Interesting copyright question

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

This is still covered if the copyright is based on X years, with nothing to do with the life of the author. Whatever X is, whether or not the author dies has nothing to do with it. Publishers still have plenty of opportunity to make the work available and return a profit on it.

I don't think anybody has said that copyright should automatically end at death. But I don't believe it should automatically extend beyond death either. It should be for a fixed length, pure and simple.

I don't think anyone has said that copyright should automatically end at death, but certainly it has been implied by these people who are asking why the estate of an author should benefit.

My one objection to a single fixed length is simple. Longer copyrights (Say anything longer than 20 years) tend to encourage authors whose works remain in print as steady sellers (i.e., the classic mid-list author), but which do not sell well enough that the author can live off the royalties of existing books alone. I.e., they are likely to take up writing as a full time profession. But those same extended periods of copyright essentially are too long for works that have little commercial value after the first few years of publication. Obviously a book about the impending economic collapse of 1995 is not likely to find any publisher in 2009; but for a variety of reasons, it might be of interest to researchers. Is it still going to be around to be scanned and added to an internet archive in 50 years?

Likewise it drives me nuts that DOS 1.0 is still under copyright 25 years after anyone has purchased a copy of it.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Why should the creator's family benefit? Will it encourage them to create more works?

I'm OK with it if the term is based on a fixed length. IE, if the copyright is 20 years (or whatever your favorite number is), and the author dies before that, then the heirs can assume the copyright for the remainder of that length. If the author lives longer than the copyright, then there is no special consideration for the heirs. Whatever the author already earned can be passed on as part of the estate, just like for everyone else.

What I don't like is the copyright length automatically extending beyond the author's life just to provide an inheritance. IMO, there is no point to that and it has nothing to do with the intent of copyright. Copyright is not a life insurance policy.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

My only thought on this is that 50 years without any form of registration allows lots of works to be lost. Most works are on the shelves for at best a few years before they are replaced with newer works. 50 years is a term that is designed to protect that small minority of authors who have works remain in print for extended periods of time. I seems to me that a book that has been out of print for 45 years by the time the copyright expires is a book that might be lost before it can enter the public domain.

--
Bill

That's what Legal Deposit is for.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I don't think anyone has said that copyright should automatically end at death, but certainly it has been implied by these people who are asking why the estate of an author should benefit.

I could be wrong, but I think those people are talking in terms of a "life + X" copyright duration, which I also disagree with. I don't think copyright should have a built in inheritance, but if it's a fixed length it shouldn't end with the authors death either. The heirs shouldn't have an automatic benefit, but they can claim whatever is left if the author dies before the copyright expires.

My one objection to a single fixed length is simple.

I agree with you there. I think that comes down to what is a reasonable fixed length. IMO, it should be the amount of time that it takes for the average work to be profitable. Obviously that will be hard to define and is different for various types of content, so compromises need to be reached. However, 50 years is rediculous, IMO. I would be OK with 20. The original length of copyright in the US was 14 years with a single renewal option. That, IMO, was probably the most reasonable copyright term that we've ever had. All the extensions since then have been based on corporate greed. I wouldn't be upset if they put it back to 14 + 14.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

That's what Legal Deposit is for.

Legal deposit is not required by every country. In addition, if you will note, at least in the United States, the Copyright Office does not necessarily retain a full copy of the work. (In fact, for some copyrighted works, I don't believe a full copy is required, merely a substantial part of the work).

--
Bill

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

That's what Legal Deposit is for.

Not required for US copyright.

Somewhat required for registered copyrights (I think some categories of works are exempt, possibly including movies), but definitely not required for amateur publications and self-published works that aren't registered, but still have almost all the legal protections.

[rrburton]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright lasting X years (nothing to do with the life of the author) removes a lot of the uncertainty as well. It also provides all of the benefits that copyright was originally intended for without the power/control/profit motives that it has been turned in to.

Figure out how long it takes for the average work to become profitable. That's how long copyright should be for. No more, no less.

Do you think that something like this would serve to affect the quality of the works produced? I kind of think it works this way in manufacturing, products only need to have the quality level necessary for their expected lifespan.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Well there are a couple of reasons....

The average person is usually paid within two weeks of performing the work for their job. Authors on the other hand may not receive payment for their work until years after they have completed the work (Yes many authors receive advances, but that is the way the publishing industry works currently, there is no way to be sure it will still work that way 10 years from now). As a result a perod of copyright ensures that the author and his estate has a reasonable chance to profit from the work he performed.

By ensuring that copyrights can extend past the life time of the author, it provides publishers a reasonable incentive to actually publish the work of an older author. For example, lets assume that an author is in his 80s and is rather ill; he does have enough left for one last publishable work. If copyright ends at death, the publisher may decide to skip the novel since they will have very little chance to profit from their work before the work enters into the public domain. In other words, by trying to speed a work into the public domain, you might be ensuring that the work is never published at all.

--
Bill

Please, don't always think that copyright = payment.
And don't think that copyrighted work are the only works published. If you don't believe me, just go in a book store and browse for Shakespeare.

I'm not telling the author should not be paid, nor that the publisher should not profit from his work.
Monopoly is not at all the only way to profit.

And, again, you can't damage billions of readers for the advantage of a couple of 80 years old writers who write bad books (good books will always be profitable, copyright or not).



And I don't think that extended copyright is an incentive to authors, too.
If I wrote a Da Potter Code which stays on the best seller list for decades, and it'll be always making money for me and my children, even from movie director's work, why should I work one day more in my life? I wouldn't even write the address on the postcards I send from the Caribbeans!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless I'm particularly greedy, of course...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Please, don't always think that copyright = payment.

Naturally, there is no way to be sure that a book will be profitable. That being said, copyright does protect an author's financial interests should the work actually be published and be successful (Obviously though, it will require a decent contract with the publisher). Likewise, it protects the interests of the publisher who spent a lot of time and money getting the author's manuscript ready for print.

And don't think that copyrighted work are the only works published. If you don't believe me, just go in a book store and browse for Shakespeare.

How about we go into the book store and browse for some of the more obscure 19th century authors? Authors like Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Jane Austin, etc. are safe bets for publishers. They aren't going to hit it out of the park with sales, but in general, the various publishers know that they can probably sell X thousand copies a year. Unknown authors have an unkown sales potential. There is a lot of financial risk in publishing an unknown author (or in many cases, even a known author if he has not truly hit the big time). Copyright ensures that the publisher that is willing to take the risk has a fair chance to get rewarded for that risk (Note, I do agree that current copyright terms are too generous... but I do believe copyright itself is necessary).

I'm not telling the author should not be paid, nor that the publisher should not profit from his work.
Monopoly is not at all the only way to profit.

It may not be the only economic model, but up to now, it has been an incredibly successful model.

And, again, you can't damage billions of readers for the advantage of a couple of 80 years old writers who write bad books (good books will always be profitable, copyright or not).

Somehow, I think you don't really understand how the world works. Once a work goes out of copyright, there is no reason for any publishers to pay the author for the use of the author's work. Therefore, the author whose life is nearly over very likely incentive to create a new work. Even if the book is a masterpiece, he or his heirs will have no chance to profit from it. Likewise, why should the publisher take a chance on publishing it if the moment they publish it, other publishers simply copy their edition and start selling it for themselves (This is even more of a risk with ebooks).

And I don't think that extended copyright is an incentive to authors, too.
If I wrote a Da Potter Code which stays on the best seller list for decades, and it'll be always making money for me and my children, even from movie director's work, why should I work one day more in my life? I wouldn't even write the address on the postcards I send from the Caribbeans!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless I'm particularly greedy, of course...

Sure, there is the danger of too much success being a disincentive to write (or at least to publish). However, human nature, being what it is, pretty much suggests that most people will continue to write more books. Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Michael Crichten, Dan Brown and others have continues to write and publish long after their writing made them rich. On the flip side, there are many mid-list authors whose continued royalties provide just enough income to tide them over between books.

--
Bill

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Naturally, there is no way to be sure that a book will be profitable. That being said, copyright does protect an author's financial interests should the work actually be published and be successful (Obviously though, it will require a decent contract with the publisher). Likewise, it protects the interests of the publisher who spent a lot of time and money getting the author's manuscript ready for print.



How about we go into the book store and browse for some of the more obscure 19th century authors? Authors like Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Jane Austin, etc. are safe bets for publishers. They aren't going to hit it out of the park with sales, but in general, the various publishers know that they can probably sell X thousand copies a year. Unknown authors have an unkown sales potential. There is a lot of financial risk in publishing an unknown author (or in many cases, even a known author if he has not truly hit the big time). Copyright ensures that the publisher that is willing to take the risk has a fair chance to get rewarded for that risk (Note, I do agree that current copyright terms are too generous... but I do believe copyright itself is necessary).



It may not be the only economic model, but up to now, it has been an incredibly successful model.



Somehow, I think you don't really understand how the world works. Once a work goes out of copyright, there is no reason for any publishers to pay the author for the use of the author's work. Therefore, the author whose life is nearly over very likely incentive to create a new work. Even if the book is a masterpiece, he or his heirs will have no chance to profit from it. Likewise, why should the publisher take a chance on publishing it if the moment they publish it, other publishers simply copy their edition and start selling it for themselves (This is even more of a risk with ebooks).



Sure, there is the danger of too much success being a disincentive to write (or at least to publish). However, human nature, being what it is, pretty much suggests that most people will continue to write more books. Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Michael Crichten, Dan Brown and others have continues to write and publish long after their writing made them rich. On the flip side, there are many mid-list authors whose continued royalties provide just enough income to tide them over between books.

--
Bill

The problem with all this is that it fits the physical, object-based reality of old media publishing and cannot fit into a digital world. DRM doesn't work, the expectation of payment of any kind will only last for a short while, free sharing is on the increase.

Here's an example of how badly old media fails and what it has to lose in our short-attention span, everything available now culture (a culture I really like).

AngryRobot Books (a subsidiary of one of the majors although I didn't hold that against them) came on here awhile back to ask about ebooks and promote their upcoming wares. They were forthright and promised ebook versions in epub. A little while later they even provided samples. Great, I thought, here's a company (even if they are allied with the majors) that gets it. That gets what we want out of our digital reading experience. DRM free, open standards, and released in timely fashion.

Flash forward. No ebook. Not a post about an ebook. Date on the website says July 2009 and price TBC. If they're pushing this book anywhere digitally, then I haven't seen it, or been made aware. So they've lost me. I'm not going to wait around on a publishing company to actually deem a book important enough to release in a digital format, or even be bothered to make me aware it still exists.

Old publishing can't keep up with new media, it just can't, it moves too slow and is quite frankly, dull. And I'm not waiting around anymore for them to catch up, not when I have some of the greatest writers, the most progressive and interesting writers doing something online right now.

And what does this all have in relation to your examples? Simply this; I'm not the only one who feels this way, and there are plenty of others fed up with the way 'things were' as regard to copyright. Writers who want readers not a steady income. Writers who have something to say, not saying something because they're under contractual obligation. And readers who are growing up now who don't even recognize the copyrights that you think we still need. Copyrights that don't work in a digital world. Copyrights that can't last in a digital world.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The problem with all this is that it fits the physical, object-based reality of old media publishing and cannot fit into a digital world. DRM doesn't work, the expectation of payment of any kind will only last for a short while, free sharing is on the increase.

First of all, I agree with you that DRM is silly and stupid (I am sure if you have read some of my other posts, you would see that). I also agree that new standards need to apply to digital publishing and to copyright. That being said, if producers of content cannot expect "payment of any kind" for their work, then there will cease to be new content to share.

***snip***

And what does this all have in relation to your examples? Simply this; I'm not the only one who feels this way, and there are plenty of others fed up with the way 'things were' as regard to copyright. Writers who want readers not a steady income. Writers who have something to say, not saying something because they're under contractual obligation. And readers who are growing up now who don't even recognize the copyrights that you think we still need. Copyrights that don't work in a digital world. Copyrights that can't last in a digital world.

I am just curious, how many authors do you think will write a dozen or more books in a career if they can expect no steady income from it? Every author that chooses to publish obviously wants readers; at the same time however, I think the number of serious authors who don't care about income is vanishingly small (Just as the number of people period who don't care about income). More than a few authors, including some very well respected authors have admitted that paying the rent was a major incentive for them to finish their book.

I am perfectly willing to abandon copyright if a reasonable system is established to ensure that authors are fairly compensated for their work. Perhaps we need every download server to be registered so that we can track exactly how many unique downloads occur for every artistic work and then have a national arts tax (perhaps a surcharge to your monthly ISP bill) that goes to compensate artists based on how often their works are downloaded. That being said, I don't see too many people who want to abandon the free market for a state controlled system... at least not in the United States. Until we are willing to make that change, we will need some form of copyright and it will need to be enforced.

--
Bill

[ahi]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am just curious, how many authors do you think will write a dozen or more books in a career if they can expect no steady income from it? Every author that chooses to publish obviously wants readers; at the same time however, I think the number of serious authors who don't care about income is vanishingly small (Just as the number of people period who don't care about income). More than a few authors, including some very well respected authors have admitted that paying the rent was a major incentive for them to finish their book.

And I'm curious what percentage of authors can actually live solely off of the money they earn writing books. I'm fairly sure the number is staggeringly small. In fact even some exceedingly popular authors may have difficulty solely relying on their writing income 100% of the time.

So, if I had to guess... I'd say the number of authors that would write a dozen or more books despite not being able to expect a steady income would be... exactly the same as it is today... minus a few hundred hacks, perhaps, whose writing probably isn't any good anyways.

- Ahi

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

First of all, I agree with you that DRM is silly and stupid (I am sure if you have read some of my other posts, you would see that). I also agree that new standards need to apply to digital publishing and to copyright. That being said, if producers of content cannot expect "payment of any kind" for their work, then there will cease to be new content to share.

I don't think writers will stop writing, money or not. I can't NOT write, no matter what I say or any of my darker moods and little tempter tantrums I might have. Asking me not to write is asking me not to breath or feel or think, it's impossible. I believe there are a lot of writers exactly the same, who are passionate, who eat, sleep, breathe and shit words every single day. Using myself as an example, I realized a long time ago I wouldn't see any money from my work. It's awful to admit that, but while I spend most of my time as a hopeless romantic, I'm also realistic enough to know what lies ahead for me, and for many others too. We will have to write because we have no other option. We will have to write because that's what we do, who we are. I wake up with a story in my head. I listen to a piece of music and I'm already halfway through a story that I NEED to tell. This isn't something that would stop whether I was making minimum wage or a billion pounds a week. So the most, the very MOST I can hope for is a readership. People who like how I see the world and want to see the world in that way also.

I am just curious, how many authors do you think will write a dozen or more books in a career if they can expect no steady income from it? Every author that chooses to publish obviously wants readers; at the same time however, I think the number of serious authors who don't care about income is vanishingly small (Just as the number of people period who don't care about income). More than a few authors, including some very well respected authors have admitted that paying the rent was a major incentive for them to finish their book.

The sad fact is that most authors don't make enough to pay the rent even now, and there's plenty more who were brimming with talent who never even got the chance in the first place to get paid for what they write (markets, PR, blah, blah blah). At least now, at least with digital publishing a writer might find an audience. A writer might find someone who loves their work (isn't that what all authors are after anyway, in the secret parts of their heart?)

I am perfectly willing to abandon copyright if a reasonable system is established to ensure that authors are fairly compensated for their work. Perhaps we need every download server to be registered so that we can track exactly how many unique downloads occur for every artistic work and then have a national arts tax (perhaps a surcharge to your monthly ISP bill) that goes to compensate artists based on how often their works are downloaded. That being said, I don't see too many people who want to abandon the free market for a state controlled system... at least not in the United States. Until we are willing to make that change, we will need some form of copyright and it will need to be enforced.

--
Bill

[/quote]

Taxes are a good incentive. I believe a lot of writers, and I'm thinking specifically of Europe here, would welcome a national taxation that would provide a living wage if they continued to contribute to the artistic output of a nation. I'm not sure how it would work, but it's possibly a step in the right direction for those in Europe. As far as licensing goes, I like Creative Commons which gives the creator and the audience equal, and fair rights to the material being used.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Legal deposit is not required by every country. In addition, if you will note, at least in the United States, the Copyright Office does not necessarily retain a full copy of the work. (In fact, for some copyrighted works, I don't believe a full copy is required, merely a substantial part of the work).

Then that's a problem with implimentation. It's not a problem with the concept as a way of avoiding losing books before their PD date!

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Then that's a problem with implimentation. It's not a problem with the concept as a way of avoiding losing books before their PD date!

One needs to keep in mind though, that it is possible for books to still exist and still be lost to us. Lets face it, there have been literally millions of published works published in the United States since the Library of Congress was formed. Even if everyone was properly stored by the Library of Congress, cataloging errors, accidents, etc. mean that some of these works might effectively become unavailable -- sure maybe it will be discovered in a few hundred years, but maybe it won't be.

In any case, copyright should not form a type of time vault that essentially protects creative works from being accessed for 40, 60 or a hundred years. I have no particular problem with having mechanisms in place to make sure that works that remain in print can remain under copyright for extended periods. I do have a problem when works that have been out of print for 5-10 years become effectively unavailable to the public because of copyright regulations.

--
Bill