How Copyright Makes Books and Music Disappear

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I don't think there is any chance of copyright terms being reduced, but it is still possible to keep copyright from being extended indefinitely. Advocates of eternal copyright like to point to Mark Twain's objection to copyright periods, but when he was writing, copyright had a maximum term of 42 years from publication, now it is life+70. If we had eternal copyright, he couldn't have written A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

Forgive my ignorance, but why not? Was it plagiaristic?

Helen

[kennyc]

He's probably appealing to 'derivitive work' but I'm not convinced it would have been considered that....

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

He's probably appealing to 'derivitive work' but I'm not convinced it would have been considered that....

Maybe, and maybe if it was he would have written something better I doubt it would have stopped him dead in his tracks. Not that many authors stopped dead in their tracks by copyright laws judging by the amount of books published these days although I would not necessarily view it as a bad thing if it was against the law to use 50 Shades of x as a title.

Helen

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

..... I would not necessarily view it as a bad thing if it was against the law to use 50 Shades of x as a title.

Helen

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Forgive my ignorance, but why not? Was it plagiaristic?

Helen

Not plagiarism, but derivative. For a clearer example, Disney made a living mining the public domain. The source material for a some of the Disney movies would have been under copyright if today's copyright terms had been in effect then.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

It's indisputably out of copyright in many countries, and might be out of copyright in the US as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steambo...pyright_status

Could Disney still sue for copying Steamboat Willie? Sure. And they might win today.

But as for further extending copyright, I think the SOPA defeat last year shows the netizens are now too strong for that.

I have one 1/2 oz gold piece that says the attempt will be made before 2022.
I have another that says it will get slipped in successfully (in a last minute negotiation before 2023, as a rider to some other bill.)

Bet?

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have one 1/2 oz gold piece that says the attempt will be made before 2022.
I have another that says it will get slipped in successfully (in a last minute negotiation before 2023, as a rider to some other bill.)

Bet?

I have a standard zinc penny that says it won't. He's an argumentative little fellow.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have one 1/2 oz gold piece that says the attempt will be made before 2022.

I think you would win. But only perhaps one bill in thirty introduced in the US Congress ever becomes law.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have another that says it will get slipped in successfully (in a last minute negotiation before 2023, as a rider to some other bill.)

Bet?

Sorry. If God spares us, and I'm wrong, you'll have to settle for the glory of knowing you were right.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

I have a standard zinc penny that says it won't. He's an argumentative little fellow.

If winning means coming up with the most clever refusal to take a bet, I fear you have me beat.

[Stephanos]

I've never gotten a good answer to the question of why patents expire after 20 years or so but copyrights last for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. I suspect it is because people wouldn't tolerate waiting a hundred years or more for a lifesaving drug or device that improves everyone's life to enter the public domain. In other words, the category of creations that is more important gets a shorter protection span.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Stephanos

I've never gotten a good answer to the question of why patents expire after 20 years or so but copyrights last for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. I suspect it is because people wouldn't tolerate waiting a hundred years or more for a lifesaving drug or device that improves everyone's life to enter the public domain. In other words, the category of creations that is more important gets a shorter protection span.

Could be, or could be arbitrary, or could be that publishing industries in general are not in the same league financially as pharmaceutical companies etc. Maybe public opinion is stronger. Not many have died from not getting a free book.

Helen

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Could be, or could be arbitrary, or could be that publishing industries in general are not in the same league financially as pharmaceutical companies etc. Maybe public opinion is stronger. Not many have died from not getting a free book.

Helen

Just politics.
The public isn't outraged that a big manufacturing company or pharmaceutical company loses monopoly rights, but get flummoxed by the poor starving widow of the author because the book is unprotected.

How the Disney Company gets the "widow's protection" I don't know.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Stephanos

I've never gotten a good answer to the question of why patents expire after 20 years or so but copyrights last for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. I suspect it is because people wouldn't tolerate waiting a hundred years or more for a lifesaving drug or device that improves everyone's life to enter the public domain. In other words, the category of creations that is more important gets a shorter protection span.

Patents and copyrights are very different things. What follows is very much a layperson's perspective, I have no legal grounding for these thoughts.

Typically a patent only applies to portion of what you will see in an end product (perhaps only a very small portion, there often many patents in involved in any one product). A patent covers an invention or process that is used in the manufacture of goods, and as such often invokes a direct public interest in its availability. For many inventions it can be argued that someone else would have got there eventually, often very soon (and there are many examples of two or more coming to the same result at close to the same time). Together these argue for reduced protection in order that public interest is best served.

Copyright applies to a completed item. It does not cover the concepts or ideas that may be presented in that item. It is highly unlikely that anyone else would have come up with an identical (for copyright purposes) item. As such it is difficult to argue exactly what public interest will be served by reducing protection to any extent that may reduce the incentive for a creator to publish their work.

With books in particular there is a very large cost (time and money) involved in going from the raw first draft to the final published work. Without significant incentive an artist may well choose to leave the first draft the drawer (and many do, even famous authors). How is the public interest served by discouraging publication? The period of protection is, of course, up for argument, but keep in mind that only a small percentage of authors become best sellers. Many books will never see a return on their time investment, many won't even recoup the direct cash outlay in their production.

Previously it has been argued that books no longer being available is a problem and so "public interest" is served by limiting the period of copyright. As I noted above, ebooks and print-on-demand are reducing the impact of the "out of print" argument. If the book remains available, what "public interest" still exists to remove copyright protection? (I'm not trying to argue for unlimited periods of copyright, I don't believe that is necessary, but it is difficult to see how the public actually benefits from removal of copyright (if the book remains available) other than getting their free-lunch if they're will to wait for it.)

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by usuallee

Obviously it's different with artists, but c'mon, I think 50 years - a whole half century! - is more than fair. Can you imagine, the Beatles catalog would be coming into the public domain. Obviously, the powers that be will never let that happen.

Currently in the UK, copyright in sound recordings lasts for 50 years. There is an EU directive that must be implemented into UK law by 1 November 2013 that will extend the term to 70 years.

Various artists fought hard to get the term extended (which was originally going to be 95 years, not 70). It amuses me that Roger Daltry, the man who sang "hope I die before I get old" in one of his songs, fought for the extension, complaining that without it, he wouldn't have a pension

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lazer

I'm about to publish my third book. Why would I not want it copyrighted? Writing, proofing, and editing a novel takes a very large effort. Why would anyone take on such a task without copyright protection?

Maybe because they really want to write the book because they have something to say?