Why public domain

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by barryem

I just googled the beginning of copyright and it seems that it began with the Statue of Anne in 1710.

To expand on my last post in a way possibly more relevant to most readers here:

1710 - Start of English copyright
1719 - First memorable English novel (Robinson Crusoe)

Nine years isn't an exact correlation. It could have been a coincidence. I can't find any evidence Defoe got an advance before writing it

[barryem]

Originally Posted by 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.

Before the printing press books could be replicated, and were, with a fraction of the effort that went into writing it originally. It was done all the time by monks called copyists. It wasn't instant but I'll bet it didn't take nearly as long as writing a book from scratch.

I suspect, although I don't know, that in 1710 copyright was begun as an answer to this and other similar problems.

If we stop copyright it will cause huge problems, of course. Much of our system and our economy is built around it. So simply dropping copyright would be silly. But we might find ways to move in that direction.

Again I'm not suggesting this is something society should do. I think it's something this group might discuss. Then, after we've considered it carefully we can decide whether we'll allow copyright to continue or not.

Barry

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by barryem

Before the printing press books could be replicated, and were, with a fraction of the effort that went into writing it originally. It was done all the time by monks called copyists. It wasn't instant but I'll bet it didn't take nearly as long as writing a book from scratch.
Barry

Except it required a skill, writing. It took less time sure, but no where near as little as we can today. Given that we’re talking about changing things in today’s world that’s what matters.

I get you’re not advocating for the removal of copyright.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

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

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?

I think you are a bit confused. Books written outside the US have always been able to get copyright in the US. You just had to go through the US registration process. If you don't go through the US registration process, you don't get automatic copyright protection just because you have a copyright in the UK, for example. That is what the whole unauthorized Ace "Lord of the Rings" edition was all about. Part of signing the Berne convention treaty in 1976 was recognizing each signee's copyrights.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/featur...ed-lord-rings/

[barryem]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

To expand on my last post in a way possibly more relevant to most readers here:

1710 - Start of English copyright
1719 - First memorable English novel (Robinson Crusoe)

Nine years isn't an exact correlation. It could have been a coincidence. I can't find any evidence Defoe got an advance before writing it

That's a good point but I wonder if "First memorable English novel" is realistic. Before that there were the "Canterbury Tales". Not a novel but much closer to a novel than it is to a collection of short stories. I think the form was starting to take shape. And there was "Don Quixote" as well as the writings of Milton and quite a few others.

I think the significance of "Robinson Crusoe" might be that it kind of completed the evolution to what we know today as a novel.

I think if we didn't have copyright we'd still have many of the great and even the good novels. What we'd have a lot less of are genre things.

There are a lot of reasons people write novels and I'm sure money is one of the important ones. But there's also the urge to create and the desire for fame and recognition. We'd certainly have fewer novels but I'm not sure how much of a loss that would really be.

Barry

[Alanon]

While I was catching up on this thread, I had a thought - is anyone familiar with the state of the global market, and did that play into your arguments? Some posts made in the last few pages made me realise we're in a bubble of sorts. It's fine to consider Western traditions in all these things, and that's also my first instinct, but Asia hosts half the population of the planet, they are on the rise, and there's a woeful lack of accessible information. For example, I have no idea if writing is a viable profession in India, China or the Middle East? What are the odds that someone's work will not be copied or downloaded? Would a foreign author fair better or worse in those parts? What are the odds that a reader from those countries would pirate an e-book or something?

Another thing to note is that sometimes one can pirate a book through indirect means. Whole swaths of humanity are still not comfortable reading English. Those book lovers have to wait for translations - authorized or not - to be able to read the book at all. What chance would a small Amazon author have of being translated to, say, Russian, and how could he enforce his perpetual copyright in such a case? From my few forays into Russia, I can tell you that there's no particular incentive to honour the copyright of western media, most Russians would read a book in English only if there was no other option (that includes scholars, by the way), and I've seen people paying for Russian pirated editions of various media created by cottage industries, rather than do battle with the original.

My point - there already is some form of rampant copyright infringement as part of the culture in some parts of the world that applies to huge sections of the global population (including much more popular forms of IP media), and still the industries have never been producing more content. Film studios and game developers are not suffering from China's open flaunting of patent law and IP, they practically count on Asian markets to sustain them. Modern publishing seems almost parochial in contrast? Translation and marketing are usually reserved for the most profitable authors, and even these high-profile names can get pirated in smaller markets where even the monopolist publishers can't translate everything that's marketable. I've lost count of the number of strange 500-copy translations of Stephen King done by 5-man publishing teams in small towns that I've seen over the years.

Anyway, rambling over, share your thoughts!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

To expand on my last post in a way possibly more relevant to most readers here:

1710 - Start of English copyright
1719 - First memorable English novel (Robinson Crusoe)

Nine years isn't an exact correlation. It could have been a coincidence. I can't find any evidence Defoe got an advance before writing it

To be a bit picky about it, that wasn't the start of English copyright, that was the start of English copyright where the rights were assigned to the author rather than a favored printer. That is what the big reform was with Queen Anne.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

To be a bit picky about it, that wasn't the start of English copyright, that was the start of English copyright where the rights were assigned to the author rather than a favored printer. That is what the big reform was with Queen Anne.

Nothing excessively picky about that, it's a very good point. It's not as if copyright as we know it today came about in a sudden revelation; IP rights have been evolving over a long period of time ... and there's nothing odd about that either, other property rights also evolved over a long period, they just started earlier.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

That's a good point but I wonder if "First memorable English novel" is realistic. Before that there were the "Canterbury Tales". Not a novel but much closer to a novel than it is to a collection of short stories. I think the form was starting to take shape. And there was "Don Quixote" as well as the writings of Milton and quite a few others.

I think the significance of "Robinson Crusoe" might be that it kind of completed the evolution to what we know today as a novel.

I think if we didn't have copyright we'd still have many of the great and even the good novels. What we'd have a lot less of are genre things.

There are a lot of reasons people write novels and I'm sure money is one of the important ones. But there's also the urge to create and the desire for fame and recognition. We'd certainly have fewer novels but I'm not sure how much of a loss that would really be.

Barry

The story of Milton dying in poverty and his granddaughter was one of the talking points that helped to get Queen Anne's passed. Of course, Milton's situation was a bit more complex than it was portrayed. In general, prior to Queen Anne writing was treated much like the current works for hire, i.e. the author was paid a sum for the work and the printer had the copyright. John Milton had a contract with the printer Samuel Simmons for Paradise Lost. Milton received 5 pounds when he turned over the finished product to Simmons, then another 5 pounds when 1,300 copies were sold.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Books written outside the US have always been able to get copyright in the US.

I am not talking about modern books, LOTR and stuff. I am talking about the times when US had no writers, and they stole works from Europe, and Europe complained as US complains today about China.

AFAIK the first time when non-US citizens could get a copyright in the US was after the major reform of the law, in 1923. Wikipedia appears to promote an earlier date, 1891, yet I've searched the online CCE library for non-US citizens and found them only after 1924 - not to say there were none, just that I found none in a rather extensive search.

Even the fact that only in 1976 US adhered to Berne Convention says a lot about this.

[leebase]

That writers in the US stole works from Europe....is precisely the type of think copyright/intellectual property helps stop.

Without...it's not even stealing.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by barryem

Again I'm not suggesting this is something society should do. I think it's something this group might discuss.

I mentioned several serious drawbacks to your suggestion a couple of pages back. Do you have any comments to any of those? Do you think they won't happen, or do you think none of the drawbacks are important?

Originally Posted by barryem

I think if we didn't have copyright we'd still have many of the great and even the good novels. What we'd have a lot less of are genre things.
...
We'd certainly have fewer novels but I'm not sure how much of a loss that would really be.

A lot of people read and enjoy new novels, including genre novels. Losing most of those might not be a loss to you personally, but I assure you that it would be a significant loss to many, many readers.

Frankly, this view sounds like someone going to a buffet and throwing out all the food they don't like, because they can't imagine that other people might have different tastes.

[MarjaE]

Assuming compensation isn't an issue-- maybe something else allows for that, maybe some kind of mandatory licensing--

That you might see slightly less editing/polishing of the initial run of a novel, but if people like it, you'd see more fan-fic and reworking, and that might contribute to better versions of later runs.

As well as works which chllenge the original, such as Kirill Yeskov's *The Last Ringbearer*,

As well as works which address lack of representation, bad representation, and so on.

Now I'd like everyone involved to get appropriate payment and due credit, but I think more derivative works and more re-workings would be a good thing.

[leebase]

Everything that can be accomplished without copyright can already be accomplished. Anybody who wishes to give what they write to the public can.

Do away with copyright and you do away with everything that can only be accomplished with the concept of intellectual property.

Writing would be solely from the hobbyist, those that find a patron, or the independently wealthy (or the dedicated poor).

What you won’t have at all is investment. No one can afford to invest in something that has no ownership.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Everything that can be accomplished without copyright can already be accomplished. Anybody who wishes to give what they write to the public can.

Do away with copyright and you do away with everything that can only be accomplished with the concept of intellectual property.

Writing would be solely from the hobbyist, those that find a patron, or the independently wealthy (or the dedicated poor).

What you won’t have at all is investment. No one can afford to invest in something that has no ownership.

We have a deal. You provide the works, we give you a monopoly to exploit it for a fixed period of time. Everything you see around you in the IP worfd was for a limited period of time.

Nobody put a gun to the heads of the creators.