How long should a copyright last?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not quite understanding what you are saying here.

Are you saying money doesn't count and that you work for free and are happy to do so? Kind of sounds that way.

Or perhaps you are hoping that authors come to their senses and get paid by the hour jobs and quit annoying society with their books and their grandiose desires to get paid by those enjoying them. Pernicious devils aren't they?

Pretty sure it is the second, but maybe not.

The point is of course that you are not entitled to make money on whatever you want to do.

[susan_cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I wonder why people pursue a profession that is so poorly renumerated. Nothing stops them from pursuing some other profession that is more renumerative. After all, if money is what counts....

It's remunerative, not renumerative.

I would suggest that there are many issues here, some of which go beyond money.

Take the idea of fairness in compensation. Ignore the tabulation of nickles and dimes here, because that's not what I'm talking about here. Rather, look at how people are paid for their work.

Computer programming was brought up several times, which is an interesting comparison because the task is similar to writing yet it is considered work for hire. It doesn't matter whether the programmer is salaried or paid hourly, they are paid for the work rather than based upon the sales of the product. The reality is that most people are paid for the work that they do, may they be providing a service or producing a product. Indeed, many businesses generate revenues in a similar manner: they are paid based upon what they produce, rather than what their product produces. Does it surprise you when people are offended when an author can spend a year working on a book, and their descendents can earn revenue from it decades after the author died?

There are other things to consider too. I know that a lot of people want writing to fall into the public domain because they can get it for free. On the other hand, that is a rather recent phenomena. Thirty years ago, people would only have access to a work in the public domain if they paid for it. Very few books were digitized, and even photocopying took a considerable investment in time and physical resources. Clearly there were motivations other than money behind having books move into the public domain. I would suggest that it was also an incentive to keep important books in print, so that they could survive indefinitely. Now this is a notion that is easily overlooked these days because we see digital media as being permenant. After all, the cost of reproducing and storing it is minimal. It is also easy to overlook because public domain works have become incredibly accessible. Yet I'm going to suggest that the loss of copywritten works will continue to be an issue, even in the digital age. Amazon may keep ebooks in their catalogue indefinitely, but is Amazon going to be around in 50 or 100 years? On the legal end, what happens if the rights to a book are disputed? It's best for there to be a public domain just so that people can preserve books legally.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I would suggest that there are many issues here, some of which go beyond money.

Take the idea of fairness in compensation. Ignore the tabulation of nickles and dimes here, because that's not what I'm talking about here. Rather, look at how people are paid for their work.

Computer programming was brought up several times, which is an interesting comparison because the task is similar to writing yet it is considered work for hire. It doesn't matter whether the programmer is salaried or paid hourly, they are paid for the work rather than based upon the sales of the product. The reality is that most people are paid for the work that they do, may they be providing a service or producing a product. Indeed, many businesses generate revenues in a similar manner: they are paid based upon what they produce, rather than what their product produces. Does it surprise you when people are offended when an author can spend a year working on a book, and their descendents can earn revenue from it decades after the author died?

With all due respect, a programmer being paid by the hour, or monthly, or whatever his compensation package is, isn't remotely doing the same thing that an author is doing. There's nothing comparable about it. An author is taking on an entrepreneurial risk--going without any pay, generally, for the entirety of that year (or however long), on the gamble that his or her work will pay off. What the author is doing is more akin to what a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs does, in launching a company (on a smaller scale, unless you're J.K. Rowling). In the normal course of things, it's nothing alike whatsoever.

If a programmer decides to create his own software product, or his own website, and puts his own time and money into doing that for a year, and then launches it, and earns from it--would you think that his "term of rights" for that entrepreneurial risk should be limited? Is everyone offended when entrepreneurs' descendants live comfortably off what they earn?

In the case of an author, what their "product" produces IS what "they produce," to address your business example.

An author who is paid for the work they produce--for example, a journalist collecting a check from a newspaper--is akin to your programmer example. No risk, no reward. Work-for-hire. Each is comfortably collecting their paychecks, that someone ELSE is paying, for which someone ELSE takes the risk. An author who is writing on spec (speculation) is taking exactly the same risk as any other small businessman or entrepreneur, and deserves the same risk-reward ratio as those folks expect. That's why having a bestseller is called "hitting it big," after all.

Someone else takes the risk, gives you a check--then they own what you produce. You take the risk, you go without, or you create the product? Then YOU own what you produce, and any reward, or lack thereof, that comes along with it. That's capitalism 101. Paid employees versus entrepreneurs. Not the same thing at all, and the time it took the latter to create their successful product is unrelated to "how deserving" they are of the rewards.

Hitch

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

The point is of course that you are not entitled to make money on whatever you want to do.

You may not be entitled, but if you do it well and people benefit, should you not get some recompense. Are you for example entitled to someone mowing your lawn for free because they want to do it because it is ugly.

I can't just sit in a chair and expect someone to pay me. But an author whose works are being read and enjoyed should be able to expect some compensation. Possibly there are some things you enjoy doing that could benefit others? Just how many hours a day do you devote doing the things you like to do to benefitting perfect strangers? Some people would turn green with rage at the very thought but expect authors to do this.

Helen

[meeera]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

You may not be entitled, but if you do it well and people benefit, should you not get some recompense. Are you for example entitled to someone mowing your lawn for free because they want to do it because it is ugly.

I can't just sit in a chair and expect someone to pay me. But an author whose works are being read and enjoyed should be able to expect some compensation. [...]

And authors should always be allowed to decline whatever writing and speaking opportunities they are offered. I can't help wondering, however, whether the author references above is sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face. Speaking at a festival isn't necessarily work for someone else's benefit; it may well be a solid marketing opportunity for him. As Hitch says, an author is an entrepreneur, not a wage-worker, and entrepreneurs generally need to market their work and themselves if they are to hope for success.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not quite understanding what you are saying here.

Are you saying money doesn't count and that you work for free and are happy to do so? Kind of sounds that way.

Or perhaps you are hoping that authors come to their senses and get paid by the hour jobs and quit annoying society with their books and their grandiose desires to get paid by those enjoying them. Pernicious devils aren't they?

Pretty sure it is the second, but maybe not.

Helen

The second, although i wouldn't phrase it the way you do.

I hear both you and Hitch how poorly paid writing is, on average. I agree. It's basically buying a lottery ticket with a lot of hard labor.

If that is what a person wants to do with their time, that's their business. But I'm rather fed up with the expectation that all that labor <entitles> an author to special priviledges, that no one else in God's green Earth gets.And onward unto the Nth generation's descendants. And to make it even more annoying, I get their justification of how <hard> they worked. They <deserve> these extra priviledges, because writing does't get paid enough.

Nonsense.

If you want money, do what pays well. It may require lots of work, or little work. Writing is not one of the occupations that pays well, on average. Accept that and choose, high probability of money or low probability of money.

And live with the decision!

The world doesn't owe anybody a living, and certainly not somebody wanting to do something that doesn't pay well.

(I've just come off of a month of 60+ hours weeks at a nice rate. On the other hand, I've made 10's of thousands of dollars on various occasions by merely saying "Buy" and then "Sell" a few months later, and doing nothing but twiddling my toes between times. Life varies <shrug>.)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

With all due respect, a programmer being paid by the hour, or monthly, or whatever his compensation package is, isn't remotely doing the same thing that an author is doing. There's nothing comparable about it. An author is taking on an entrepreneurial risk--going without any pay, generally, for the entirety of that year (or however long), on the gamble that his or her work will pay off. What the author is doing is more akin to what a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs does, in launching a company (on a smaller scale, unless you're J.K. Rowling). In the normal course of things, it's nothing alike whatsoever.

If a programmer decides to create his own software product, or his own website, and puts his own time and money into doing that for a year, and then launches it, and earns from it--would you think that his "term of rights" for that entrepreneurial risk should be limited? Is everyone offended when entrepreneurs' descendants live comfortably off what they earn?

In the case of an author, what their "product" produces IS what "they produce," to address your business example.

An author who is paid for the work they produce--for example, a journalist collecting a check from a newspaper--is akin to your programmer example. No risk, no reward. Work-for-hire. Each is comfortably collecting their paychecks, that someone ELSE is paying, for which someone ELSE takes the risk. An author who is writing on spec (speculation) is taking exactly the same risk as any other small businessman or entrepreneur, and deserves the same risk-reward ratio as those folks expect. That's why having a bestseller is called "hitting it big," after all.

Someone else takes the risk, gives you a check--then they own what you produce. You take the risk, you go without, or you create the product? Then YOU own what you produce, and any reward, or lack thereof, that comes along with it. That's capitalism 101. Paid employees versus entrepreneurs. Not the same thing at all, and the time it took the latter to create their successful product is unrelated to "how deserving" they are of the rewards.

Hitch

So an independent contractor, seeking out customers, maybe getting stiffed by them, performing the labor before getting paid, has no entrepreneureal aspect at all? No carrying costs, no risk?

Right, buddy....

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The second, although i wouldn't phrase it the way you do.

I hear both you and Hitch how poorly paid writing is, on average. I agree. It's basically buying a lottery ticket with a lot of hard labor.

If that is what a person wants to do with their time, that's their business. But I'm rather fed up with the expectation that all that labor <entitles> an author to special priviledges, that no one else in God's green Earth gets.And onward unto the Nth generation's descendants. And to make it even more annoying, I get their justification of how <hard> they worked. They <deserve> these extra priviledges, because writing does't get paid enough.[...]

Lots of others get similar privileges. Interest and dividends earned on investments offer income for work the investor doesn't perform - and many play the markets in the hope of striking it big (and these are things you can pass on to your "Nth generation's descendants", they don't automatically revert to the public domain at some arbitrary point for the public good). Patents, though different things to copyright, offer similar privileges. These are not about expectation so much as possibility (the carrot on the end of the stick to keep the donkey moving), these are incentives to encourage people to contribute - to invest.

The arguments offered in relation to the amount of work involved are there show that the incentives offered are in return for real effort. This is not a something for nothing deal (which is the way many seem to see it).

And, since you admit that authors are paid poorly on average, it seems like a pretty good deal. Society is obviously not paying full price for the labour involved in generating that contribution. And since it is a user-pays system it is difficult to claim it is unfair.

A person can sell their labour directly - as an employee or an independent contractor - but it can be sold that way only once, however the money earned this way can be invested to earn income indirectly. Or a person can invest some of their labour in creating/inventing a product, and possibly sell the result of that labour many times - but that's a big risk, and without some level of incentive fewer people will take it.

So it's not just copyright, it's the whole economic shebang, that is about offering incentives to encourage investment - all, in theory, for the public good. Other structures are possible, and some have been tried in the past, but unless you have some alternative to present then the question remains one of choosing the ideal length of copyright (if such a thing can be said to exist) to achieve the desired level of incentive.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So an independent contractor, seeking out customers, maybe getting stiffed by them, performing the labor before getting paid, has no entrepreneureal aspect at all? No carrying costs, no risk?

Right, buddy....

A reasonable analogy in that unestablished contractors and authors may contract to do work for which they may not be paid. Established contractors and authors are often in a position to demand some cash up front. Independent contractors often have more legal recourse though.

Kind of missing the point as to how this applies to copyright length.

Helen

[arjaybe]

[QUOTE=speakingtohe;2653875Kind of missing the point as to how this applies to copyright length.

Helen[/QUOTE]

You're not alone. There's a lot of missing the point going on here. For instance, I'm missing the point of how accusing people of being thieving cheapskates relates to their preference for copyright reform. I'm missing the point of how something being under copyright 125 years later affects an author's income now. I'm missing the point of how a preference for a shorter copyright term makes a person an evil author-hater. Mostly I'm missing the point of how intelligent people, as I assume we all are, can get caught up in this cycle of deliberately mis-construing what each other is saying for rhetorical purposes. Look: it's happening again.-)

rjb

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

You're not alone. There's a lot of missing the point going on here. For instance, I'm missing the point of how accusing people of being thieving cheapskates relates to their preference for copyright reform. I'm missing the point of how something being under copyright 125 years later affects an author's income now. I'm missing the point of how a preference for a shorter copyright term makes a person an evil author-hater. Mostly I'm missing the point of how intelligent people, as I assume we all are, can get caught up in this cycle of deliberately mis-construing what each other is saying for rhetorical purposes. Look: it's happening again.-)

rjb

Here is the big picture, arjaybe. You have three parties, which are fighting over the moral high ground. The one that proves to the others that they have the moral high ground can then dictate terms to the other two. Simple, no? Let me list the three. (Actuallty, there is a fourth, the "data wants to be free" type, but they are not part of this debate.)


Party #1 - The Creators.

The Creators standpoint is simple. I made it, I own it. I control it. Now and forever. I worked hard and took risks to create the material, I deserve to be compensated for my efforts, now and forever, because <I own it!>. Even though I sell copies to the public, I still own my creation.

Party #2 - The Public.

The public standpoint is also very simple. Creator, you own your creation until you release it to the public. That effective constitutes a <sale>, ending your further rights to your creation, the same as if you sold any piece of real property.

However, because the Public feels that this acts as a hinderance to getting a Creator to create, the Public decided to grant a time limited <monopoly> to the Creator, to act as an encouragement. At the end of the term, the creation reverts to the Public. This viewpoint has been codified in Law since copyright has existed in the Western Civilization.

Party #3 - The Opportunist

These as usually (but not always) middlemen who have (and will continue to) profit off of the existing limited monopolies They do no care about the Creator, other than they create the creation that the Opportunist can exploit. The Opportunist is not usually encouraged to create new works (although sometimes they do), but wants to be able to exploit the creations they have control over - forever.


That's the three-cornered debate that's going on here. Obviously, I support party #2, the public. Helen is mostly supporting Party #1, the creator. Hitch is a mix of Party #1 and Party #3. All of us seek the moral high ground.

Where you stand on what copyright length should be depend on what camp you belong to. Parties #1 and #3 want it as long as possible. Part #2 wants it to be only long enough to act as an adequate encouragement for creation, and no longer. Parties #2 vastly outnumber Parties #1 and #3, but Parties #1 and #3 have much more money (especially Party #3) to get their view implemented.

From my perspective, 56 years has proven to be adequate for the purpose, as shown from 1909 to 1976. I could live with something a little longer. But anything less than forever is unacceptable to Parties #1 and #3.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

You may not be entitled, but if you do it well and people benefit, should you not get some recompense. Are you for example entitled to someone mowing your lawn for free because they want to do it because it is ugly.

Eh, no. But that does not mean that the lawn mover is entitled to get payment.

I can't just sit in a chair and expect someone to pay me. But an author whose works are being read and enjoyed should be able to expect some compensation. Possibly there are some things you enjoy doing that could benefit others? Just how many hours a day do you devote doing the things you like to do to benefitting perfect strangers? Some people would turn green with rage at the very thought but expect authors to do this.

If he publish the work without in advance securing compensation then I do not see how he is entitled to compensation. But the issue was really the entitlement that people writing a book expect to make money from it or being able to live on the income.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Here is the big picture, arjaybe.

Thank you for clearing that up.-) I guess by your criteria that I'd be a combination of #s 1 & 3.

rjb

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Eh, no. But that does not mean that the lawn mover is entitled to get payment.



If he publish the work without in advance securing compensation then I do not see how he is entitled to compensation. But the issue was really the entitlement that people writing a book expect to make money from it or being able to live on the income.

I think it is more like people write books and hope that they actually make a few bucks. some do, some don't.

Now I will ask a few questions. Do you feel that if you read a book the author should get paid a few cents. If you read a great book (in your opinion), are you willing to spend a few bucks on the next one?

I am not sure about lawn movers as I have never had a lawn moved, but people who mow your lawn with their own lawn mower typically charge more so at least the lawn mower owners get payment if not the lawn mower itself. Obviously some lawn mower abuse going on.

Helen