AU Productivity Comm says unblock AU and stop rewarding DRM holders in grave!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

Not me, the PC report writers. Here's an explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalt...ncome_approach

Thanks!

[Cosimo]

Why should there be a time limit on how long someone can own something? Just because it may no longer be financially rewarding seems to be a very weak reason that control should be taken away from a creator or, subsequently, their heirs.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Cosimo

Why should there be a time limit on how long someone can own something? Just because it may no longer be financially rewarding seems to be a very weak reason that control should be taken away from a creator or, subsequently, their heirs.

There isn't and wasn't a time limit on "how long someone can own something".

But copyright only applies for the type of "thing" that fundamentally isn't really all that much of a "thing" to begin with.
Ideas.
You can't own an idea.

No one really "owns" a copyrighted work -- they have a limited-time monopoly on the reproduction and distribution rights, a monopoly that doesn't exist in nature... whereas owning a house or a chair or a sheaf of paper bound into a "book" with words printed on it IS a naturally existing sort of ownership.


The whole point is that no one would have ever owned the intellectual copyrights for a work if not for the government policy "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" -- and THAT is why "no longer financially rewarding" is a very very good reason indeed to take away the copyright-enforced monopoly.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

There isn't and wasn't a time limit on "how long someone can own something".

But copyright only applies for the type of "thing" that fundamentally isn't really all that much of a "thing" to begin with.
Ideas.
You can't own an idea.
...
.

This.

The other thing to keep in mind is that unlike actual property, part of the reason that such works go into public domain is that people frequently get ideas from other works. It's talked about much more often in the music world, but it's just as common in the literary world.

Of course no one really admits it, unless you are talking about PD works since if you admit to borrowing an idea from the Harry Potter universe, you open yourself to a lawsuit. Movies as well. The Magnificent Seven was a remake of the Seven Samurai. It's part of our culture. If you look at fanfic, you see a ton of of works based on specific universes. You have all the licensed books, such as the Star Wars universe, the Darkover universe and a host of others.

[Apache]

The major beneficiaries of long copyrights are corporations.
Apache

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Apache

The major beneficiaries of long copyrights are corporations.
Apache

Exactly. The reason we have these long copyrights existing beyond the life of the creator is that the 'creator' has been lobbyed into existence as an entity who cannot 'die'.

Corporations are why authors and the like have been treated differently to other regular Joe professionals.

Semi-relevant question: Most countries charge inheritance tax for properties passed onto heirs. Do the heirs of a copyright have to pay inheritance tax?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Semi-relevant question: Most countries charge inheritance tax for properties passed onto heirs. Do the heirs of a copyright have to pay inheritance tax?

Inheritance tax is paid on the total value of an estate. I don't know how the value of a copyright is assessed. Presumably it's judged to have some value!

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

A treaty can be revoked. Sometimes there is language that explicitly says how to revoke it, other times you simply give notice that you no longer consider it valid. In the US, a treaty can be renounced via act of congress as well as by unilateral action by the President. Both are equally legal.

Just ask the American Indians. Treaties are often not worth the paper they are printed on.

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Semi-relevant question: Most countries charge inheritance tax for properties passed onto heirs. Do the heirs of a copyright have to pay inheritance tax?

Yes, a valuation is done at the time of death. Keep in mind though, many authors lost their rights in conniving contracts with publishers and are only now regaining them (some 35 year rule - I think it was discussed here at the time). So, most of the time, they just make an estimate based on the royalties received over the most recent 3-5 years taking into account the trend.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Yes, a valuation is done at the time of death. Keep in mind though, many authors lost their rights in conniving contracts with publishers and are only now regaining them (some 35 year rule - I think it was discussed here at the time). So, most of the time, they just make an estimate based on the royalties received over the most recent 3-5 years taking into account the trend.

This is news to me. Is there any way for us to find out if the estate of a recently deceased author has paid their copyright inheritance tax? Seems like we're just blindly assuming that life+70 applies in all cases.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

This is news to me. Is there any way for us to find out if the estate of a recently deceased author has paid their copyright inheritance tax?

I know nothing about the law in India, but in most countries, the tax affairs of citizens are private, so I would guess that the answer is "no".

Seems like we're just blindly assuming that life+70 applies in all cases.

The laws of the country in which the author lived would apply. Which country are you talking about?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

This is news to me. Is there any way for us to find out if the estate of a recently deceased author has paid their copyright inheritance tax? Seems like we're just blindly assuming that life+70 applies in all cases.

Corporations don't die (although sometimes they get eaten).

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I know nothing about the law in India, but in most countries, the tax affairs of citizens are private, so I would guess that the answer is "no".



The laws of the country in which the author lived would apply. Which country are you talking about?

Any country which has an inheritance tax, Harry.

I'm just saying that if an inheritance tax on copyright exists, and the heirs don't bother to pay it, perhaps there should be a mechanism to indicate to society that the copyright on said work has lapsed with the death of the author and hence it is immediately in the public domain now. Otherwise it ends up a waste of 70 years (or 'x' years depending on country) where no one else publishes that work for under the false assumption that the copyright still exists.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Corporations don't die (although sometimes they get eaten).

Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I'm just saying that if an inheritance tax on copyright exists, and the heirs don't bother to pay it, perhaps there should be a mechanism to indicate to society that the copyright on said work has lapsed with the death of the author and hence it is immediately in the public domain now. Otherwise it ends up a waste of 70 years (or 'x' years depending on country) where no one else publishes that work for under the false assumption that the copyright still exists.

You don't get the choice of whether to pay it or not. In the UK at least, the assessed tax is taken from the estate before the residual value is distributed to the heirs, and I believe the same is true in other countries, too. The executor of the estate would end up in court charged with tax evasion if the inheritance tax were not to be paid.