it is false that everything you have is because government allows it. In the absence of government, you can put up a fence, you can lock your door. You can put your goods in a safe. Government doesn't create physical property, all it does is enhance your ability to protect what you already have. Are you claiming that locks don't work without government?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Barcey

1) Then why do you feel the need to dissuade people from signing it?

2) It doesn't matter if it's changed back to 28 years or not. It's important to let politicians know if you don't agree with the current life +70. Copyright has got to this ridiculous state because politicians knew that the average citizen doesn't care about copyright. It's not going to change until they understand that citizens are starting to care.

It's wasted energy. Better to spend that energy fighting the next wave of copyright extension.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I see. 14 seems a tad strange too.

I could see a copyright of life +25 or +30, that would make sense to me. And it is not about getting access to free material in my case. I'm more than willing to pay for my reading pleasure. I just don't think descendants of an author (or inventor or composer) should be able to live a whole life in perpetual leisure based on what a parent produced. In my mind there is a difference between an entrepreneur making money and an author. An entrepreneur invests in a business and keeps on running it, if the children wants the benefit of that they need to keep that business alive, thereby providing income for those who work and depend on said business. In an author's case royalties keep coming in, and if an author, Kenzaburo Oe comes to mind, have a child with special needs, he will make sure, through investments and savings, that those needs are met even after his demise.

Many people live of the fruits of their parents labour or success, or of that of their grandparents, greatgrandparents etc.

Fortunes have been passed down for generations that have been made by a person's effort, luck such as having oil discovered on ones land (and owning the appropriate rights when it happened), criminal enterprises such as bootlegging, gambling, slumlording, running a successful bawdy house, or perhaps extortion or robbery.

Perhaps a closer analogy is the stock market. If a person inherits a good stock portfolio, they and their heirs can own them as long as the stocks exist. The can collect premiums, sell them outright, and generally have to do nothing to keep the company or companies in business. Should those stocks expire 28 years after the purchaser? Or perhaps revert to the public domain (government?) where they can be used to lower taxes? Possibly a bigger benefit to the majority of people than getting a free ebook.

Same with money in the bank, should the heirs only be allowed to collect interest for a certain number of years and then the money reverts to the public domain?

And property, is it any more unfair that people inherit a house or a farm or an apartment building, which will save them thousands of dollars or rent each year just because their parents purchased it and possibly make them money as well? Should it not revert to the public domain?

Most authors and their heirs receive very little royalties, if any, on books past a certain date. Sometimes royalty checks cost more to issue than the amount on them.

And out of print books generate no royalties at all. They are not out of print because of spite, but because they weren't selling. The rights holders are possibly unaware that they have these rights.

In most cases inabilty to track down the rights holders is not very credible. If the book was worth printing from the searchers viewpoint, genealogy experts could be hired and most likely would be successful. Anyone who wants to spend the money or the time could do this, even one of ourselves. But there is the somewhat bizarre expectation that someone else should do this for us.

If I read a book years ago and felt that it was really really important to read it again, I could make a personal effort, perhaps as little as wishing on a star or as great as spending time and money on it. Or more likely remembering it fondly and not let bitterness permeat my soul.

IMO authors deserve royalties and whether they get them for perpetuity or not does not concern me. If a book is so mind-blowingly wonderful that humanity would be poorer without it, does that mean does that mean the author should get nothing because everyone should have free access to the book today?

Seems to me we are intent on killing The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg here folks.

Helen

[QuantumIguana]

.....

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It's wasted energy. Better to spend that energy fighting the next wave of copyright extension.

It's the same battle.