New Paper Argues for Reasonable Reduction in Copyright

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by NinjaLawyer

There's a double-negative (and maybe a misplaced comma?) in your second sentence that makes the whole thing difficult to parse, and the last sentence seems to be repeating what you said earlier, in the same mess-of-a-sentence way. I'm really trying here petrucci, and I want to argue with you, but I just don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say.

The second sentence was a mess. It should read as follows: I do not believe that the reduction in the length of copyright so that you can create works derived from other works will help the economic situation of the author.

Yes, the second paragraph essentially repeats the point. Long copyright terms are important because many important works are not recognized as such for long periods of time. Further, such works do not necessarily command high prices. If the duration of copyright were shortened, then there would not be as much opportunity to profit from the enterprise of creating a work.

Originally Posted by NinjaLawyer

Maybe this would be easier - What do you think would be a reasonable copyright period?

As I stated above, I believe that works that have value should be copyright. I also believe that a reasonable period extends, at the very minimum, until the artist dies.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If we can't have capitalism without eternal copyright, or at least copyright terms that are longer today, and copyrights were significantly shorter in the past, it logically follows that capitalism has never existed. When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, copyright was only 14 years, with an option to extend an additional 14 years.

As I noted in my previous post, one aspect of copying items is the ease with which it can be accomplished. In the past, copying an item involved much more labor and resources than copying an item does today. Thus in the past copying items did not undermine capitalism nearly as much as it does today.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

False. It's extremely rare for a book to only have it's value recognized after many years. Has there EVER been a book that only had it's value recognized 70 years after the death of the author?

There are plenty of instances in which works have taken many years to be recognized. The works of Thoreau come to mind. Dickinson's poetry also took time to be recognized. Granted neither of these took 70 years after the death of the author. However, my argument is based on the value of a work. Once it is recognized as valuable, it should be copyright. If it is not, then it will undermine the sale of future works.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Keep in mind that the power you have to protect your physical property exists only because government grants it. Without government, property of any kind doesn't exist.

Not true. Animals still have teriitories, you could easily equate then with property...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Not true. Animals still have teriitories, you could easily equate then with property...

Survival of the fittest

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by petrucci

As I stated above, I believe that works that have value should be copyright. I also believe that a reasonable period extends, at the very minimum, until the artist dies.

My question was a simple one, and that only half answered it. You think, at minimum, copyright should be until the death of the artist, great. But there's a lot of time beyond that. Do you think it should end at the artist's death? How about 5 years after that? 10 years? 70 years? The heat-death of the universe?

I ask because there's no point in the two of us arguing if we agree on the same point, even if we arrive at that point by different means.

Maybe one more question: your arguments to Sir Ralph seem to be based on economics, the idea that short copyright somehow undermines capitalism. If there was evidence that current copyright systems in the US are an economic drag (so "undermine capitalism"), would you agree that a shorter copyright period would be appropriate?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Survival of the fittest

Which incidentally is what Capitalism is at the fundamental level

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Keep in mind that the power you have to protect your physical property exists only because government grants it. Without government, property of any kind doesn't exist.

The power you have to protect your physical property exists without government. Locks do not require the existence of governments. You can protect your property with a lock.

If you don't want to call it property, fine. Call it stuff. Even without government, you have the means to protect your physical stuff. You can lock it up. You can post guards. But you don't have any means to protect intellectual stuff. You make a hammer, you can control that hammer even without government. But if you sell that hammer, you don't have the means to prevent someone from duplicating it. You need a patent to do that.

Originally Posted by petrucci

As I noted in my previous post, one aspect of copying items is the ease with which it can be accomplished. In the past, copying an item involved much more labor and resources than copying an item does today. Thus in the past copying items did not undermine capitalism nearly as much as it does today.

The ease of copying is an argument to have copyright, but it is not an argument for continually increasing the period of copyright or for eternal copyright, which are really the same thing.

There are plenty of instances in which works have taken many years to be recognized. The works of Thoreau come to mind. Dickinson's poetry also took time to be recognized. Granted neither of these took 70 years after the death of the author. However, my argument is based on the value of a work. Once it is recognized as valuable, it should be copyright. If it is not, then it will undermine the sale of future works.

Granted neither of these took 70 years after the death of the author
Granted neither of these took 70 years after the death of the author
Granted neither of these took 70 years after the death of the author

You claimed that copyright needs to be even longer than it is now because there are "many" works which take years to be recognized. But you can site not a single work which was not recognized within 70 years of the death of the author! The copyright period could only be too short to accommodate works which took time to be recognized if and only if works are not recognized within the existing copyright term.

You keep claiming that the public domain undermines the sale of new books. If that were true, wouldn't we see people flocking to public domain works? Wouldn't English teachers be ecstatic about people reading the classics instead of complaining that people don't read them? People watch new movies a lot more than they watch old public domain movies.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm not going to lie to you and say that novels like Wesley Crusher: Teenage Fuck Machine don't exist, but I disagree that writers use "literary riffs" less often than artists in other mediums. I've read a number of books that use the basic structure of the Wizard of Oz, and have enjoyed a number of works (movies, videogames and books) that were set in Wonderland. There's a great value in new artists being able to set works in classic story settings.

My above argument feels a bit pointless since: (i) we both agree on the basic point (copyright is too long); and (ii) copyright in the U.S. probably won't get any shorter, and could easily get longer.

I'm Canadian, and I find the fact that nothing will enter the U.S. public domain for years to be depressing, partly because I like a lot of U.S. artists and think they could do great things with old works.

Well, you can always do like the US did for years and years and not recognize foreign copyrights.
Canadian artists might not like the fact that there would be reprisals, but it would be an interesting experiment.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

My question was a simple one, and that only half answered it. You think, at minimum, copyright should be until the death of the artist, great. But there's a lot of time beyond that. Do you think it should end at the artist's death? How about 5 years after that? 10 years? 70 years? The heat-death of the universe?

I ask because there's no point in the two of us arguing if we agree on the same point, even if we arrive at that point by different means.

My main premise is that if valuable works are available for free then they undermine the value of newly created works. The paper in that was cited in the original post gave the example of Peter and the Wolf. This work was in the public domain for a period of time. During that time it was performed. It then went back into copyright. At that point many orchestras ceased to perform it. They could not justify spending money on the work when there are other valuable works that are in the public domain. Thus, my primary desire is that valuable works are copyright regardless of when they were created. Given that it may take time for a work to be recognized, I believe that at the minimum the copyright should extend until the author's death.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Maybe one more question: your arguments to Sir Ralph seem to be based on economics, the idea that short copyright somehow undermines capitalism. If there was evidence that current copyright systems in the US are an economic drag (so "undermine capitalism"), would you agree that a shorter copyright period would be appropriate?

I am certainly willing to consider it. However, it strikes me that if a service is freely available, then it will adversely effect the viability of offering such a service at a cost. A good example is the elevator operator. Machines can function as elevator operators, and operate at no cost. On account of this there are no jobs for elevator operators anymore. This is roughly analogous to having large number of valuable works of literature freely available. It reduces the value of a new work. It may not reduce the value to nothing, such as the elevator example, but it certainly reduces the value.

Originally Posted by Quantum Iguana

The ease of copying is an argument to have copyright, but it is not an argument for continually increasing the period of copyright or for eternal copyright, which are really the same thing.

The ease of copying is very relevant to the term of the copyright. If valuable works, regardless of age, are freely available, then they compete economically with newly created works. Given that we can copy works at very little cost, works in the public domain are essentially free. It is very difficult to compete with free products.

Originally Posted by Quantum Iguana

You claimed that copyright needs to be even longer than it is now because there are "many" works which take years to be recognized. But you can site not a single work which was not recognized within 70 years of the death of the author! The copyright period could only be too short to accommodate works which took time to be recognized if and only if works are not recognized within the existing copyright term.

I claim that it is important that works that have value are copyright. Thus, once they have been recognized as valuable they should be copyright. Given that it can take time to recognize the value of such works, I believe that there should be a minimum duration of copyright.

Originally Posted by Quantum Iguana

You keep claiming that the public domain undermines the sale of new books. If that were true, wouldn't we see people flocking to public domain works? Wouldn't English teachers be ecstatic about people reading the classics instead of complaining that people don't read them? People watch new movies a lot more than they watch old public domain movies.

It is true. See my comments above on Peter and the Wolf. It is a fact that people read books that are in the public domain. People also have a limited amount of time to read. Every minute that is spent reading a public domain book, is one that is not spent reading a book that is not in the public domain. It also represents money that is not spent on a newly created book. I am not arguing that no newly created works will be sold, or that people will only read public domain works. I am arguing that the public domain works compete for the time and money of the consumer, and that some consumers choose public domain works over newly created ones.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I am arguing that the public domain works compete for the time and money of the consumer, and that some consumers choose public domain works over newly created ones.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. It is not.

Copyright (in British law and tradition) is designed to provide an incentive for creators to create, so that there will be more creative works available to all once the copyright period has expired.

The availability of good works in the public domain is the entire point of having copyright laws.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Copyright (in British law and tradition) is designed to provide an incentive for creators to create, so that there will be more creative works available to all once the copyright period has expired.

The availability of good works in the public domain is the entire point of having copyright laws.

Precisely. The reason that the works of great writers like Dickens are now in the public domain is precisely because Dickens - a man who famously wrote purely to make as much money as possible - was encouraged to write by the existence of copyright laws.

[QuantumIguana]

The ease of copying is very relevant to the term of the copyright. If valuable works, regardless of age, are freely available, then they compete economically with newly created works. Given that we can copy works at very little cost, works in the public domain are essentially free. It is very difficult to compete with free products.

No, it isn't. It is not the purpose of copyright to protect current authors from having to compete with public domain works. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, and thus they are given a limited government-granted monopoly in exchange for the work entering the public domain at some time.

The printing press did make copyright relevant because it was much easier to copy with the printing press than it was by hand. Copyright has already increased dramatically, the ease of copying doesn't imply that copyright needs to be further extended. The overwhelming majority of works have faded into obscurity long before life+70 years have passed.

Eternal copyright would undermine the intent of copyright. The public domain is the culture. Had copyright been eternal, we couldn't have had Romeo and Juliet, because it was based on an earlier work. Walt Disney made a fortune mining the public domain. If the copyright period had been as long in his day as it is now, he wouldn't have been able to make these movies, or at least would need someone else's permission. The Brother's Grimm mined the public domain for their stories. Should we have been deprived of them?

I claim that it is important that works that have value are copyright. Thus, once they have been recognized as valuable they should be copyright. Given that it can take time to recognize the value of such works, I believe that there should be a minimum duration of copyright.

You're still going with that? We do in fact have a minimum duration of copyright, in fact considerably more than minimal: Life plus 70 years! Even if the author dies immediately after publishing, that's book will be under copyright for 70 years. That is clearly more than enough time for the book to be discovered. If the author lived for a longer period of time after writing the book, it stays under copyright for an even longer time.

But making copyright eternal means that the book can't be discovered. There are vaults full of decaying movies. They are under copyright, but no one knows who owns the copyright. With eternal copyright, the same thing would happen with books, they would be stuck in limbo. You couldn't discover them and publish them because they would be under copyright and no one would know who held the rights.

It is true. See my comments above on Peter and the Wolf. It is a fact that people read books that are in the public domain. People also have a limited amount of time to read. Every minute that is spent reading a public domain book, is one that is not spent reading a book that is not in the public domain. It also represents money that is not spent on a newly created book. I am not arguing that no newly created works will be sold, or that people will only read public domain works. I am arguing that the public domain works compete for the time and money of the consumer, and that some consumers choose public domain works over newly created ones.

Why do so few people watch old public domain movies? Why do so few people listen to old public domain music? And see my comments that Beethoven might just be a little bit better than someone compsing today. Throwing books into the bonfire by making copyright eternal isn't going going to increase sales of new books. If an author's books aren't selling, it's probably because he isn't writing very good books. Some people read public domain classics, yes, but it isn't a zero-sum game. Taking away the public domain is just going to result in less books being read. If we took away Beethoven, people wouldn't turn to newer composers, classical music would just become weaker.

If someone is reading Austen, Dickens or Melville, and these are taken away, they aren't going to pick up the books of some struggling author: that author can't compete with the classics. But people also have a finite amount of money to spend on books. If they read a free book, that means they have more money to spend on books that are not free.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Gratitude to the State for allowing creators to temporarily keep what they created? Maybe we should afford land owners this same wonderful right? Life + 70 and your land reverts back to the State.

I can't quite tell if you're being facetious throughout this thread. You do realize you're stating the facts exactly backwards, right?
(I see the winky, but I'm not certain if it applies to the whole message or just the real estate suggestion....)

[crossi]

The whole point of copyright is to benefit the public. The economic advantage of idividual creators is not the goal but only the means to increase the amount in the public domain. The government should only support copyright for the minimum time to provide the most new public domain works. Too short and there is less incentive to create, too long and the whole point of copyright is negated as works are lost as they become orphaned or just withheld from the public. Life plus 70 years is way too long. Going on and on about the economic loss to the heirs of the creators 70 years after the creator died and maybe 100 years since he last created anything is completely beside the point.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by crossi

The whole point of copyright is to benefit the public. The economic advantage of idividual creators is not the goal but only the means to increase the amount in the public domain. The government should only support copyright for the minimum time to provide the most new public domain works. Too short and there is less incentive to create, too long and the whole point of copyright is negated as works are lost as they become orphaned or just withheld from the public. Life plus 70 years is way too long. Going on and on about the economic loss to the heirs of the creators 70 years after the creator died and maybe 100 years since he last created anything is completely beside the point.

I agree. And what ever Mark Twain's genuine opinion of copyright terms may have been, I like his stated idea that it should let him "...take care of his children. Let the grandchildren take care of themselves."

ApK

[RHWright]

I've said it before in previous discussions, but I'll chime in again.

1) For copyright length: for me, life + 20 years seems adequate. That covers the creator and accounts for providing for any minor children, without giving an estate a stranglehold for decades. Newly published posthumous works should get a flat 20 years, but I'm sure that's a side issue for any but the most prolific and popular authors.

2) Eliminate corporate ownership of all copyrights, except in very narrowly defined work-for-hire situations. So, say, if I create a brochure for a company that can only ever be relevant to their needs, that's fine to assign full copyright as work for hire. However, if I create something that is not business-specific or dependent on the context of that business to function (Superman, Mickey Mouse, Teletubbies), the work-for-hire agreement should only have a limited duration license. Say, 10 years. If, after 10 years, the business wants to continue the license, they must renegotiate a new license for another 10 years. This can go on for the life of the (human) creator + 20 years. After that, neither the corporation or estate can claim copyright.

3) Obviously this gets slightly more complicated with joint creators (Superman) and if you throw in multiple collaborators in a work-for-hire/staff situation. But I think it would be time better spent adjudicating that than with Disney's lawyers going after preschools for painting their own Mickey Mouse on their classroom walls.

Are these ideas and numbers arbitrary? Sure. But other than the concept that personal property is what I'm strong enough to take and keep others from taking from me (which, I hope, humanity has mostly progressed beyond) "personal property" --intellectual or otherwise-- is fairly arbitrary as a concept itself.

I don't think copyright is intended to support "capitalism" or protect a creator's "property" rights. Copyright is an incentive to contribute to the creativity and innovation of society. The incentive is a limited period of control and exclusivity. The limited period should not be made unlimited and the incentive (in terms of copyright length) should not outweigh the benefit to the community that it is intended to promote.

Just my 2 cents.