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

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

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.

The text of the patent claim? Public document, free to download from the patent office web page, you can print it as many times as you wish, give it to your friends. And it is not illegal to sell the copy, if you can find a way to sell it.

For example, if one is to find a list of relevant patents, then print text claim and give all of that to the customer, that is perfectly legal service rendered to that party and you can charge for that service.

Patent claims are NOT DRM protected.

It is not legal to reproduce material borrowed from the library. It is not legal to own a copy of the copyrighted book, unless it is bought. It is not legal to print borrowed electronic book, or circumvent the DRM that prevents you from doing so.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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).

That irrelevants when you consider ancillary rights. Many of Phillip K. Dick's work was essentially out of print before they became movie fodder. His Dark Materials might have gone the way of the dodo except the Harry Potter movies did so well that every studio was trying to find something in a similar vein. If you allow copyrights to expire after the first year on the theory all the money is made, then no television or movie or other deals will be done; they'll just wait until it's public domain.

That also fails to take into the consideration the value of ongoing series and characters. If anyone can put out a new Anita Blake book a year after the first one, the value of Hamilton's subsequent Anita Blake books are reduced.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

And now you're switching horses mid-stream by returning to the "perpetual trust fund" argument. We're not talking about that right now; we're SPECIFICALLY talking about length of copyright as an asset, like any other asset. It's no more a perpetual trust fund than any other asset; unless you support a 100% estate tax, you really shouldn't be bringing this up again and again. And even if you do believe that copyrights should not be based on a person's lifespan, then you're still talking about a fixed period, say 20 years, which would STILL provide money to descendents if the author dies before then.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ankh

The text of the patent claim? Public document, free to download from the patent office web page, you can print it as many times as you wish, give it to your friends.

Yes, that's what I said.

Originally Posted by Ankh

And it is not illegal to sell the copy, if you can find a way to sell it.

Actually there may or may not be a specific law regarding that, but I agree it's not the same as copyright violation.

Originally Posted by Ankh

Patent claims are NOT DRM protected.

This is not a discussion about DRM; this is a discussion about copyright.

[GlennD]

I wouldn't mind seeing a system where a creator pays to maintain the copyright. IE, if it's still making money for them it's worth the investment to renew. If it's not worth the investment, it enters the public domain.

The problem is that consumers would have a rough time knowing what material is still under copyright and what has entered the public domain.

[pdurrant]

Being made a Dame. Like Dame Judi Dench.

Originally Posted by wodin

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

[pdurrant]

Patents grant a monopoly on a method or invention, even if someone else comes up with the same thing independently.

Copyright is for an individual fixed expression of an idea.

So it's right that Patents should be for a shorter time. But copyright has certainly been extended much too far.

I don't like the way copyright moved to a lifetime+x years basis. It's much too random. To compensate for this randomness we have the ridiculously long fixed time added on to the random length.

It would be much better to have a set fixed length, with some caveat of "or the lifetime or the author", which makes for a much more fair and certain copyright length.

I think something definite like "50 years from publication, or the lifetime of the author, whichever is longer" would be best.

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.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Treadstone71

Both patent and copyright protection are granted to foster creation and innovation.

That was the original intent, but it hasn't been true for a long time. Patents and copyright protection are about profit and control, nothing more.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That was the original intent, but it hasn't been true for a long time. Patents and copyright protection are about profit and control, nothing more.

And the rights of the individual to seek due recompence for their craft...after all it's the way they make their living....

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

And the rights of the individual to seek due recompence for their craft...after all it's the way they make their living....

This kind of statement makes me want to play devil's advocate, especially since I have nothing resembling a creative bone in my body.

I make my living administrating computers for an insurance company. If I get let go, no one is going to be paying me for the login script I wrote a couple of years ago. It doesn't matter how long it's used. Certainly no one is going to be paying my kids for that work after I die.

What makes a writer's work so much more valuable than mine - if he wants continued income he needs to continue to write sellable material, not depend on income from something he wrote years ago.

(This post is made more or less tongue-in-cheek. I'm well aware that as an employee of someone else I have benefits that a freelance writer doesn't have - pensions, matching retirement funds etc. And I'd certainly like the writers I enjoy to be able to make a comfortable enough living that they can continue to write good books for me to read.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

And the rights of the individual to seek due recompence for their craft...after all it's the way they make their living....

That's absolute nonsense.

If it takes you life + 70 years to seek "due recompence" for your craft, then you're in the wrong line of work. Current copyright terms have nothing to do with making a living.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

This is not a discussion about DRM; this is a discussion about copyright.

Which (copyright law regarding books) is principally flawed, as it is concentrating on the ownership of the medium (in olde days: a printed copy of the book), and not on the protection of the integral text of the work of art. What with ebooks? The authors should scream at Sony and Amazon because they allow us to download a (DRMed, but this is irrelevant) copy of the ebook as many times as we please?

The purpose of the book is not to be owned and displayed on my bookshelf. The purpose of the book is to be read. Copyright law concentrates on the first (ownership of the medium), ignores the second (a right to read the book as an asset that is principally sold by authors).

So, the whole system is challenged, and needs overhaul. The issue of "how long should copyright last" is secondary to "what sort of copyright is adequate to this, digital, era".

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I make my living administrating computers for an insurance company. If I get let go, no one is going to be paying me for the login script I wrote a couple of years ago. It doesn't matter how long it's used. Certainly no one is going to be paying my kids for that work after I die.

The difference being that anything you create for your company belongs to the company (it's a standard clause in most contracts).

If they decide that it's a marketable product and start selling it they could well be making money from it for years to come.

[whitearrow]

I don't think that comparing the different types of IP and rights is that helpful -- actually I think it's more confusing than helpful, at least for purposes of US law.

Patent rights last for a relatively short period of time, but the protection that is given to patents is much, much stronger under the law. Even if someone comes up with the same idea completely independently -- too bad, it's patent infringement. There's no "fair use" exception to patent law. In return, the patent holder has to make the work public and after the patent term expires, anyone can use it. And patents are much harder to get as well.

By contrast, anyone can get a copyright on anything written down on a napkin or scratched into the side of a cave wall as long as its an "original work of authorship." (In fact, any such work is copyrighted as soon as it's set down -- you only need to register prior to filing a lawsuit.) Copyrights last for much longer but afford more limited protections -- specifically, only the enumerated rights in the statute. But copyrights, unlike patents, only protect the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. (Hence the reason you will be seeing ~500 thinly veiled ripoffs of Twilight in the next few years. God help us.) Copyright is also limited by fair use, the first sale doctrine, and other statutory constraints. It's also often harder to prove infringement.

What both have in common is their origin in the US constitution, which states that Congress may enact laws to protect intellectual property "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." (Article I, sec. 8.)

[pwalker8]

Actually, it's hardly irrelevant. Copyright has gone from protecting the average author to protecting the outliers. The history of copyright law is actually very much to the point and not switching horses in mid-river. Keep in mind that until 1976, copyright was 28+28, i.e. 28 year with a optional renewal of 28 years. At that point, copyright became author's life + 50 years. We all know that in the US, the driving force behind the extension of the copyright is the Disney corporation and the rights to Mickey Mouse.

So the real problem with copyright law is that the outliers are driving copyright law rather than the norm. To put this in perspective, you have a highway in Nevada. The vast majority of people can safely drive this highway at 70+ mph without any increase risk of accident. However, Great Aunt Millie is blind as a bat, can't really drive anymore, but insists on being behind the wheel, so she can't safely drive at speeds greater than 25 mph. So who do you set the speed limit for, the majority or Great Aunt Millie? With copyright, we have crafted the laws for Great Aunt Millie. While it might be in Great Aunt Millie's best interest to craft the laws this way, it isn't for society in general. The purpose of copyright law is to encourage authors and other artists to produce works. Quite frankly, I think that copyright law would be better served by simply granting all rights to Mickey Mouse to the Disney Corporation in perpetuity and going back to 28 + 28 for everyone else.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Actually, it's hardly irrelevant.

If you're referring to my post, I didn't say it was irrelevant -- I said comparing it to patent law wasn't helpful, because of the high potential for confusion.

I don't disagree with much of what's been said here about the current state of copyright law, btw. I think the current terms are too long and are only going to get longer because of the extreme levels of corporate influence.