Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Nope.
If you inherit a huge fortune you can just live your entire life on the interest, without ever lifting a finger.
How much labor is Paris Hilton doing?



You've just defined the idle rich.
They made money the old-fashioned way, they inherited it.

The distinction is that the "idle rich" are not perceived as being able to control access to average individual's choices.

The fact that, say Paris Hilton, does nothing but sleep around, does not affect my ability to, say, raise petunias. Or at best only indirectly.

Copyright and patent does affect the control access to individual choices. And that grates on many people.

If I buy a car, I can drive it or push it over a cliff. My choice, I bought it. Same for any physical item.

But I lose all my choices when I buy something copyrighted. I can do what I want to the physical wrapper (if it exists) but nothing to the information itself.

My choices, (which didn't exist 50 years ago), have been limited sharply.

Now, I can see benefit for limiting my choices for a period of time. It get me more information to access. But it should be limited.

The result is the economic equivalent of feudalism, with the copyright holders being the lords, and the consumers being the peasants. And the power (copyright) getting passed down to the next lord as inheretance. Just like countries used to be.

I don't believe in the Divine Right of Copyright....

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The distinction is that the "idle rich" are not perceived as being able to control access to average individual's choices.

If they own a large area of land, you are not allowed to use that land. If the land had reverted to public ownership, you would be allowed to use it.
If they own the copyright to a large number of works, you are not allowed to copy those works. If the works had reverted to public ownership, you would be allowed to copy them.

The result is the economic equivalent of feudalism, with the copyright holders being the lords, and the consumers being the peasants. And the power (copyright) getting passed down to the next lord as inheretance. Just like countries used to be.

Used to be? That is exactly how land ownership works.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by tompe

The request was for a few hundred authors. But Stieg Larsson did not die young and he probably would have hated that his parent and brother got the money so a pretty bad example anyway.

You might not have thought that it was young but many would disagree with you -as I am sure would he. He had just turned fifty.

What he might have felt about his father and brother has little to with the point being made. As for hundreds, as I stated, most best selling writers left family. Their copyrighted works as valid as real property when it comes to probate.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

You might not have thought that it was young but many would disagree with you -as I am sure would he. He had just turned fifty.

At fifty he had about thirty years of a working career. That's not young. If he couldn't make money in thirty years, he has no sympathy from me.

Maybe it's because I tend to value science more highly than art, but this whole copyright thing strikes me as offensive, in the words of an earlier poster.

If someone creates a useful invention, it only gets protection for 20 years. Why should life saving drugs, or machines that enable you to grow more food, or even spaceflight (SpaceX, not NASA) be valued less than entertainment?

And yet, if we increased the length of a patent, it would cripple our scientific, and economic, progress. Witness the state of the software industry. I can't in good conscience support a longer patent. And in doing so, I can't support this insanely longer copyright term. Even if an author dies the day after publishing, the item is still controlled for 3.5 times as long as an invention.

That's just wrong.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

At fifty he had about thirty years of a working career. That's not young.

Spoken like a child. What stupid thing to be arguing about. Life expectancy reaches into the 80s these days. 50 is young to die in the developed world.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ApK

Spoken like a child. What stupid thing to be arguing about. Life expectancy reaches into the 80s these days. 50 is young to die.

Spoken like someone going through a mid life crisis.

At 50, he's past his half way mark according to that life expectancy. He may have gone before expected, but that doesn't make him young.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

At fifty he had about thirty years of a working career. That's not young. If he couldn't make money in thirty years, he has no sympathy from me.

Maybe it's because I tend to value science more highly than art, but this whole copyright thing strikes me as offensive, in the words of an earlier poster.

If someone creates a useful invention, it only gets protection for 20 years. Why should life saving drugs, or machines that enable you to grow more food, or even spaceflight (SpaceX, not NASA) be valued less than entertainment?

And yet, if we increased the length of a patent, it would cripple our scientific, and economic, progress. Witness the state of the software industry. I can't in good conscience support a longer patent. And in doing so, I can't support this insanely longer copyright term. Even if an author dies the day after publishing, the item is still controlled for 3.5 times as long as an invention.

That's just wrong.

In many Jurisdictions patents apply for a short term - usually four years - and have to be regularly renewed. There is little chance of a valuable patent being allowed lapse while within its renewal window.

Maybe that would be a better system, copyright that lapses unless renewed every four or five years.

You also ignore the fact that interest in a writer's works and its genre go through phases of renewed popularity. A person with a copyright doesn't necessarily have to make all income from it in a short span of time, they have an income stream that varies depending on interest. Look at the new Reacher movie. That will stimulate interest in Lee Child's books, many of which are more than ten years old. Do you think that he will not have an increase in income from his copyrighted works once the movie is released? They are also in the preliminary stages of making a movie about another writer's work, one whom Jim Grant/Lee Child credits with being inspirational to him; John D. MacDonald and his Jack Reacher inspiration, Travis McGee. MacDonald's early works date to the fifties, his Travis McGee series to the early sixties. (The Travis McGee series has never been entirely out of print.)

BTW, what am I supposed to "witness" about the software industry? It seems fine to me. As increasingly bloated and as inept as it ever was.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Patents apply for a short term - usually four years - and have to be regularly renewed.

What country are you talking about, as a matter of interest? In most countries (almost all the signatory nations of the World Trade Organisation, for example), patents are granted for a period of 20 years (14 years for design patents) and cannot be renewed. What country grants patents for only four years and allows them to be renewed?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

The difference, to me, is that the inheritors you mention have to keep up the labor of their predecessors if they want to reap that fruit. The inheritors of authors and musicians don't have to lift a finger. Our societies are built on the premise that we produce, some produce more than others, but still, to have a functional society we are expected to produce. Some of us are physically or mentally not capable, we do our best to take care of those, some societies do more some do less.
So from societies vantage point it seems strange that we would grant some people that are fully capable of being productive members of society a life in perpetual unproductivitiness.

Actually these days if someone were to take over my books/copyright, there would be work involved and that is going to be more true in the future. Someone has to maintain the accounts, handle any reformatting for new devices, upload them and so on. The covers that may fit today's style will likely have to be reworked and reissued. If someone wants to make any money off my works they are going to have to be out there selling and promoting and that job is not unlike a 9 to 5 selling cars. No one is doing it for me and no one would be doing it for my heirs.

If contract terms change (and they will; they've changed 3 times just with Amazon in the last 5 years) with Amazon, Kobo, Apple and others, someone will have to make decisions about where to sell the books and how to sell them.

POD abilities are changing all the time. I've had to re-upload new files (just recently) in order to be able to better price them. That technology is going to get better and faster and to make money, it has to be watched, followed and acted upon. There will be better, more competitive options.

So I don't think you have to sit and worry that anyone isn't working. If they don't work, they won't make money off my works. The vast majority of authors will be in my shoes--there are only a small number of Pattersons and Rowlings out there.

If I was heir to land, I'd still have to work it. Just like books, it would sit there unused otherwise, so I'd either have to rent it or sell it.

I think I'll bow out of the conversation now as it is depressing for me to see how few people value writers' work and believe the monies shouldn't support the writer (or for very long). Because of my love of reading, I honestly thought people understood how much work, effort and sacrifice went into a book or at least respected that effort (whether it is good or not, makes money or not.)

I'm surprised to see how many think that PD is more important and that it somehow applies to books when it doesn't apply to land or other talents.

I get that PD is important. I understand that very well, but there's definitely a lack of support for the writer being able to make a living in some of these posts, a lack of caring about the writer and pointing to a faceless "greater good."

I have enjoyed the discussion, but I'm off to immerse myself in other things. It's always good to see different POV and to better understand human nature.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What country are you talking about, as a matter of interest? In most countries (almost all the signatory nations of the World Trade Organisation, for example), patents are granted for a period of 20 years (14 years for design patents) and cannot be renewed. What country grants patents for only four years and allows them to be renewed?

The term is still a minimum of twenty years, but they require regular renewal rather than being granted for an outright period. If you fail to renew you have a six month grace period and then the patent lapses. I have a long term friend - dating back to University days - who holds several dozen patents - he is forever having to arrange renewals. The fees are horrendous.

Google "renewing a patent".

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Nope.
If you inherit a huge fortune you can just live your entire life on the interest, without ever lifting a finger.
How much labor is Paris Hilton doing?.

Well, she does have to keep moving to keep her legs facing the camera.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I'm surprised to see how many think that PD is more important and that it somehow applies to books when it doesn't apply to land or other talents.

It does apply to other talents, that's why we have patents as well as copyright, but this is a book forum, and we've been asked more than once in this thread to focus on books.

It doesn't apply to land because no one creates land.
No need for incentives to get people to make more land.
What's there is there and everyone needs to live on some of it.
Some might argue no one should own land, but that's a different topic.
If one day people learn to develop planets to live on, there may very well be a law that says the terraformers get some sort of incentive, and then the land is made available for the greater good.

And the greater good is not faceless. Just look in a mirror. Or at a child.

The fact of the matter is no one owes you a living doing what you want. If books were not thought to be important to the greater good, you'd have to find some other way to put bread on the table.* Go dig ditches. People need ditches dug and are willing to pay people to dig them.

But we DO think books are important, so we create copyright to HELP you earn a living doing it. Rather than complain that the help need to be more of a guarantee, I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way.**

ApK

*Or find some other way to monetize your writing.
**K to the first person who gets that reference.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

It does apply to other talents, that's why we have patents as well as copyright, but this is a book forum, and we've been asked more than once in this thread to focus on books.

It doesn't apply to land because no one creates land.
No need for incentives to get people to make more land.
What's there is there and people need to live on it.
Some might argue no one should own land, but that's a different topic.
If one day people learn to develop planets to live on, there may very well be a law that says the terraformers get some sort of incentive, and then the land is made available for the greater good.

And the greater good is not faceless. Just look in a mirror. Or at a child.

ApK

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Patent and copyright are clearly temporary, as opposed to land. We can debate how long copyright should be, but eternal copyright would require a constitutional amendment. The benefits aren't faceless. Patents are where we can see this more clearly. We wouldn't have the technology we have today if patents were eternal, because our technology is based on inventions that have entered the public domain after their exclusivity has expired.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

but eternal copyright would require a constitutional amendment.

Not necessarily.There'd be ways around that. A limited term of 1,000,000 years and a sympathetic SCOTUS would be one way. The mechanism that keeps our Army continuously existent while the Constitution says they can only fund a standing Army for 2 years is another possibility, but I digress.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

Not necessarily.There'd be ways around that. A limited term of 1,000,000 years and a sympathetic SCOTUS would be one way. The mechanism that keeps our Army continuously existent while the Constitution says they can only fund a standing Army for 2 years is another possibility, but I digress.

To allow a 1,000,000 year copyright, the court would have to rule that 1,000,000 years constituted "limited times". No reasonable person would reach that conclusion, but people are sometimes unreasonable. So far, the Supreme Court has ruled that extensions haven't violated limited times, but that's not the same as saying anything short of infinity is limited times.

As far as the standing army goes, Congress follows the letter of the law by reauthorizing it with each Congress. The people who wrote the Constitution may not have wanted a standing army, but they gave the power to have one indefinately, so long as it was voted on every 2 years.