Interesting copyright question

[JSWolf]

I am in favor of life + 50 or publish date + 50 if the author dies before 50 years has passed since the publish date.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Before we get too caught up in the "tragic 25 year old's death" versus "porn star" examples that try to sway the discussion with emotions, let's not forget that the ones who are really behind the copyright fiasco and making all the money are the large corporations. They certainly aren't motivated by the death of a young author and the welfare of his heirs.

We know who is behind the copyright fiasco. DISNEY!

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

Ok, I will grant that there are some authors who write for reasons other than money. But lets put it this way, there are also writers who can spend a lot more time writing because they are paid for their writing.

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?)

And yes, I know it is a sad fact that most authors, even most published authors never receive a reasonable financial return for the efforts that they have put into writing. Whats worse is, that many of them are certainly better authors than many of the authors who hit the NY Times Best Seller list these days.

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.

I don't necessarily think that such a system should ensure a living wage. In some sense, it should be tied to how popular a work is. There are too many people out there who can write, play music, etc. for the state to simply give them all an income. They should still have to produce work that connects to the public. I like the idea (I forget whose idea it was, but it did circulate either here or on teleread) where the highest repayment was made for the earliest downloads and then the rate declined as the number of downloaders increased.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I am in favor of life + 50 or publish date + 50 if the author dies before 50 years has passed since the publish date.

Wait... if the author lives for 50 years the copyright is extended to his life + 50 otherwise it is simply 50 years since publication?

I could see life or 50 years, whichever comes second... though that still leaves the problem of figuring out whether an author is dead or not....

--
Bill

[pholy]

Hmm - It's pretty easy with human authors... usually, anyway. Maybe we shouldn't allow corporations to hold or own copyrights? Just an idle thought... or a dumb question?

It's all just
pholy

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pholy

Hmm - It's pretty easy with human authors... usually, anyway. Maybe we shouldn't allow corporations to hold or own copyrights? Just an idle thought... or a dumb question?

It's all just
pholy

If corporations could not hold copyrights, where would be the incentive to make movies? "Blockbuster" movies are so astronomically expensive, costing hundreds of millions of $ to make, that they are really outside the budget of any but the wealthiest of individuals.

[pholy]

Sorry, I forgot about movies.... They aren't really part of my life :-)

I guess I just hate big authoritarian corporations. Am I unique?

More pholy

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If corporations could not hold copyrights, where would be the incentive to make movies? "Blockbuster" movies are so astronomically expensive, costing hundreds of millions of $ to make, that they are really outside the budget of any but the wealthiest of individuals.

Is that supposed to be an argument for or against denying corporations the power to own copyrights? .

Actually, I believe that the movies still might get made. But rather than having corporations hold them, they might be held by the director or the producer who would then have to pay the investors (i.e., the production company) most of the profits.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If corporations could not hold copyrights, where would be the incentive to make movies? "Blockbuster" movies are so astronomically expensive, costing hundreds of millions of $ to make, that they are really outside the budget of any but the wealthiest of individuals.

And due to "creative" accounting by the corporations, the artists themselves get very little of that. A lot of that "astronomical expense" is being paid out to shell companies so that at the end of the day they can claim the movie made little to no profit, which is what the artists cut is based off of. Meanwhile, a lot of that expense ends up right back in the corporation's pocket.

I'm not sure Hollywood is really the best example to use.

[Hellmark]

Even if corporations couldn't hold copyrights, who is to say that someone loyal to the company wouldn't hold it, and play the same games?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Even if corporations couldn't hold copyrights, who is to say that someone loyal to the company wouldn't hold it, and play the same games?

People dies so there is no incentive to try to change the laws with the motivation that you are a corporation so you need extended copyrigt since you do not die.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by rrburton

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.

It's hard to set out to write a book that ceases to be informative or interesting after 15 years.

Note that, for the first 185 years of copyright, 56 years max protection (28 for almost 100 years) was plenty of incentive to convince people to publish.

The vast majority of copyrighted publications are out of print in 15 years. (The vast majority, actually, are out of print in one year. But blockbusters and trendsetters have a longer lifespan.) The next 80+ years of copyright, for many publications, only serve to prevent anyone else from making money--not to make more for the original creator.

(80+ years: 95 for corporate works, L+70 for others in the US; I'm assuming the majority of authors outlive their works' publications by at least 10 years.)

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

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

A forced monopoly marked can hardly be called "free", IMHO.
Apart from that, in the digital future, unless we'll all have a cop in every computer/device [and I think Americans won't like this kind of Stalinism], the "per-copy" reward model will be abandoned.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Format C:

A forced monopoly marked can hardly be called "free", IMHO.
Apart from that, in the digital future, unless we'll all have a cop in every computer/device [and I think Americans won't like this kind of Stalinism], the "per-copy" reward model will be abandoned.

Ok, a couple of points here....

1. It is not a forced monopoly. Ideally it is a limited term monopoly that is granted by the state over a work to allow the creator of that work a chance to profit from it. Since the very notion of copyright is written into the United States Constitution, it is hardly a forced monopoly but one granted by the social contract that all American citizens are a part of.

2. There is no need to have a monitor in every computer. Any decent web server software already keeps a log of all attempts to access it and through what computer it was accessed. It would be relatively easy to monitor for downloads and report the number of unique downloads (not necessarily whose doing the downloading) to determine how the creators of works are to be paid.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

2. There is no need to have a monitor in every computer. Any decent web server software already keeps a log of all attempts to access it and through what computer it was accessed. It would be relatively easy to monitor for downloads and report the number of unique downloads (not necessarily whose doing the downloading) to determine how the creators of works are to be paid.

Assuming, of course, that everyone will behave themselves and only download through legitimate sites that keep logs and report their activity. Then there's the problem of who is going to gather all of that log data and correlate it into shares of the tax.

IMO, it's a nice idea, but is not very practical. What will probably happen is exactly what happens today in places that have tried to put in a similar tax. All of it goes to the big industry members, and the smaller/independent artists get nothing, regardless of what content is being used.