Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmm...isn't that a design patent? Or is my interpretation totally wrong? If so, then we are back to talking about intellectual property, not real property.

Shari

By that; all property is "intellectual property" then. Except maybe undeveloped land.

Luck;
Ken

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

By that; all property is "intellectual property" then. Except maybe undeveloped land.

Luck;
Ken

Why? An actual chair is still property.

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

By that; all property is "intellectual property" then. Except maybe undeveloped land.

Luck;
Ken

I think it has more to do with two aspects of the products: the creative aspects (intellectual property) and the physical aspects (physical property).

People buy a chair for the physical aspects. The physical functionality of the chair is what people buy chairs for. The creative aspects (idea or design) behind the chair is why people buy one chair over the other, but the focal point is still the physical object. (There are exceptions, in which the chair is treated as art. Irrelevant to my point.)

People buy books for the creative aspects. The physical object of a book or eReader+eBook is just a container for the ideas stored within. The physical object of the book might influence why people buy one book over another and to some buyers can be crucially important, but the focal point is still the intellectual property that the book contains.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The length of the copyright could be determined based on what is best for authors.

This despite the fact it was only ever created to be what is best for the public?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This despite the fact it was only ever created to be what is best for the public?

Keeping authors writing by allowing them a slim chance to make money is IMO best for the public. Most here would disagree it seems although not all by any means.

I have more books available to read than I could finish that I actively want to read so changing copyright law would not impact me a whole lot. But I still would like authors to make money even if they can't make chairs.

No one other than the authors is going to be hurt big time if all of the good/great fiction authors stop writing.

Non fiction is a different story. Less information will be shared and I don't think that is good for society or me either. Students might benefit short term, and I am pretty sure there won't be a shortage of cookbooks or crafting books, but a lot of scientific or political or sociology books etc. would not be written. We will be dependant on television news and newspapers for our knowledge of the world around us, or blogs or twitter.

Perhaps we will be ok as people can't seem to get enough blogging or twittering and some of them might actually say something enlightening.



Helen

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This despite the fact it was only ever created to be what is best for the public?

Exactly, copyright isn't a reward for authors, it creates rights where there were none for a very specific purpose.

And in any event, individual authors are likely better served by having a limited copyright. They lose out by not being able to help maintain a stream of income for their far-future descendants, but gain by being able to remake, remix and transform the works of past authors.

Even Disney, who pushed for copyright extension, has made great use (and countless millions) from public domain works.

Edit

Here's a succinct quote from The Economist (here) that sums things up:

The moral case, although easy to sympathise with, is a way of trying to have one's cake and eat it. Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. From 1710 onwards, it has involved a deal in which the creator or publisher gives up any natural and perpetual claim in order to have the state protect an artificial and limited one. So it remains.

Tubmonkey and others are arguing from emotions rather than logic, they want intellectual property to be physical property, despite the fact that: (i) the two things are completely different; (ii) that difference has been settled for hundreds of years; and (iii) there's no "natural right" outside of the law to control what others do with your expressions (what copyright provides a monopoly for) once you disseminate it.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Exactly, copyright isn't a reward for authors, it creates rights where there were none for a very specific purpose.

And in any event, individual authors are likely better served by having a limited copyright. They lose out by not being able to help maintain a stream of income for their far-future descendants, but gain by being able to remake, remix and transform the works of past authors.

Even Disney, who pushed for copyright extension, has made great use (and countless millions) from public domain works.

Perhaps it is better for society if the remixers can prosper. (personally I think that they are lame want-to-bes) but there are probably a lot more of them than actual creative people, and it might serve to keep a couple of them in socks and toilet paper.

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Not nearly as many.. and often the author of such works might receive nothing from the printer of such works (especially the more popular works).

There are more literate people today and the costs of printing and distribution were higher. In Romania most authors don't get paid from the sale of their printed books because the costs are high and there isn't enough profit to go around to the authors. The authors agree to this, and it is all legal under copyright law.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

You are making an unjustified (imho) logical leap there. Prior to ebooks (which obviously changes the game), it would have been impractical to say the least for the author to self publish. Even if we maintained the original copyright laws of the United States (14 years renewable (by the author or his heirs) once for 14 years), I sincerely doubt it would have had any beneficial outcome for the vast majority of authors. I believe many author contracts include clauses where rights revert after a work has been out of print for a given period of time.

No it doesn't. A book that is out of print is out of print because it is no longer competitive in the market place. Lets look at it this way, of all the novels published in the 1970s, the vast majority are now out of print and have effectively zero commercial value (Perhaps not even worth the effort of converting them to ebooks). The fact that they might remain under copyright for another 100 years (i.e., their author might live another 30 years) has zero impact on their value. Those novels do not compete with the latest novels being published in any practical form.

The publishers control the printers and the distribution channels and it is because of them that it was impractical for authors to self publish. But if there is indeed no commercial value a certain number of years after a book is first published what is the reasoning behind extending the copyright that far? If nobody wants to make copies why would the right to make copies be legally restricted?

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This despite the fact it was only ever created to be what is best for the public?

The reasoning behind copyright law is that if it benefits the authors they will create more works and that benefits the public. I'm arguing that the current copyright terms don't benefit the authors.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Keeping authors writing by allowing them a slim chance to make money is IMO best for the public. Most here would disagree it seems although not all by any means.

I have more books available to read than I could finish that I actively want to read so changing copyright law would not impact me a whole lot. But I still would like authors to make money even if they can't make chairs.

No one other than the authors is going to be hurt big time if all of the good/great fiction authors stop writing.

Non fiction is a different story. Less information will be shared and I don't think that is good for society or me either. Students might benefit short term, and I am pretty sure there won't be a shortage of cookbooks or crafting books, but a lot of scientific or political or sociology books etc. would not be written. We will be dependant on television news and newspapers for our knowledge of the world around us, or blogs or twitter.

Perhaps we will be ok as people can't seem to get enough blogging or twittering and some of them might actually say something enlightening.

There is no reason to believe that authors would stop writing. We have history as proof that that wouldn't happen as author's who's writings (both fiction and non-fiction) were deemed against a political regime were stopped from being able to get financial gain from their work and even if they were threatened with imprisonment and death they still did their best to get their ideas across. Not all of them, but it is clear that even it it would be illegal to make money out of writing we would still have new works.

I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal to make money out of writing, it's just that I find it preposterous to suggest that regardless of the direction that laws take people would stop writing.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

There is no reason to believe that authors would stop writing. We have history as proof that that wouldn't happen as author's who's writings (both fiction and non-fiction) were deemed against a political regime were stopped from being able to get financial gain from their work and even if they were threatened with imprisonment and death they still did their best to get their ideas across. Not all of them, but it is clear that even it it would be illegal to make money out of writing we would still have new works.

I'm not suggesting that it should be illegal to make money out of writing, it's just that I find it preposterous to suggest that regardless of the direction that laws take people would stop writing.

I'm pretty convinced a lot of them would. And that most would write a lot less. The truly passionate and the truly long winded would continue, but what percentage is passionate and the long winded have their blogs Just my opinion mind you and I doubt very much copyright will be shortened so impossible to know.

Helen

[crich70]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This despite the fact it was only ever created to be what is best for the public?

Ah but if you write a book and don't have the ability to claim copyright on it during your lifetime how will you ensure that you have enough $$ to live on so that you can write the next one? Mozart is a good example. He ended up in a pauper's grave when he died because he only got paid once for each of his works. He'd write a piece of music for someone and once paid that was the only money he made from that piece. By making sure that the author of a book or short story has certain rights during their lifetime what is best for the public is assured. He/she is able to make enough money to either add to their income or (if lucky enough to be popular) to be able to spend their working lives creating more dreams for others to share in.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I'm pretty convinced a lot of them would. And that most would write a lot less. The truly passionate and the truly long winded would continue, but what percentage is passionate and the long winded have their blogs Just my opinion mind you and I doubt very much copyright will be shortened so impossible to know.

Helen

Had this been the case, we wouldn't have had hack writers like Shakespeare and Dickens, both of whom wrote solely for the disgraceful commercial purpose of making money.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Had this been the case, we wouldn't have had hack writers like Shakespeare and Dickens, both of whom wrote solely for the disgraceful commercial purpose of making money.

I was expressing the opinion that without a reasonable chance to make money most writers would write far less, not that writers who write for money are hacks. Not that I have anything against hacks either. If their writing sells then they are pleasing their audience which could very well be me,

Helen

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I was expressing the opinion that without a reasonable chance to make money most writers would write far less, not that writers who write for money are hacks. Not that I have anything against hacks either. If their writing sells then they are pleasing their audience which could very well be me,

Helen

It's OK, I understood what you meant. I was just pointing out that some of the greatest writers have written for money, and that financial motivations are not a bad thing, as some people (not you!) seem to be suggesting.

[Greg Anos]

Dead people don't create...

The inherent problem with the copyright system is the ownership/creation mismatch. Once an author is dead, providing further copyright does not gain society anything further, that author not not going to create anything new. The publisher on the other hand, still wants to make their guaranteed middleman's cut, in perpetuity. Copyright keeps their monopoly intact.

It's even worse when the middleman owns the copyright, and not the creator. (This is standard for film). In this circumstance, the middleman considers the whole purpose of the law to provide the middleman with an endless monopoly.

[exaltedwombat]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the concept of a work of literature, music or any other art being the property of the author, and him having the right to exploit it as he chooses?

Other forms of property can be bequeathed to your descendents, with the state taking a cut as Death Duties. Why should one particular type of property be treated any differently?