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

[crich70]

Originally Posted by tompe

Or maybe not. Maybe less crap will be produced. And maybe some people need to work to get experience to produce masterworks.

It is very hard to say what will happen. That is also why I do not think that the argument that Shakespear and Dickens wrote for money is a good argument. Maybe they would have produced much better things if they did not have to write for money.

It's possible. Or they might have produced less as they wouldn't have had the pressure of making a living by writing as much as they each did. As you said no one can say for sure either way.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by crich70

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.

Since you give music as an example, you can look at a story of music under copyright.

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Hmm... It seems to me that the patent and copyright laws do not give any rights to anyone, they restrict others from making and selling unauthorized copies of the creations of inventors and authors. You can make and make copies of what you create without need of the law. What the law is needed for is to prevent others from making copies. By preventing all others but the inventor/author from copying and selling the inventor's or author's creation (since you don't want to call it their property) you are creating a temporary market environment that provides some insurance that the original creator of the product being marketed, can bring their unique product to market, without others undercutting their sales.

They are not being given any rights (the First Amendment just codifies the right they already have) Those who would make use of someone else's creation, without mutually agreed compensation, could easily be considered thiefs. Those who do so in a manner that actually harms the ability for the creator of the product to realize a return, would be violating the intent and letter of these laws.

The law provides no insurance the original creator of the product being marketed, can bring their unique product to market, without others undercutting their sales. The publisher brings the author's product to the market, as well as the products of the author's competitors and sets the prices.

Originally Posted by meeera

Do you think so? I think it's a prime example of a truly transformative work.

And Hamlet is a derivative work anyway.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by crich70

[...] but if it doesn't bring in enough income for them to be able to eat while they do the writing instead of another job then they will turn to other means of gaining income and stop writing (or at least produce less since they have to have funds to live on as well). And we'll all be the poorer for it.

This is the fate of the vast majority of writers, and no change to the copyright laws or reduction in piracy with make a difference.

Some Good and/or lucky writers will make a living with their writing. A very small few will make a fortune. The vast majority will only be able to afford to write part-time.

(There are ways that governments could allow any writer who wished to write full time, but that's a discussion for the opt-in P&R forum.)

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This is the fate of the vast majority of writers, and no change to the copyright laws or reduction in piracy with make a difference.

Some Good and/or lucky writers will make a living with their writing. A very small few will make a fortune. The vast majority will only be able to afford to write part-time.

(There are ways that governments could allow any writer who wished to write full time, but that's a discussion for the opt-in P&R forum.)

True enough pdurrant. Of course Government and free expression are often at odds, which again would be better gone into in the P&R forum.

[Namekuseijin]

good thing that Shakespeare and a few other true literates didn't bother having spoiled children

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

good thing that Shakespeare and a few other true literates didn't bother having spoiled children

Shakespeare did have children, and Dickens had huge numbers of them (I've met one of Dickens's great-grandchildren).

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Perhaps you are unaware of how much copyright changed in the last century?

In the US up until 1977 authors had a maximum fixed term of 56 years from publication to benefit from their work before copyright expired. In the UK until 1911, they had the maximum of 42 years from publication or life+7 years (whichever was longer).

The complaint about current copyright law is that the copyright term has been greatly extended, but that this has not been of any benefit to the actual creators of the works, but has been of considerable harm to everyone else except some copyright holders.

I have been ignoring this thread due to the urge to write an incredibly rude reply regarding repetitiveness and tedium Not to you of course.

I am not really up on US/UK copyright law and its changes, and while I see nothing wrong with 42-52 years after publication I still stand by my opinion that the current copyright laws do not measurably harm everyone else but the creators/copyright holders.

Sure they cannot use others works as they wish, but how could they use them if they hadn't been written/published. Lot of things are not published which could help society and lot of things are published which could harm society. I see copyright playing a very insignificant role in the overall picture except that it encourages publication. Perhaps you (or someone else) can give me a very long list of works that were suppressed due to copyright violations that would have benefitted society at large greatly.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Or maybe not. Maybe less crap will be produced. And maybe some people need to work to get experience to produce masterworks.

It is very hard to say what will happen. That is also why I do not think that the argument that Shakespear and Dickens wrote for money is a good argument. Maybe they would have produced much better things if they did not have to write for money.

Or even more likely produced nothing at all.

Helen

[Ninjalawyer]

It's a shame you didn't write that rude reply, it would have been deliciously ironic in light of your latest post that simply repeats the same-old strawman, while ignoring what pdurrant (and others) actually said.

No one is saying that copyright should go away. But people are saying that ratcheting up copyright from 56 years after publication does nothing to increase the amount someone would have published, which is the whole point of copyright. No one is sitting in there study, holding back from publishing the next great American novel because it will only benefit a few generations of their descendent.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

I'm just offering examples to counter your claim that "society has [not] benefitted greatly" from derivatives created from public domain works (your words, quoted directly, sic). I never claimed to make any other point, at least in relation to you.



Your opinion is also a slippery slope fallacy, not to mention ad hominem.

Not quite getting the Ad Hominem argument. Whom was I personally attacking. Surely not all authors derivative or not? It is not them who are putting forth the arguments AFAIK.

If your definition of success for the public domain is "every single book ever written uses it" then we shouldn't even bother discussing the topic.
No, not "everybody" is using Shakespeare, Dickens, Austin, or dozens of other writers from other time periods, but even a non-trivial amount of people doing so is worth the effort. The widespread use of fiction worlds for fan-fiction are further proof that writers of every age and talent level are interested in using other works as a starting point for further writing, be it practice or serious publishing efforts - both beneficial to mass culture in the long run.

Where did I say or imply that every single book uses anything? Quite the opposite in fact. Very few books among the millions heavily use Shakespeare, Dickens, Austin, or dozens of other writers from other time periods. And yes I can see the benefits to culture, but I don't see the serious harm to culture of them having to wait the legal time period unless the work that they were derived from ceases to exist or is n eminent danger of ceasing to exist.

Helen

Edit: Just curious as to what the big cultural advantageouses are for fan fiction? Nothing against it if it is author approved, but how has it improved the world at large or even your world significantly. You can change my mind you know

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

It's a shame you didn't write that rude reply, it would have been deliciously ironic in light of your latest post that simply repeats the same-old strawman, while ignoring what pdurrant (and others) actually said.

No one is saying that copyright should go away. But people are saying that ratcheting up copyright from 56 years after publication does nothing to increase the amount someone would have published, which is the whole point of copyright. No one is sitting in there study, holding back from publishing the next great American novel because it will only benefit a few generations of their descendent.

Helen

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Perhaps you (or someone else) can give me a very long list of works that were suppressed due to copyright violations that would have benefitted society at large greatly.

It is not that they are written and suppressed, but that they never get written.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Shakespeare did have children, and Dickens had huge numbers of them (I've met one of Dickens's great-grandchildren).

well, good thing the spoiled brat are long dead, then

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not quite getting the Ad Hominem argument. Whom was I personally attacking. Surely not all authors derivative or not? It is not them who are putting forth the arguments AFAIK.

That had been in response to your claim of:

Originally Posted by hardcastle

Your opinion is also a slippery slope fallacy, not to mention ad hominem.

Seems pretty ad hominem to me -- you are engaging in a personal attack against anyone who wants shorter copyright, claiming their only reason is because they want to read the latest books for free.

Did that REALLY need an explanation? Did you even look at what hardcastle quoted from you? (Or remember your own words and opinions?)

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not quite getting the Ad Hominem argument. Whom was I personally attacking. Surely not all authors derivative or not? It is not them who are putting forth the arguments AFAIK.

It was an attack on those who seek to decrease copyright extensions, implying that they wish to, in your words, "seek to benefit from using or obtaining at no cost, currently popular works."

This is insulting and posits an alternative reasoning behind your opponent that for one, would have no bearing the merits of any argument made here, and two, has no proof.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Where did I say or imply that every single book uses anything?

Your words, "It's not like everybody is using Shakespeare or Dickens etc. as a springboard even though they can."

Note the word everybody. I bolded it. It's right there. You said it. That is the very standard of success you made for the public domain. So before you accuse me of bringing up a random argument, perhaps you should read your own words, which I am taking great pains to quote directly so you cannot accuse me of misreading you.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Quite the opposite in fact. Very few books among the millions heavily use Shakespeare, Dickens, Austin, or dozens of other writers from other time periods.

But some do. And therein lies the benefit. As I've explained.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And yes I can see the benefits to culture, but I don't see the serious harm to culture of them having to wait the legal time period unless the work that they were derived from ceases to exist or is n eminent danger of ceasing to exist.

I don't believe that I have to prove there would be "serious harm to culture," your words, to justify lowering the age of copyright. The benefits are quite clear enough.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Edit: Just curious as to what the big cultural advantageouses are for fan fiction? Nothing against it if it is author approved, but how has it improved the world at large or even your world significantly. You can change my mind you know

Writers have to start somewhere. Allowing anyone to pick up a pen and play with already created worlds and characters is a great way for people to start.

Not to mention that fan fiction can be great literature, in rare cases. But then again, isn't all "great literature" fairly rare anyhow? Anything to increase the chances of it occurring is worth it, I would say.

EDIT: I retract the initial ending of my post.