How long should a copyright last?

[Kevin8or]

20 - 25 years, regardless of death. The objective of copyright is to encourage creative production. Few people who aren't motivated by 20 years of copyright will change their mind if you increase it to 50. "Oh, now it's worth my effort to write that book." Society receives diminishing returns as it lengthens copyright. Make no mistake, while authors benefit from copyright, it's purpose is to enrich society.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

20 - 25 years, regardless of death. The objective of copyright is to encourage creative production. Few people who aren't motivated by 20 years of copyright will change their mind if you increase it to 50. "Oh, now it's worth my effort to write that book." Society receives diminishing returns as it lengthens copyright. Make no mistake, while authors benefit from copyright, it's purpose is to enrich society.

Absolutely. But it's not going to happen because of international treaties. The best we can hope for is a return to life+50.

[calvin-c]

Many posts compare copyrights to patents. Something I'd like to note about the difference is the purpose. Both protect innovation-but the purpose of a patent is for the innovator to publish the innovation in exchange for protection. Copyright might work that way in some areas but not for most protected works. (I can see a painter keeping his artwork to himself but I imagine it would be highly unusual. I can't see a writer doing so at all.) Publishing innovation spurs further innovation but not protecting innovation stifles it-at least so the theory goes. And it does seem to work that way with patents-I'm not so sure it applies to copyrights. (Patents are a very different problem because they can protect the ideas themselves. I'm not sure this is the best forum in which to discuss patent law.)

[Greg Anos]

Hitch,
I hear your pain about this discussion. There isn't going to be an agreement between us, and I'd like to describe why, in detail.

The value of work:

You state that an author works as hard as anybody else. No arguement, they do. Do they work harder than a heart surgeon, an inventor, a 24x7 on-call computer programmer, or a police officer or a EMS tech? Ah, now that is a more interesting question. You have great difficulty convincing me that authors do work <harder> than those other sorts of labor.

What is the value of their compensation? You state the speculative nature of their work. Maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn't. Therefore they need greater incentive. Why is what they do any different from any other entenpreneur? If I build a successful business, I have created an ownership in that business.

Where does this split from the copyright concept? Under normal business circumstances, anybody else is free to build an exact replica of my goods or services offered by my business. The only thing that might stop them is if they infringed on existing patents or trademarks. But patents only last 20 years, and trademarks only last as long as they are used.

So if I wanted to build exact replicas of 1957 Chevrolets as a business, there would be no patent constraints (they would have all expired) but there <would be> trademark constraints. GM still uses Chevrolet as a trademark. So my replica 1957 Chevy couldn't use any GM trdemarks on it. If I decided to build replica 1953 Hudsons, I could use all the Hudson trademarks, as they have been abandoned for decades. (Trademarks are only maintained through use. Stop using them, they stop being valid. However, your judge (like your mileage) may vary...)

However, by law, I can't build an exact replica of a work under copyright. That's what copyright is for. It is a granted limited monopoly, by a society who does not think monpolies are good things. It is not, repeat <not> property, no matter how many times people want to call it that, in order to claim the benefits of real property.

That's where the difference between being a typical enterpreneur and being an author occurs. Competition. An entenpreneur has exact copy competition risk, a holder of a monopoly does not, <for that monopoly>. It may (usually does) compete with other monopolies for the same general market, but it has no competition for it's <particular> monopoly's market. That is something that no other entenpreneur, or other form of labor has.

Is it justified, and if so, for how long?


Copyright, it's causes and consequences:

Copyright first came into existence in England, in 1714, with the Statue of Anne. It granted a monpoly of 14 years, flat. The purpose was to encourage new creative works of writing. Unsurprisingly, it succeeded.

The US embedded copyright and patent monopolies into the US Constition. It also embedded the concept that these were limited, expiring monopolies. The first legislation to define them set them both at 14 + 14 years. Only in the revision of Copyright of 1909 was Copyright given a longer length that Patent. It was set at 28 + 28 years. I note this as until this point, Patent and Copyright were considered equals with equal protection under the law. The 1909 legislature vioded that point. I won't go into the further lengthenings, for brevity.

The sole purpose, as clearly stated in the US Constitution, was to encourage progress in the arts and industries. Not to support heirs, not to provide income to businesses in perpetuity, but to provide economic incentives for people to create - period. So the length of copyright should be set on the basis of whether or not it meets the purpose of causing works to be created, nothing else.

When you look upon the period of 1909-1976, a wide variety of arts were created, under the terms of 1909. So many items were created, that the the burden of proof is on the people who believe that longer copyrights actually caused more works to be created, after allowing for all other reason for creation have been take into account. (Still, Life + 50 or 70 years flat, or some other point may be shown to optimal. Evidence needs to be provided, not economic advantage of existing copyright holders.)

One final point. Once and item has been created, you cannot claim that later extensions of copyright would have had any effect on the items created on the existing terms. A writer or movie make in 1930, could not have know that their works's copyright would be extended multiple times <at the time these works were created>. Therefore they could have only based their long term value based on the laws as they wer at the time of creation.

Now, Hitch, if you disagree with any of the above. We can discuss the points. I've tried to "show my work" just like in a mathematical problem. If there is a flaw, let me know. But you seem to have a value base at odds with what I have described. Because of that, we'll never agree...(In my opinion (which may be totally wrong) you confuse the laws of Patent, Trademark, and Copyright with the laws of real property. That is not surprising, people in favor of more and more copyright love to call thes monopolies "Intellectual Property", so that people think the <are> property, with all the rules of property (particularly perpetuity) attached. That's not what the law is, nor has it ever been.)

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Absolutely. But it's not going to happen because of international treaties. The best we can hope for is a return to life+50.

This would be a pertinent comment if the question had been, "Do you think we can shorten copyright?" But the question is, "How long should a copyright last?" making this appeal to pragmatism irrelevant.

rjb

[gmw]

I know it wasn't directed at me, Ralph Sir Edward, but the point about businesses competing by making exactly the same physical product doesn't compare well with copyright. Manufacture of goods is always governed by many things: quality and availability of the parts, quality and availability of the labour, and so on. It's on these sorts of attributes that such businesses compete. To a certain extent this also applies to paper books as a physical product, but it doesn't apply well to something like the story itself - unless you are suggesting we see many different versions of the same book being produced: here's a copy of Harry Potter with more adverbs, here's a copy of Harry Potter with all the parts I thought were boring cut out of it, and here's a copy of Harry Potter with some sex scenes added.

I guess that might work as a business model (if you can get the parts to sell that way), and the result might be intriguing, but I can't see it offering much incentive to original creators - who would be put off by combined disincentives of lack of financial reward and having their work changed by every one who wanted to have a go at it.

The issue of "real property" was discussed earlier. Our ability to own something as a property, to buy, sell, inherit etc., even physical things, is a privilege we enjoy thanks to society and the law and structure it imposes. Without those, the property belongs to anyone strong enough to take it for themselves (and there is plenty of evidence of that throughout history). Copyright is just another law protecting property. And it is a property. The creator doesn't have to share their creation at all, even without copyright they can sell it to someone without sharing it with others, they could pass it on to their children and so on, all the things you expect of a property. BUT it is difficult to share more widely without giving it away to everyone. So society makes a bargain, share it and we will agree to give you a monopoly on exploitation for some period of time, after which it is available to everyone. The creator gives up their perpetual, but financially unrewarding, ownership of the property, for a limited time but potentially financially rewarding monopoly.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by gmw

Copyright is just another law protecting property. And it is a property. The creator doesn't have to share their creation at all, even without copyright they can sell it to someone without sharing it with others, they could pass it on to their children and so on, all the things you expect of a property. BUT it is difficult to share more widely without giving it away to everyone. So society makes a bargain, share it and we will agree to give you a monopoly on exploitation for some period of time, after which it is available to everyone. The creator gives up their perpetual, but financially unrewarding, ownership of the property, for a limited time but potentially financially rewarding monopoly.

Another failed attempt to conflate rights with property. The fact that the example used to illustrate it was the creation (painting, manuscript) and not the copyright shows its weakness. The right has some property-like attributes, but that is all. Trying to equate rights with property will lead to ridiculous results. My right to vote is property. My right to turn right on a red light is property, etc.

rjb

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Another failed attempt to conflate rights with property. The fact that the example used to illustrate it was the creation (painting, manuscript) and not the copyright shows its weakness. The right has some property-like attributes, but that is all. Trying to equate rights with property will lead to ridiculous results. My right to vote is property. My right to turn right on a red light is property, etc.

rjb

The difference is that you can sell a copyright or a patent, but you can't sell your right to vote. The former is transferable, but the latter is not.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The difference is that you can sell a copyright or a patent, but you can't sell your right to vote. The former is transferable, but the latter is not.

Oh, I don't know, you can get a price in some parts of the US....

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The difference is that you can sell a copyright or a patent, but you can't sell your right to vote. The former is transferable, but the latter is not.

As I said, some attributes.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

I know it wasn't directed at me, Ralph Sir Edward, but the point about businesses competing by making exactly the same physical product doesn't compare well with copyright. Manufacture of goods is always governed by many things: quality and availability of the parts, quality and availability of the labour, and so on. It's on these sorts of attributes that such businesses compete. To a certain extent this also applies to paper books as a physical product, but it doesn't apply well to something like the story itself - unless you are suggesting we see many different versions of the same book being produced: here's a copy of Harry Potter with more adverbs, here's a copy of Harry Potter with all the parts I thought were boring cut out of it, and here's a copy of Harry Potter with some sex scenes added.

I guess that might work as a business model (if you can get the parts to sell that way), and the result might be intriguing, but I can't see it offering much incentive to original creators - who would be put off by combined disincentives of lack of financial reward and having their work changed by every one who wanted to have a go at it.

The issue of "real property" was discussed earlier. Our ability to own something as a property, to buy, sell, inherit etc., even physical things, is a privilege we enjoy thanks to society and the law and structure it imposes. Without those, the property belongs to anyone strong enough to take it for themselves (and there is plenty of evidence of that throughout history). Copyright is just another law protecting property. And it is a property. The creator doesn't have to share their creation at all, even without copyright they can sell it to someone without sharing it with others, they could pass it on to their children and so on, all the things you expect of a property. BUT it is difficult to share more widely without giving it away to everyone. So society makes a bargain, share it and we will agree to give you a monopoly on exploitation for some period of time, after which it is available to everyone. The creator gives up their perpetual, but financially unrewarding, ownership of the property, for a limited time but potentially financially rewarding monopoly.

An exact clone of a product can be made. Whether there is an economic incentive to make one is another question. You only see exact duplications where the duplications are significantly cheaper than the original. The economic advantage under those circumstances is the advantage of price.

Somebody might be willing to pay a premium for something that could no longer be bought, if none existed anymore.

Few businesses do this, but not no businesses. There is a minor business making fake copies of famous paintings. Everybody knows they are fake, they are even marked as fake. A fake Rembrandt might cost me $10,000, but a real one...(and if the difference is nearly indistiguishable...)

Of course most businesses differenitate their product, uniqueness is a business advantage wherer there is no "I.P." involved. But it's not necessary.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Another failed attempt to conflate rights with property. The fact that the example used to illustrate it was the creation (painting, manuscript) and not the copyright shows its weakness. The right has some property-like attributes, but that is all. Trying to equate rights with property will lead to ridiculous results. My right to vote is property. My right to turn right on a red light is property, etc.

So how many 'property' attributes must a right have before it does become property? IMO it only requires 1-the attribute of transferability. If you can transfer your right to somebody else then it's property. But that's JMHO. (Or maybe that should be JMO-it's not often that I'm truly humble.)

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by gmw

I know it wasn't directed at me, Ralph Sir Edward, but the point about businesses competing by making exactly the same physical product doesn't compare well with copyright. Manufacture of goods is always governed by many things: quality and availability of the parts, quality and availability of the labour, and so on. It's on these sorts of attributes that such businesses compete. To a certain extent this also applies to paper books as a physical product, but it doesn't apply well to something like the story itself - unless you are suggesting we see many different versions of the same book being produced: here's a copy of Harry Potter with more adverbs, here's a copy of Harry Potter with all the parts I thought were boring cut out of it, and here's a copy of Harry Potter with some sex scenes added.

Actually this is done with copyright-although I'm not sure how often. It requires that the creator retain the copyright while contracting with a company (e.g. publisher) to produce the product. One publisher might produce the paper book, another might produce the audio book and yet a third might produce the ebook. Or, more commonly, one publisher might produce the book in the US, another might produce the book in the UK, a third might produce the book in Europe, etc.

BTW, businesses also compete on customer service. It seems as if that competition is becoming rare, but it's still around if you look for it. Exact same product, different service. Sometimes different warranty (which I consider a branch of customer service).

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Another failed attempt to conflate rights with property. The fact that the example used to illustrate it was the creation (painting, manuscript) and not the copyright shows its weakness. The right has some property-like attributes, but that is all. Trying to equate rights with property will lead to ridiculous results. My right to vote is property. My right to turn right on a red light is property, etc.

rjb

Well, not to hair-split, but, unfortunately, law does hair-split. The copyright protection is the license. The copyright does, in fact, protect a property. (This is one of the reasons I asked the question I did in my last post: at what point would someone be entitled to my unpublished manuscript? That has what is legally termed a "common law copyright." If copyrights expire, as they do, then when is John Doe entitled to my unpublished manuscript? Given the state of the law, is the answer, when the common-law copyright expires, or is the answer, "never?")

And why do I ask that, and bring it up? Because the legal definition of a "common law copyright" (a work that is not yet published nor has a registered copyright) is:

"...is that right which author has in his unpublished literary creations, a kind of property right whose extent is to give him control over first publication of his work or to prevent its publication." (Black's Fifth Edition, underscore emphasis added)

Patently, the manuscript in question is, of whatever "kind," a property right. And it's not merely due to the paper it's typed on, as this exists whether the manuscript is digital or not. Therefore, no matter how you slice it, there is a type of property right that attaches--however slim--to created works.

The first line of the definition of copyright is:

"The right of literary property as recognized and sanctioned by positive law."--ibid.

And I won't put everyone to sleep by adding the definitions of "literary property" and "literary works," at least under US Copyright law.

When courts, lawyers and Congressmen use the term "property," they don't use it loosely or casually. Copyright is about the licensing of the production of the work (print, ebooks, plays, whatever). The literary work itself, however, is property, so we should not conflate those two, either.

Otherwise, one would find themselves in the position of trying to argue that Harry Potter is only a license held by JK Rowling, and not her creation or her property. He is patently her creation, and she owns him, certainly for the term of her legally-entitled copyright, before he falls into the public domain.

And so thus, back to the thorny issue of the unpublished manuscript in my hypothetical desk: at what point, exactly, does anyone think that this falls into the public domain? To prove (or find fatal flaws in) arguments and theories, you need to extend them out to their possible limits. So, let's start with this one: what's the answer?

Hitch

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

So how many 'property' attributes must a right have before it does become property? IMO it only requires 1-the attribute of transferability. If you can transfer your right to somebody else then it's property. But that's JMHO. (Or maybe that should be JMO-it's not often that I'm truly humble.)

If that's all it takes for you then I understand why you hold your opinion. I won't get into a hair-splitting quibble about it. Obviously I see things differently. Just as humbly, though.-)

rjb