Article - 'Harry Potter' among those missing from e-library

[sirbruce]

Life + 40 seems good to me. I think anything less than Life + 20 is too short.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I have to agree with those who dismiss the "children" issue.

If we go down this path, we may have to also allow for future "frozen sperm" children. And what if a grandchild is disabled?

On the other hand, at some point in the future, life-spans may increase significantly, keeping works created early on in life, out of the public domain for potentially centuries....

I believe current children is reasonable if they are still children when the person dies. They should be supported until of age or perhaps a little beyond to finish school. Certainly not for their entire life as you seem to be thinking.

Dale

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I believe current children is reasonable if they are still children when the person dies. They should be supported until of age or perhaps a little beyond to finish school. Certainly not for their entire life as you seem to be thinking.

Dale

Well, 70 years is "an entire life" for many.

But "of age" would imply 20 or less years after death, which would be more reasonable.

But giving such weight to support of "children" may or may not be a valid criteria (some may argue it has no bearing on society's interests,) and it also presumes that the dead author left nothing else for such children's support.

[sirbruce]

It's not a question of what else there is to support the widows and children; it's a question of how long such a work should continue to generate income.

If a business owner dies, his business can keep running. His family can still receive income from the business, or derive value from his shares in the business, etc. If he's invested in property or other tangible assets, they can still sell those assets at any point in the future at full value... often for even more than they were worth when the man was alive.

But works that are copyrighted, by their very nature, are intellectual properties that pay out over time. If authors got paid a fixed amount up front and that's it, it wouldn't be any different. But since the copyright is an asset that continues to generate income, the question is not whether or not they deserve it but how long that asset should continue to generate income. You don't want to punish creative artists by making their assets inherently less valuable than other forms of endeavour. But by the same token you want their work to pass into the public domain eventually. I think either a fixed period for each work or life plus fixed period are both approaches that have pros and cons, but just "life" isn't really reasonable.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

But works that are copyrighted, by their very nature, are intellectual properties that pay out over time. If authors got paid a fixed amount up front and that's it, it wouldn't be any different. But since the copyright is an asset that continues to generate income, the question is not whether or not they deserve it but how long that asset should continue to generate income.

Yet, we do NOT treat this particular type of the intellectual property (there are others, technology patents come to mind) as a financial or commercial asset. For a very long time, the institution of a library and (almost) free access to the copyrighted material is built into the system as an exception.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sonist

A bit of reasonable balancing between interests may allow a period after the death of an author. But 70 years is probably unreasonable.

That, I agree with.

I want copyrights to go back to 28 years, with a 1-time extension option. Possibly extensions with staggered fee schedules: another 28 years for $1000, 20 more than that for $10,000, and so on.

I don't actually care if Mr. Mouse ever enters the public domain, but I want the B-movies of the 30s-60s to be available.

[Treadstone71]

For those who favor a copyright term based on the lifetime of the artist, why do artistic works deserve so much more protection than technical works? Patents (in the USA) are only for 20 years. Books copyrighted before I was born (1969) could still be protected after I'm gone, even assuming I live another 40 years.

Both patent and copyright protection are granted to foster creation and innovation. However, I think a much shorter limit for copyright could do more to achieve those purposes than the current one. For instance, the Harry Potter series. Assuming it stays moderately popular for the next couple decades (not guaranteed, obviously), what incentive does JKR have for creating anything new?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Treadstone71

For those who favor a copyright term based on the lifetime of the artist, why do artistic works deserve so much more protection than technical works? Patents (in the USA) are only for 20 years. Books copyrighted before I was born (1969) could still be protected after I'm gone, even assuming I live another 40 years.

Both patent and copyright protection are granted to foster creation and innovation. However, I think a much shorter limit for copyright could do more to achieve those purposes than the current one. For instance, the Harry Potter series. Assuming it stays moderately popular for the next couple decades (not guaranteed, obviously), what incentive does JKR have for creating anything new?

so much sense in just two short paragraphs....

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Treadstone71

Assuming it stays moderately popular for the next couple decades (not guaranteed, obviously), what incentive does JKR have for creating anything new?

If what I have heard about her personal fortune (Multi thousand millionaire), I don’t think any incentive she would have involves finances in any case.

BTW, what is the female equivilant of being knighted? Now THAT would be incentive.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Treadstone71

For those who favor a copyright term based on the lifetime of the artist, why do artistic works deserve so much more protection than technical works? Patents (in the USA) are only for 20 years. Books copyrighted before I was born (1969) could still be protected after I'm gone, even assuming I live another 40 years.

Both patent and copyright protection are granted to foster creation and innovation. However, I think a much shorter limit for copyright could do more to achieve those purposes than the current one. For instance, the Harry Potter series. Assuming it stays moderately popular for the next couple decades (not guaranteed, obviously), what incentive does JKR have for creating anything new?

Generally speaking, because of the pace of technology, patents are relevant for a shorter period of time. True, if they extended patents they would be more valuable... but 20 years is an awful lot of time to come up with alternative ways of doing the same thing. Creative works, on the other hand, have individual unique value.

I agree that if you're a Rowling or a Grisham or a Brown, you've made so much money your incentive to keep creating for monetary reasons is reduced. But shortening copyright won't make them write more; they've already made it big. Look at a lot of the big name genre writers like Anthony, Bujold, Butcher, Card, Cherryh, Flint, Pratchett, Resnick, Turtledove, Vinge, Weber... they write books every year (sometimes more than one) because they need to in order to make a living. They're already writing as fast as they can; shortening copyright would only make things harder for them.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Treadstone71

For those who favor a copyright term based on the lifetime of the artist, why do artistic works deserve so much more protection than technical works? Patents (in the USA) are only for 20 years.

One could argue that it is essential interest of the society to FORCE rapid exploitation of the technical ideas. Merciless attitude to artists and their interests is not perceived to be productive.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Yet, we do NOT treat this particular type of the intellectual property (there are others, technology patents come to mind) as a financial or commercial asset. For a very long time, the institution of a library and (almost) free access to the copyrighted material is built into the system as an exception.

Your first sentence is clearly wrong by the very fact that copyrights and patents are treated this way, and the second sentence about libraries seems to be a non-sequitor. These works are still available in libraries regardless of copyright length.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Your first sentence is clearly wrong by the very fact that copyrights and patents are treated this way, and the second sentence about libraries seems to be a non-sequitor. These works are still available in libraries regardless of copyright length.

What I wanted to say was that copyright and patents ARE treated as a pure asset, UNLIKE the artistic rights.

As for the libraries, I believe that availability of books, very early in the life cycle of the copyrighted work, directly hurts book sales, hence the value of that asset.

One can not legally use patented technology without a compensation (or permission) of the owner. It is legal to rent a book from the library, and not pay a cent to the author.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ankh

What I wanted to say was that copyright and patents ARE treated as a pure asset, UNLIKE the artistic rights.

As for the libraries, I believe that availability of books, very early in the life cycle of the copyrighted work, directly hurts book sales, hence the value of that asset.

One can not legally use patented technology without a compensation (or permission) of the owner. It is legal to rent a book from the library, and not pay a cent to the author.

That's because the perceived value of a patent is in the idea itself that is described, whereas for books (particularly fiction) the value was fixed in physical form. There were no photocopiers back then, so while one could read a patent and run off and copy it purely from memory, one could not do so with a book. I imagine if books were communicated telepathically copyright laws would be different (now that would make for an interesting short story). But more to the point, you are free to read a patent just like you are free to read a book without compensation. You're not free to turn around and use that patent to make money by reproducing it, just like you're not with a book.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Generally speaking, because of the pace of technology, patents are relevant for a shorter period of time. True, if they extended patents they would be more valuable... but 20 years is an awful lot of time to come up with alternative ways of doing the same thing. Creative works, on the other hand, have individual unique value.

I agree that if you're a Rowling or a Grisham or a Brown, you've made so much money your incentive to keep creating for monetary reasons is reduced. But shortening copyright won't make them write more; they've already made it big. Look at a lot of the big name genre writers like Anthony, Bujold, Butcher, Card, Cherryh, Flint, Pratchett, Resnick, Turtledove, Vinge, Weber... they write books every year (sometimes more than one) because they need to in order to make a living. They're already writing as fast as they can; shortening copyright would only make things harder for them.

The problem is that the vast majority of books earn most of their money in the first year that they were released. Actually, the correct way to say that is that the vast majority of books earn _all_ their money in the first year. Quick, who were the big named genre authors twenty years ago? Thirty years ago? You might at the most 100 authors who get income from a book after 28 years, however most are mostly forgotten. For every LOTR, or Dune, there are countless books that are now forgotten since it's not cost effective to republish it. IMPO, you should have a two tier copyright. Most works go into a pot where the author no longer controls the copyright, but does get a straight royalty from any books that are published after 20 years and if an author wants to pay a substantial yearly fee, they can hold on to the copyright for life plus 28 (or until they stop paying the fee).

Keep in mind that the original purpose of copyright was to encourage artists to product more art, not to provide a perpetual trust fund for their descendents.