Why public domain

[hildea]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Actually leebase countered with "In what fantasy world do we believe people will just write books for free?" Nothing in the rest of that post mentioned anything about professional writers either.

MarjaE simply replied that they and many others already do this. Nowhere in this response by MarjaE did they suggest this is a reason to abolish copyright.

Yes, that is how I read MarjaE as well. I saw leebase's "in what fantasy world" comment yesterday, and thought about replying something similar as they did, but decided to spend the time reading (a free fanfic) novel instead.

It's also worth mentioning that barryem did not say "let's consider abolishing copyright because people will write books for free", they said (paraphrasing) "let's consider abolishing copyright because we don't need any more new books". I was the one who mentioned free books because I wanted to be thorough when arguing against barryem's suggestion. So leebase is arguing against a point noone made (and insulting people who are generous enough to share their creations for free while at it).

[hildea]

As long as we're doing thought experiments about radical changes to copyright:

I'd like to consider allowing transformative (or derivative? I'm not entirely sure of the difference) works made for profit when the copyright is held by a business (not an individual) after a much shorter time, like 5 or 10 years.

So, when fans are annoyed and disappointed by the latest film in a franchise, it will be possible for others to make alternative versions.

I assume that when businesses produce films, they expect to get most of the return on their investments after 5 or 10 years. And they will keep the sole right to earn money from selling copies of their own films. But they may have to compete with other versions of their story. Competition is supposed to be good, right?

And yes, I realise that this wouldn't just be used to make a gayer version of the Avengers films , it could also be used to make remakes I'd hate, for instance someone who hated The Last Jedi could make a new version where Rey and Finn were replaced by white men.


Note: I do realise that it would be hard to implement, and probably easy to find loopholes, so I'm describing more what I think should be than something I think could be. And I'm sure there are disadvantages I haven't thought about.


My serious suggestion for copyright terms is something like "life + 30" or "publication + 70", whatever comes first.

[Ghitulescu]

Creating something like Harry Potter's world was not difficult - lots of stories have been published before and after.

However, this only shows what good PR could do to a work. Not convinced? Try Star Wars. There were mayn good SciFi movies before - but the use of some effects (lame by todays' standards) and a very good PR made it to the top.

In 1860's when the Berne Convention was engineered, the basic idea was to help the writers have an income, and since many of them died in poverty, a special clause also extended the copyright to 20 years after their death, for their successors, the children, to have a benefit from the work of their parents.
Meanwhile, companies got hold of the most relevant and important aspects of the copyright, although a company cannot invent anything and create anything, for being a fictional person.
The terms have been repeatedly extended, mostly in favour of these companies, for reasons that escape my reason but contrary to the initial idea/concept. C'mon, when a movie get 10fold the invested money in its first weekend, why keeping its rights for 95 years? 20 like patents have, would be plenty.

Just as a side: note: Hollywood became Hollywood because the film producers went to California to circumvent the patents Edison and Eastmann had on camera and film. Once they settled there, they did EXACTLY the same aggressive copyright methods they accused Edison of.

Since this forum is for books (so was the copyright initially, BTW), it's the same: before 1923, the americans copied like hell european works, but once they get the upperhand, they used the same policy to impose the copyright on other nations.



In the end, the copyright is a social contract: we, the people, accept to grant a monopole to someone for a work s/he did, in order for her/him to harvest the fruits of her/him activity, but after a while, said work has to become public, for everyone to benefit. Imagine social primitive tribes imposing a 20000 years copyright ban on fire or wheel.... In the end, since we are discussing books, it was the public-founded school the one that taught for free the future author - at least for this reason we expect something in return during our lives, for we paid her/him during our lives.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Nobody is worrying about the free offerings. Yes, they exist and “nobody cares”....except their mom and 10 other people on the internet. Nobody is trying to infringe the copyright or term limit the copyright of those authors. We even have the Creative Commons license for those who want to release their content into the world with the caveat that all built on their stories also are part of Creative Commons.

People are advocating/discussing the doing away with copyright. And yes, I have complete and utter disdain for that notion.

If YOU want to give away your creative work...that’s your choice. Ending other people's copyright or doing away with copyright is taking the ownership away from the creators.

And that’s no different than confiscating someone’s business or nationalizing an industry.

Technically there are some free books that turn out good enough to be picked up by a publisher and become best sellers. A couple of Larry Corriea's books started that way. I seem to recall a couple of other authors who mentioned that's how they started. But yes, they are quite rare compared to the mass of stuff out there.

I disagree with the idea of doing away with copyright, I like my books, am happy to pay for them and want my favored authors to keep writing them. I just want copyright to go back to a more reasonable time period for a number of reasons, most of which I've given at some point in this thread and won't repeat here.

At one time, the vast majority of books earned everything they were going to earn in the first year. Shelf space was limited and book sellers simply didn't keep books that weren't moving on the shelves very long. I think it would be interesting to see how much that has changed with ebooks and the change over to buying books on the internet. It may be that books now have a chance to build an audience over the space of several years.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

...

Since this forum is for books (so was the copyright initially, BTW), it's the same: before 1923, the americans copied like hell european works, but once they get the upperhand, they used the same policy to impose the copyright on other nations.



In the end, the copyright is a social contract: we, the people, accept to grant a monopole to someone for a work s/he did, in order for her/him to harvest the fruits of her/him activity, but after a while, said work has to become public, for everyone to benefit. Imagine social primitive tribes imposing a 20000 years copyright ban on fire or wheel.... In the end, since we are discussing books, it was the public-founded school the one that taught for free the future author - at least for this reason we expect something in return during our lives, for we paid her/him during our lives.

I think you mean 1976 for the US, not 1923. 1976 was when the US joined the Berne treaty and went from 28+28 to life+50 or 75 years.

The US has a public school system for two major reason, first it was thought that everyone should be able to read the Bible and second because it was recognized that a Democracy requires an informed citizenry.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

When you do something right for the wrong reason, doesn't necessarily make you right.

Which doesn’t really matter in this case. It’s not like we’re rescuing someone and have non altruistic motives. We’re all in agreement that copyright should exist and generally agree on why it should exist. The difference is only in how long it should exist.

If we were all just disagreeing on the length of the system, then sure. Problem is that extending copyright for eternity, even if it only applies selectively to some works, is not a simple lengthening, but a fundamental change. Same as shortening the copyright length to zero for all. The latter tries to get away with time limited monopoly of distribution, the former tries to remove the public domain aspect.

We’re still discussing a length change, forever is still a measure of time. Yes it’s a fundamental change to copyright that has nothing to do with the fact that it’s what the basis of the disagreement is. Other factors come in to play as a result of the proposed change which we can also disagree on. But for this discussion if we all agreed it should be say life +70 the rest of the issues drop off.

It should continue to exist, because without it the reason for it to exist in the first place would go away.

Yes this is what we’ve all been saying. Though most add that we benefit from the thing it allows to exist.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think you mean 1976 for the US, not 1923. 1976 was when the US joined the Berne treaty and went from 28+28 to life+50 or 75 years.

Nope., 1923 - it's the year when US accepted the copyright claims from overseas.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The US has a public school system for two major reason, first it was thought that everyone should be able to read the Bible and second because it was recognized that a Democracy requires an informed citizenry.

I am not talking about US since copyright is not an US-only concept. But anyway, the fact that all those authors received education on other people's money remains, and should not be forgotten. In ther past, when the church was the only schooling system in the world, the pupils were practically oriented towards church business, some of them being lent to state authorities for drafting acts and other legal businesses (thus the origin of the words clerk and clerical error since the church, widespreading the God's word, cannot possibly be wrong )
The author should release the work to the public when the public decides s/he should do it. An inventor working in a company cannot claim the invention for himself, for the same reason, he used company resources to invent it. Why the public be always the stupid in this game, and only the companies get the profit and benefits?

However, reading the Bible does not contravene the separation of church from the state?

[leebase]

In the US...we don't work for the state. We have public education, but that doesn't bind the students into servitude to the state.

I would agree in the case of publicly funded universities that the government should be owed a piece of the state funded research benefits.

But we are still talking about ownership.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by leebase

In the US...we don't work for the state. We have public education, but that doesn't bind the students into servitude to the state.

I would agree in the case of publicly funded universities that the government should be owed a piece of the state funded research benefits.

But we are still talking about ownership.

Should universities own the rights to student written papers? That claim has been made by some universities.

[leebase]

How long? Forever.

The previous statement is an opinion, not an interpretation of the current copyright law anywhere in the world.

One shouldn't own the work efforts of another person without their consent. That copyright brought intellectual property into existence in the first place was a great step forward.

For fiction, where there is no scarcity of solutions, there is NO reason "society" should gain ownership. Ever.

The previous statements, again, are only the opinion. It's just a lot BETTER opinion than anyone with a different opinion.

The previous statement is only an opinion.

Oh....and this author makes copious use of sarcasm and hyperbole. Those who don't recognize either....I take no responsibility for nor will I always engage "but THIS exception means your point is wrong". No...it means that communication clarity is enhanced when someone feels no need to wrap EVERY GOD BLESSED STATEMENT with a host of caveats.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I also think that your unspoken assumption, that everything worth reading has already been written, is very fairly obviously not true.

I've never made that assumption. My idea is that if we did away with copyright only those who love to write would continue to do so. I have no doubt that many wonderful books will be written in the future, with or without copyright.

Barry

[barryem]

The assumption that if we do away with copyright all books would be free is just that, an assumption someone made in this thread. Obviously they'd bring in less money. But when a new book becomes available the publisher, or the author if it's self published, is the only source of that book at first. If people want to read it they'll probably buy it.

Since there isn't any copy protection it won't be long before other people are selling it as well. And of course those who buy it will be able to easily share it with their friends. And the author will only get praise and a lot less money for his work. Is that a terrible thing for a work of love?

I just googled the beginning of copyright and it seems that it began with the Statue of Anne in 1710. Some things written before there was copyright are the works of Shakespeare, Moliere, Christopher Marlowe, Milton, Cervantes, Hobbes, John Donne, Spinoza, John Locke, Pierre Corneille (El Cid), John Ford, John Webster, William, Congreve, Ben Johnson, George Herbert, Francis Bacon, William Wycherley, Ben Johnson, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Browne and Isaac Walton. I left out those whose books were primarily scientific or mathematical such as Newton, Pascal, Galileo, etc.

Just think, if they'd had copyright back then we might have heard of some of them.

Barry

[MGlitch]

Just imagine if you could have instantly and perfectly replicated and sold their work for a fraction of what they were selling it for.

Right now the complete wheel of time ebook goes for 150 USD on most sites, I found one “instant read” selling it for 24 but I can’t verify how trustworthy they are. Nor if they actually allow you to download from them.

Imagine buying it and then selling it for 3 USD.

That’s the book industry without copyright in today’s world.

[MarjaE]

I'd like some other way to compensate authors. Not sure what would work.

Some authors might curate their fanfic, collaborate with fanfic authors, and release official editions. Eric Flint does that with 1632 and its sequels. But he began as an editor and might approach things differently from those who began as an author. With popular works, that may be a viable long-term option with short-term copyright. Not sure how well it would work if some other system replaces copyright.

Academic publishing poses its own problems. There are a lot of discussions of this on the Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week blog.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by barryem

Just think, if they'd had copyright back then we might have heard of some of them.

If they had copyright back then, someone might have been given an advance to write a reliable biography of William Shakespeare -- something we will never have.