Duration of copyright poll.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Format C:

There is no paradox in it.
An author makes money during his life just like any other worker do.
His heirs have the right to keep that money (if the author didn't spend all of it), just like every other heir in the western world.
So, they will have the author's money.

In the situation of a comatose kept alive by machines: when those are turned off, the heirs lose the author's disability pension and the old-age one, if any.
In the same way they have to lose the Intellectual property rights. Their intellect has nothing to do with the dead author's work.

In my dreams, the copyright ends at the very moment a doctor signs a death certificate.

But why is it any more sensefull of the heirs getting money, while the ancestor is near-dead?

What about someone murdering an author because he wants his works to "be free" (and gets away with it, i.e. it cannot be determined who the murder was). Now suppose she is mother of a 6-year old. Then suddendly this kid will not only lose her mother, but also any financial backing she would have had, of the work her mother had already done, if only she would not have died?

Its so paradox, don't you see it?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by axel77

What about someone murdering an author because he wants his works to "be free" (and gets away with it, i.e. it cannot be determined who the murder was). Now suppose she is mother of a 6-year old....

I think this is an extraordinarily unlikely scenario, and I think the problem is a society that leaves 6-year-old children without means of support, no matter what happens to their parents. The child of an author has the same needs as the child of a construction worker, after all.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I think this is an extraordinarily unlikely scenario, and I think the problem is a society that leaves 6-year-old children without means of support, no matter what happens to their parents. The child of an author has the same needs as the child of a construction worker, after all.

Well the point is the parentes *did* already do a job that would have brough X dollars into the family. When it was a construction worker, he/she would already have been paid for their work. When it is an author, they well get decreased revenues for the same work, just because they died early on, in this death clause?

[Falbe Publishing]

I voted for the current death + 70 years. As someone who has copyrighted several works, I definitely want full rights to my creations for the entirety of my life. To think that a flat 25 or 50 years would suffice is unjust. I'd hate to see my work enter the public domain while I was still alive. Imagine if you built a house and 50 years later, you no longer had any right to hold the deed? Or to pass it on to your heirs? Horrible.

Although I admit that I am obscure and likely to remain that way, I can still dream that my creative efforts will create a legacy for my heirs. Even a modest legacy or even a tiny legacy is worth having.

I can't see where allowing copyrighted works to remain the possession of their creators harms anyone. The public domain will have its share in due time.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by axel77

Well the point is the parentes *did* already do a job that would have brough X dollars into the family.

The parents could have sold the rights to their work for Y dollars (maybe X>Y, or maybe Y>X) and have all that money in a bank account.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Falbe Publishing

To think that a flat 25 or 50 years would suffice is unjust. I'd hate to see my work enter the public domain while I was still alive. Imagine if you built a house and 50 years later, you no longer had any right to hold the deed? Or to pass it on to your heirs? Horrible.

But the value of your house is totally unrelated to your expected lifetime. Why should the work of creating a copyrighted work have a different value dependent if you live longer or shorter?

To put it simply: You write book X, in total this work is worth Y dollars. You can pass Y dollars to your heirs. I agree the difficulty with intellectual work is that it proofs its value only over time, and nearly impossible to determine in forehand. Thats why a publisher will not give you Y dollars the moment you sell him the book, and then market it himself. He gives you money dependent on the worth this book proofes itself (how often it sells in the coming decades).

I don't understand why any flat rate should be unjust. One can argue how long a copyrighted intellectual work should be protected to give you a revenue that justifies the work and genius put into it. However I don't get it, why this value should depent on your life time. Okay when you can convince me that 50 years is not enough, maybe make it 100 years flat. I just can't get it in my head why the work of a young author should be more worth than the work of an old. The young author can save the revenues of his book until death and bequeath it to the children + the remaining copyright time after his death, why the old one can only bequeath the copyright, which in total was hold a quite shorter time.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Jellby

The parents could have sold the rights to their work for Y dollars (maybe X>Y, or maybe Y>X) and have all that money in a bank account.

Thats not the way it runs. As the buyer usually doesn't have a clue how much money the rights are worth, thats why AFAIK publishers give you "revenue by sales" deals.

Also AFAIk even when you sell exclusively the copyright, the length it is valid depends on *your* life, not on the one who buys it.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by axel77

But why is it any more sensefull of the heirs getting money, while the ancestor is near-dead?

What about someone murdering an author because he wants his works to "be free" (and gets away with it, i.e. it cannot be determined who the murder was). Now suppose she is mother of a 6-year old. Then suddendly this kid will not only lose her mother, but also any financial backing she would have had, of the work her mother had already done, if only she would not have died?

Its so paradox, don't you see it?

And what if nobody bought the book?
We need a law to force everybody to buy books written by mothers...

And what about mothers who are ACTUALLY killed for a five dollars bill? How will eternal copyright protect them?



Come on!
In my country orphans do not starve! They are taken care of!
And the same care applies to the writer's orphan and to the farmer's one...

That's democracy.

I'm beginning to suppose that you think writers (or in general content producers) as an aristocracy who has more rights than anyone else.
Am I wrong?

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by axel77

Thats not the way it runs. As the buyer usually doesn't have a clue how much money the rights are worth, thats why AFAIK publishers give you "revenue by sales" deals.

And that's exactly the problem with creative works, you don't get paid in accordance to your work or effort, but depending on how much it sells. Then, if a book takes, say, 6 months to write, would a writer consider it fair to sell its rights for a money equivalent to a 6-month salary? regardless of the success it may have in the future, whether there are movies made or not, etc.? If not, why not?

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I'm beginning to suppose that you think writers (or in general content producers) as an aristocracy who has more rights than anyone else.
Am I wrong?

Actually its the opposite, since any death+X clause gives IMHO authors a right no one else in our society has, that is the value of your work be determined by your life expectations.

Of course orphans don't starve, but say someone wrote 20 years of his/her life on a to become bestseller, and the day after the s/he gave the final copy to the publisher s/he dies of any cause you may imagine for that story. Why should it be fair, that this work is suddendly free? And the kids get nothing? Especially if say he daugther financed all the 20 years, believing in her mother, that what she does is something really worthwhile and paid for her rent&food&extra.

I really don't get it in my head, why the exact point of death of the author should make any casual influence on the work...

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by axel77

Well the point is the parentes *did* already do a job that would have brough X dollars into the family. When it was a construction worker, he/she would already have been paid for their work. When it is an author, they well get decreased revenues for the same work, just because they died early on, in this death clause?

Mommy got paid for the job with an advance. Mommy has been being paid for that same work for years. And nobody, not even Nostradamus, can say "that book will earn me X dollars".
The poor orphan child will get all the royalties of the sales occurred while mom was alive (and, please, don't ask "what if mum died the very same day of the book publishing?": you can't deny education to millions of real poor klids to make a non-existent writer's child a billionaire. The poor unlucky child who loses both the parents, the four grand-parents and every other relative the same day he will go to an orphanage, like every one in the same situation)

Look at the balance: at one side we have billions of poor children who may have an education, books for free, music for free or near-free and so on with a death or a death+1 copyright.
On the another side we have one single six years old orphan, and a couple of kids with a writer daddy in a coma or brain dead who won't be richer than they are now.

Whose side are you on?

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Jellby

And that's exactly the problem with creative works, you don't get paid in accordance to your work or effort, but depending on how much it sells. Then, if a book takes, say, 6 months to write, would a writer consider it fair to sell its rights for a money equivalent to a 6-month salary? regardless of the success it may have in the future, whether there are movies made or not, etc.? If not, why not?

Well, I would say in an ideal world, yes, the revenue of a book writing an avarage writer taking 6 months should be valued for salary of 6 months + a little extra. While this robs Rowling Millions, it would give a very large number authors a real income, they can reckon with, and having a "real" job. However there is an implication of quality. So yes a qualitative work should be worth more than a less qualitative. And the only messure we have about quality, is the amount of sales...

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Format C:

(and, please, don't ask "what if mum died the very same day of the book publishing?"

No I will! What if mum died the very same day of the book publishing?

Would her work then have been in vain?

On the another side we have one single six years old orphan, and a couple of kids with a writer daddy in a coma or brain dead who won't be richer than they are now.

Whose side are you on?

Well in your death clause the kids with the writer daddy being brain dead will be richer. And of course they will never turn of the machines keeping his body alive, since it will turn of any revenues of his copyrighted work.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Falbe Publishing

I voted for the current death + 70 years. As someone who has copyrighted several works, I definitely want full rights to my creations for the entirety of my life. To think that a flat 25 or 50 years would suffice is unjust. I'd hate to see my work enter the public domain while I was still alive. Imagine if you built a house and 50 years later, you no longer had any right to hold the deed? Or to pass it on to your heirs? Horrible.

Although I admit that I am obscure and likely to remain that way, I can still dream that my creative efforts will create a legacy for my heirs. Even a modest legacy or even a tiny legacy is worth having.

I can't see where allowing copyrighted works to remain the possession of their creators harms anyone. The public domain will have its share in due time.

Wait.
Books are not houses.
Your kids can keep every single ounce of paper those books are printed on for their whole life. Just like the house.
But, after you're no longer with us (somewhere in the next 200 years), I can write another book with the same story. Just like I can build another identical house.

If you give away your house, it's no longer yours.
If you give away a story, it's still yours. And it's mine. And it's Axel's....

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by axel77

Actually its the opposite, since any death+X clause gives IMHO authors a right no one else in our society has, that is the value of your work be determined by your life expectations.

Of course orphans don't starve, but say someone wrote 20 years of his/her life on a to become bestseller, and the day after the s/he gave the final copy to the publisher s/he dies of any cause you may imagine for that story. Why should it be fair, that this work is suddendly free? And the kids get nothing? Especially if say he daugther financed all the 20 years, believing in her mother, that what she does is something really worthwhile and paid for her rent&food&extra.

I really don't get it in my head, why the exact point of death of the author should make any casual influence on the work...

OK.
Now I've got your point.

And, honestly, I can give with it, being itself much better than what we have now.