eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Xenophon]

Zelda (and others) asked why an author's estate should continue to collect royalties after the author's death.

The answer is two-fold. Historically, the argument was the "widows and orphans" argument. To use a musical example George Gershwin composed Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (not to mention a ton of hit popular songs!) at quite a young age. He then died tragically young (at 39). Would you claim that his widow and children (if any) should not have been allowed to receive royalties on those compositions after his death?

The more thoughtful version of the argument is this one. Suppose that copyright terminated on the death of the creator. This would mean that a masterwork created at age 21 has greater value to the creator than does a masterwork created at age 75. Given that the sole justification for copyright (in the US) is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (see this post for more on that), we now ask: how do we make sure that we actually "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Specifically, does it make sense to reduce a creators financial incentive to create as that creator ages?

IMHO a fixed term of copyright (with possible renewal) would be a reasonable choice. Life+X years, by comparison partially fails the second test -- and may be too long a term for great works by very young creators who are subsequently long-lived.

My ideal copyright system would contain at least the following features:

• No requirement for initial registration; all works come into existence with copyright attached. This protects naive creators.
• An initial default fixed term of copyright. I'm not particularly wedded to any specific duration, but something in the range of 10-20 years seems about right.
• A small number of additional renewals of copyright, with increasing cost for each. The initial renewal should be cheap (basically a nuisance fee); subsequent renewals should get expensive fairly quickly (perhaps the fee might grow by 10x on each subsequent renewal). It should be possible to renew in advance by paying the sum of all the fees. The requirement for renewal ensures that works with small economic value enter the public domain relatively quickly; the increasing expense ensures that only extremely valuable works have highly extended copyright. Either way, this solves the "orphaned work" problem by forcing works into the public domain as soon as their copyright is not renewed.
• Each copyright renewal should be for a term not longer than the inital default term. Maximum length of copyright including both the initial term and all renewals should not exceed 100 years (I'm really shooting for "one long-but-plausible lifetime" here).
• Trademark protection for valuable icons in the future. This is the 'Buy off the mouse' clause! Let Disney have a trademark on Mickey, and J.K.Rowling have a trademark on Harry Potter. That trademark might, in fact, extend in perpetuity -- but the old works would nevertheless fall into the public domain. This is my try at a compromise between letting Disney ensure that Mickey does not become a porn star on the one hand and letting the public benefit from free access to those old cartoons/books/plays/movies/whatever on the other hand.
• At least the current set of 'fair use' rights enshrined in statute -- without denigrating other fair use rights not yet articulated by the courts.

With a 20 year initial term, 10 additional years for each renewal, a $10 fee for the first renewal, and a 10x fee increase for each subsequent renewal it would cost $1110 to hold copyright on a work for 50 years, and a bit more than $100,000,000 to hold copyright on a work for the maximum period of 100 years.

What do you folks think?

Xenophon

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Well, that's the thing about writing, isn't it? When you write a work of fiction you generally don't know how well it's going to sell. It could be a complete flop; it could be a huge commercial success. That's part of the risk that the publisher takes! I think, however, that the author should be permitted to profit from his work certainly for life, and a short time (perhaps 25 years) thereafter to provide income for dependants. I think the current "life + 70" copyright term is way too long.

So, give some actual numbers!

A "fair amount" has got to be something between "not enough" and "too much".
So, in your opinion how much is, in pounds, a "fair amount" to be paid to Dan Brown for his work?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

So, give some actual numbers!

A "fair amount" has got to be something between "not enough" and "too much".
So, in your opinion how much is, in pounds, a "fair amount" to be paid to Dan Brown for his work?

I don't know - I can't put a figure on it. I see no reason to "ban" authors from becoming millionaires if their work is commercially successful, any more than we'd ban someone from being a success in any other field. The discussion here is about how long someone should be "allowed" to profit from their work, not how much money they make from it. I definitely believe that someone should be able to retain the "rights" to their creation for their lifetime, and there's a good case to be made for a short extension of that to provide for dependents.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

So, give some actual numbers!

A "fair amount" has got to be something between "not enough" and "too much".
So, in your opinion how much is, in pounds, a "fair amount" to be paid to Dan Brown for his work?

I'd say that his royalty cut from sales of those books makes a decent approximation. We can argue whether the author should be getting this or that percentage from each sale, but that won't change the author's total take by more than a factor of 3 or 4 at the most. That difference matters to the author, of course, but it doesn't change the big picture much at all.

Remember that whatever royalty Dan Brown get for his (nearly unreadable IMHO) books came one purchase at a time from willing buyers in a more-or-less open market. Yeah, his publishers paid him an advance, but that just means they took a risk based on his past sales record. He could probably have negotiated for a higher royalty and lower advance if he so desired.

Xenophon

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Zelda (and others) asked why an author's estate should continue to collect royalties after the author's death.

The answer is two-fold. Historically, the argument was the "widows and orphans" argument. To use a musical example George Gershwin composed Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (not to mention a ton of hit popular songs!) at quite a young age. He then died tragically young (at 39). Would you claim that his widow and children (if any) should not have been allowed to receive royalties on those compositions after his death?

I do.
If I die my wife won't get a penny other than what I have saved in my lifetime (she earns more than I do, and she won't even have my pension).
So, or every other worker gets the same treatment, or Gershwin loses his one.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

The more thoughtful version of the argument is this one. Suppose that copyright terminated on the death of the creator. This would mean that a masterwork created at age 21 has greater value to the creator than does a masterwork created at age 75. Given that the sole justification for copyright (in the US) is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (see this post for more on that), we now ask: how do we make sure that we actually "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Specifically, does it make sense to reduce a creators financial incentive to create as that creator ages?

If authors were paid for their actual work, like carpenters are, that's not a problem at all.

The per-copy-sold model is the worst I can imagine.
Using your same analogy: is it fair that a Shakira is paid 1000 times a Ludovico Einaudi? Is "Progress" to have tons of Harry Potter wannabes because they sell much better than a new "ulysses"?
That kind of "financial incentive" promotes trash much more than Art!
Come on! A photo poster of a couple of big tits sells more copies than Bresson's Station!

Originally Posted by Xenophon

IMHO a fixed term of copyright (with possible renewal) would be a reasonable choice. Life+X years, by comparison partially fails the second test -- and may be too long a term for great works by very young creators who are subsequently long-lived.

My ideal copyright system would contain at least the following features:

• No requirement for initial registration; all works come into existence with copyright attached. This protects naive creators.
• An initial default fixed term of copyright. I'm not particularly wedded to any specific duration, but something in the range of 10-20 years seems about right.
• A small number of additional renewals of copyright, with increasing cost for each. The initial renewal should be cheap (basically a nuisance fee); subsequent renewals should get expensive fairly quickly (perhaps the fee might grow by 10x on each subsequent renewal). It should be possible to renew in advance by paying the sum of all the fees. The requirement for renewal ensures that works with small economic value enter the public domain relatively quickly; the increasing expense ensures that only extremely valuable works have highly extended copyright. Either way, this solves the "orphaned work" problem by forcing works into the public domain as soon as their copyright is not renewed.
• Each copyright renewal should be for a term not longer than the inital default term. Maximum length of copyright including both the initial term and all renewals should not exceed 100 years (I'm really shooting for "one long-but-plausible lifetime" here).
• Trademark protection for valuable icons in the future. This is the 'Buy off the mouse' clause! Let Disney have a trademark on Mickey, and J.K.Rowling have a trademark on Harry Potter. That trademark might, in fact, extend in perpetuity -- but the old works would nevertheless fall into the public domain. This is my try at a compromise between letting Disney ensure that Mickey does not become a porn star on the one hand and letting the public benefit from free access to those old cartoons/books/plays/movies/whatever on the other hand.
• At least the current set of 'fair use' rights enshrined in statute -- without denigrating other fair use rights not yet articulated by the courts.

With a 20 year initial term, 10 additional years for each renewal, a $10 fee for the first renewal, and a 10x fee increase for each subsequent renewal it would cost $1110 to hold copyright on a work for 50 years, and a bit more than $100,000,000 to hold copyright on a work for the maximum period of 100 years.

What do you folks think?

Xenophon

I think writers have to be paid like carpenters. A minimum hourly wage, and a little bonus if they produce a masterwork.
And never more than 100 times the world's average income (the escess amount coming from hardcopy sales, movie rights, etc.. is used to pay other writers minimum...)

If you want to be rich, establish your Standard Oil and be happy.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I do.
If I die my wife won't get a penny other than what I have saved in my lifetime (she earns more than I do, and she won't even have my pension).
So, or every other worker gets the same treatment, or Gershwin loses his one.



If authors were paid for their actual work, like carpenters are, that's not a problem at all.

The per-copy-sold model is the worst I can imagine.
Using your same analogy: is it fair that a Shakira is paid 1000 times a Ludovico Einaudi? Is "Progress" to have tons of Harry Potter wannabes because they sell much better than a new "ulysses"?
That kind of "financial incentive" promotes trash much more than Art!
Come on! A photo poster of a couple of big tits sells more copies than Bresson's Station!



I think writers have to be paid like carpenters. A minimum hourly wage, and a little bonus if they produce a masterwork.
And never more than 100 times the world's average income (the escess amount coming from hardcopy sales, movie rights, etc.. is used to pay other writers minimum...)

If you want to be rich, establish your Standard Oil and be happy.

I think you might be insane.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I do.
If I die my wife won't get a penny other than what I have saved in my lifetime (she earns more than I do, and she won't even have my pension).
So, or every other worker gets the same treatment, or Gershwin loses his one.

Well, the U.S. legal system really doesn't agree with you. Given that the concept of copyright is enshrined in our Constitution -- and given the difficulty of changing said Constitution -- suggesting paying all authors like carpenters is just too far away from the realm of possibility.

Originally Posted by Format C:

If authors were paid for their actual work, like carpenters are, that's not a problem at all.

We actually have a system for doing that. It's called "work-for-hire." When that's what happens, the corporation (or person paying for the work) owns the copyright and the potential benefit therefrom; the author gets his or her salary.

Originally Posted by Format C:

The per-copy-sold model is the worst I can imagine.
Using your same analogy: is it fair that a Shakira is paid 1000 times a Ludovico Einaudi? Is "Progress" to have tons of Harry Potter wannabes because they sell much better than a new "ulysses"?
That kind of "financial incentive" promotes trash much more than Art!
Come on! A photo poster of a couple of big tits sells more copies than Bresson's Station!

It's pretty easy to argue that Shakira and that poster of a couple of big tits provide more pleasure to more people than do Ludovico Einaudi and Bresson's Station. I certainly don't have a problem with that. And I don't even like Shakira!

Originally Posted by Format C:

I think writers have to be paid like carpenters. A minimum hourly wage, and a little bonus if they produce a masterwork.
And never more than 100 times the world's average income (the escess amount coming from hardcopy sales, movie rights, etc.. is used to pay other writers minimum...)

If you want to be rich, establish your Standard Oil and be happy.

I have news for you. There are lots of carpenters who make more than 100 times the world's average income. Certainly lots of plumbers do!

I suspect that you and I are mutually inpursuasible on this topic.

Xenophon

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Zelda (and others) asked why an author's estate should continue to collect royalties after the author's death.

The answer is two-fold. Historically, the argument was the "widows and orphans" argument. To use a musical example George Gershwin composed Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (not to mention a ton of hit popular songs!) at quite a young age. He then died tragically young (at 39). Would you claim that his widow and children (if any) should not have been allowed to receive royalties on those compositions after his death?

The more thoughtful version of the argument is this one. Suppose that copyright terminated on the death of the creator. This would mean that a masterwork created at age 21 has greater value to the creator than does a masterwork created at age 75. Given that the sole justification for copyright (in the US) is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (see this post for more on that), we now ask: how do we make sure that we actually "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Specifically, does it make sense to reduce a creators financial incentive to create as that creator ages?

IMHO a fixed term of copyright (with possible renewal) would be a reasonable choice. Life+X years, by comparison partially fails the second test -- and may be too long a term for great works by very young creators who are subsequently long-lived.

My ideal copyright system would contain at least the following features:

• No requirement for initial registration; all works come into existence with copyright attached. This protects naive creators.
• An initial default fixed term of copyright. I'm not particularly wedded to any specific duration, but something in the range of 10-20 years seems about right.
• A small number of additional renewals of copyright, with increasing cost for each. The initial renewal should be cheap (basically a nuisance fee); subsequent renewals should get expensive fairly quickly (perhaps the fee might grow by 10x on each subsequent renewal). It should be possible to renew in advance by paying the sum of all the fees. The requirement for renewal ensures that works with small economic value enter the public domain relatively quickly; the increasing expense ensures that only extremely valuable works have highly extended copyright. Either way, this solves the "orphaned work" problem by forcing works into the public domain as soon as their copyright is not renewed.
• Each copyright renewal should be for a term not longer than the inital default term. Maximum length of copyright including both the initial term and all renewals should not exceed 100 years (I'm really shooting for "one long-but-plausible lifetime" here).
• Trademark protection for valuable icons in the future. This is the 'Buy off the mouse' clause! Let Disney have a trademark on Mickey, and J.K.Rowling have a trademark on Harry Potter. That trademark might, in fact, extend in perpetuity -- but the old works would nevertheless fall into the public domain. This is my try at a compromise between letting Disney ensure that Mickey does not become a porn star on the one hand and letting the public benefit from free access to those old cartoons/books/plays/movies/whatever on the other hand.
• At least the current set of 'fair use' rights enshrined in statute -- without denigrating other fair use rights not yet articulated by the courts.

With a 20 year initial term, 10 additional years for each renewal, a $10 fee for the first renewal, and a 10x fee increase for each subsequent renewal it would cost $1110 to hold copyright on a work for 50 years, and a bit more than $100,000,000 to hold copyright on a work for the maximum period of 100 years.

What do you folks think?

Xenophon

I like (and have also suggested the same general structure. But I'll make some nip and tucks to it.

SIDEBAR (Everybody talks about Life + X to protect widows and ophans of creators. Ophans should not be protected after age of majority! The author went out and earned a living, so should his grown childen! I might stretch it to 25 for additional education, assuming they were conceived but not born until after the author's death, but that's max. And if the children are already grown, no X for them! As for widows, X would be their lifetime, period.) END SIDEBAR

You won't get in implemented against the heavy lobbying of the Big Copyright players unless you have equal guns on your side. Instead of making payable extension, make it taxable! After 20 years, if you want to keep your copyright, you have to pay a I.P. property tax every year. If it is not paid for 3 years, it reverts to the public domain. This brings in politicians to your side who are alway looking for more money to buy vot...err, help people with. That's how LBJ (cursed be his name) got Food Stamps embedded in the government during the Great Society.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I like (and have also suggested the same general structure. But I'll make some nip and tucks to it.

SIDEBAR (Everybody talks about Life + X to protect widows and ophans of creators. Ophans should not be protected after age of majority! The author went out and earned a living, so should his grown childen! I might stretch it to 25 for additional education, assuming they were conceived but not born until after the author's death, but that's max. And if the children are already grown, no X for them! As for widows, X would be their lifetime, period.) END SIDEBAR

Sounds like something straight out of Heinlein. However, I would suggest that having X = Widow's lifetime might result in an attempt to game the system. An elderly author would be incentivized to divorce and pick up a young new bride in order that his estate may continue to accrue income for decades longer than the worn-out husk of his previous wife is likely to. In turn, a new trust can be established for the divorced wife so she continues receiving most or all of the income until she dies... and then the new wife starts getting hers. Or even less, if you could get her to agree to a lesser contract before marriage. Of course, this scheme would only work once.

[taosaur]

The arguments against filesharing ignore the realities. What consumers 'should' do and creators and distributors 'ought' to get is immaterial; where legitimate channels do not meet demand at a bearable price, black markets will emerge. Trying to quash those markets without addressing the shortcomings of the official channels only breeds ill will and diverts resources.

Personally, my conscience on file-sharing is proportionate to my paycheck, which is a little light right now. With books in particular, though, today's torrent will very likely be tomorrow's hardcover. Media companies would be better off ceding filesharing to Fair Use and leveraging it for promotional value.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Sounds like something straight out of Heinlein. However, I would suggest that having X = Widow's lifetime might result in an attempt to game the system. An elderly author would be incentivized to divorce and pick up a young new bride in order that his estate may continue to accrue income for decades longer than the worn-out husk of his previous wife is likely to. In turn, a new trust can be established for the divorced wife so she continues receiving most or all of the income until she dies... and then the new wife starts getting hers. Or even less, if you could get her to agree to a lesser contract before marriage. Of course, this scheme would only work once.

And only for those writer that have a "big enough" endowment at the end of their lives to justify it. Statistically, 99% won't...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I think writers have to be paid like carpenters. A minimum hourly wage, and a little bonus if they produce a masterwork.
And never more than 100 times the world's average income (the escess amount coming from hardcopy sales, movie rights, etc.. is used to pay other writers minimum...

With that kind of incentive, authors and artists have no reason to release their creations into the public market; they're better off working for individual patrons and keeping the majority of their work secret, so they can resell it to a new market as often as possible.

Copyright laws were created to avoid that problem. Creative artists (whether book, picture, or scientific) are given the option to control use of their works for a limited time, in order to encourage widespread sharing of information and ideas.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

The answer is two-fold. Historically, the argument was the "widows and orphans" argument. To use a musical example George Gershwin composed Rhapsody in Blue and An American in Paris (not to mention a ton of hit popular songs!) at quite a young age. He then died tragically young (at 39). Would you claim that his widow and children (if any) should not have been allowed to receive royalties on those compositions after his death?

I'd love it if my company would continue to send a paycheck to my wife and kids after I die. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works... unless you're part of the copyright scam.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And only for those writer that have a "big enough" endowment at the end of their lives to justify it. Statistically, 99% won't...

You're missing an important factor: authors usually can only get published via *exclusive* deals with publishers, at least for a given country. If the copyright is allowed to go into public domain, the publisher loses his monopoly on distribution. Thus, regardless of the value of the bibliography, publishers would like to lock up that copyright as long as possible. A writer who is about to expire is in a good position to bargain greater royalties (for his old family) from a publisher by agreeing to marry a young bride before it's too late.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by taosaur

The arguments against filesharing ignore the realities. What consumers 'should' do and creators and distributors 'ought' to get is immaterial; where legitimate channels do not meet demand at a bearable price, black markets will emerge. Trying to quash those markets without addressing the shortcomings of the official channels only breeds ill will and diverts resources.

Personally, my conscience on file-sharing is proportionate to my paycheck, which is a little light right now. With books in particular, though, today's torrent will very likely be tomorrow's hardcover. Media companies would be better off ceding filesharing to Fair Use and leveraging it for promotional value.

It’s this sort of perverted logic that drives me batty. At one time, if a person couldn’t afford something, and money was tight, they’d save up until they had enough to purchase whatever it was they wanted. You cannot justify taking something just because your purse might be a little light. Can’t afford a book, why not save until you can, or, if possible, stop by your local library?

But I guess it’s ok because those damn publishers are so damned evil, and your selfish desires supersede not only the law, but basic human decency as well.

You make it sound as though you simply have no other choice but to take what you want, and cannot or should not be held accountable because you don’t like the way publishers do business. Lot’s of things, hell, most things are moderately to grossly over-priced, but that doesn’t justify what amounts to a modern version of frontier justice.