How long should a copyright last?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I can see how CL copyright covers the gap between creation and publication.

As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as common law copyright. There certainly isn't in the UK or the US, where the courts have ruled that there's no such thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as common law copyright. There certainly isn't in the UK or the US, whether the courts have ruled that there's no such thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright

The U.S. had common law copyright prior to the 1978 copyright reforms. The U.S. common law copyright did not follow the description you gave at wikipedia. After The 1978 copyright reforms copyright starts when the work is fixed rather than when it is published, so there's no need for the concept of common law copyright. Unpublished works that would have fallen under common law copyright prior to 1978 are covered under the life+70 standard copyright duration in the U.S.

The U.S. common law copyright allowed that if someone stole your manuscript prior to your publication that you were still the owner of the copyright and that the publication of the work without your permission did not trigger the forfeiture of the copyright because you had no control over the publication.

Greg

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as common law copyright. There certainly isn't in the UK or the US, whether the courts have ruled that there's no such thing.

Oh, thank you very much.-)

Okay, I'm going to sit back and see how this comes out.

rjb

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

What it takes to incentivize a company to invest 100,000,000 dollars to make a film and what it takes to incentivize a writer to publish a work that his friends and family enjoyed, are two different things, they should not be treated as if they are the same..

If a movie studio can't make a healthy profit from its film after 20 years, another 30 won't be much help. The film was dud. I still say 20 years is a good length. Authors, films, music, everything. Two decades is a powerful incentive.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

If a movie studio can't make a healthy profit from its film after 20 years, another 30 won't be much help. The film was dud. I still say 20 years is a good length. Authors, films, music, everything. Two decades is a powerful incentive.

I'd agree about movies but that, I think, is mostly due to technological changes. Books can take longer. Not fiction but some, philosophy probably, are simply ahead of their time. But that's about making a profit, not about incentive. I do believe that if a person doesn't expect to make a good profit within 20 years they probably won't make the investment. Assuming they care about profit.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

If a movie studio can't make a healthy profit from its film after 20 years, another 30 won't be much help. The film was dud. I still say 20 years is a good length. Authors, films, music, everything. Two decades is a powerful incentive.

Don't forget that copyright covers not only the actual work, but also "derivative works" - ie sequels. A successful film "franchise" ("Star Wars" would be a good example) can be around for significantly longer than 20 years.

[markbot]

I say life plus 10 years or less.

It doesn't seem fair that some corporation spends $billions on developing a drug where the patent lasts only a few years (and this drug saves people's lives so it is pretty important)....but some author writes a book and it is protected by over a hundred years in most cases...doesn't seem fair to me. The patent for the drug should last longer and the protection for the author should be MUCH shorter.

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't forget that copyright covers not only the actual work, but also "derivative works" - ie sequels. A successful film "franchise" ("Star Wars" would be a good example) can be around for significantly longer than 20 years.

I don't see issue of derivative works. We have trademarks, with sensible legislation, use or lose.

I don't see problem of new authors using old setting or characters if the name isn't used in connection.


Length for copyright also should depend on medium. Books are ok with long copyrights, but something like software might work with shorter one.

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't forget that copyright covers not only the actual work, but also "derivative works" - ie sequels. A successful film "franchise" ("Star Wars" would be a good example) can be around for significantly longer than 20 years.

Yes, and each of those derivative works has its own copyright. The difference is that after 20 years, other people can also make derivative works of the original film. For twenty years, only 20th Century Fox can make sequels to Star Wars. That's a great incentive. After 20 years, competing studios can make their own alternative sequels to the original Star Wars. Everyone benefits.

We -- society -- receive diminishing returns as we further lengthen the copyright. What we have to ask is, if a film studio doesn't believe it can make a sufficient ROI on a film in 20 years, is it really going to make a difference if the copyright is 40 years? No, of course not. A film studio won't produce a film unless it hopes to make a profit in the first year.

[Tarana]

My opinion is that a copyright should last 20-25 years with the right to renewal by the AUTHOR (not the estate, not some corp or publisher either) for another period.

Copyright for written works does not have to be the same as that for film.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Yes, and each of those derivative works has its own copyright. The difference is that after 20 years, other people can also make derivative works of the original film. For twenty years, only 20th Century Fox can make sequels to Star Wars. That's a great incentive. After 20 years, competing studios can make their own alternative sequels to the original Star Wars. Everyone benefits.

Is it really a benefit to the world at large for people to be able to make derivative works of fiction and movies sooner? Would society benefit from an endless supply of Star Wars movies and Harry Potter books and another zillion or so 50 shades knockoffs? Some would of course. I know people who have never read anything not Harry Potter. But would you or I? I don't see authors as benefiting overall. Sure the creative talent challenged ones could copy ideas and character names sooner etc. but would they be able to sell the books? The talented writers who now write books under license from a dead authors estate do okay as do the franchised/collaborated books like James Patterson's and Tom Clancy's. But many people look down on those.

And would not all of this derivative writing and movie making cut down on originality?

I think the movie making is less creative than it should be already. Too many sequels and spinoffs and the same casts being moved in block from one vehicle to another. Not that I blame them as it costs a lot to make a movie.

I would rather have 100 or so studios making at least slightly different movies than most of them doing spinoffs of other people's creations.

For books, there are new books published every day by new and established authors that are creative enough to not violate anyone's copyright. Some are good, some are bad and some are wonderful. And there are already thousands and thousands of PD characters and settings for the less talented to use.

Prices may go down, but I doubt that they would for the 'popular' books and outside MR I have never encountered anyone who is passionate about getting free books. Quite the opposite in my experience. Those of us who are privileged enough to earn a reasonable living don't resent having to pay money for a book any more than we resent having to pay money for lunch out or cup of coffee or a pair of shoes. We may bargain hunt, but if we want it and have the money we buy it. And for most people living in developed countries, there are a lot of sources for cheap or free books. As someone mentioned elsewhere, there are a lot of indigent people reading in libraries or on park benches. I would rather get on a bandwagon to get them decent living quarters to read in first and then perhaps get on one to get them more free books.

Helen

[Corkobo]

I voted for "lifetime only".
As for corporations, I think 50 years should be enough.

In fact, I think 50 years (or 70 or 60) would also be good a fixed lenght for individuals as well.

[Greg Anos]

If you want to know why the the "evil corporation" meme exists for copyrights...

Check this link...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...c-domain.shtml

If an individual did this, they'd be serving 20-to-life for extortion...

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If you want to know why the the "evil corporation" meme exists for copyrights...

Check this link...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...c-domain.shtml

If an individual did this, they'd be serving 20-to-life for extortion...

Hmmm. Extortion is generally thought of as involving physical threats or brute force. Maybe threats to family and friends. rarely involves a life sentence.

Helen

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If you want to know why the the "evil corporation" meme exists for copyrights...

Check this link...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...c-domain.shtml

If an individual did this, they'd be serving 20-to-life for extortion...

Yes, and not to be hyperbolic, but, seriously, I know women who know men who raped them. Does that mean I should shoot you on sight?

One egregious act does not a trend make. Many egregious acts create a trend. In the cosmic scope of all the copyrighted works in the world, that now or have ever existed, seriously, how many have a history like this one? Even if there are 10, or 20 or 100--it's still silliness in the scope of millions of copyrighted works. Millions. How many works did the EU alone determine might be lost? How many millions? Which indicates many millions more that aren't lost.

So, come on, guys--can we at least agree that in any business, or type of business, or in any personal arrangement, or types of personal arrangements, bad things will occasionally happen? Brides will be left standing at the altar, guys will get dumped and not get an engagement ring back; terrible people will divorce nice people and their attorneys will rip off the nice one for the bad one; real estate deals will occasionally rip someone off.

Publishing isn't "special" in terms of simply being a business. That's all it is. That it encompasses what may well be art doesn't make it less of a business, or less of a vocation, as, hopefully, we've covered earlier. In any business, there will be bad people or crooks or victims. ANY BUSINESS or ANY personal business. That's life. Life isn't fair. So what?

To determine whether "corporations are evil" in the scope of copyright, you cannot look at one or two or even 50 instances. Certainly you can find an egregious case. You have to look at what publishing and media corporations have done over the entirety of all their actions vis-a-vis copyright--not just holding up a few scandalous situations.

Otherwise, you're skewing the facts when creating your opinions, and if you're going to do that, there's no point at all in bothering with facts.

As is rather famously oft-cited "no amount of fact will ever alter entrenched belief," but I'd like to think that MR'ers, in particular, are better than that.

Hitch
P.S.: For anyone interested in Biased Assimilation: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/...ckfire-effect/