Gizmodo: How Much It Actually Costs to Publish an Ebook vs. a Real Book

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by pricecw

So let's pretend we have a societal backlash, and copyrights are put back to a 14yr term (with maybe a 14yr extension). Would it stop creators from creating?

I don't think all writing would shudder to a halt, as there are people who are willing to (literally) write without any compensation. However, I expect that new writings, particularly by popular authors, would be very expensive; and both authors and publishers would just figure out some way to manage or otherwise restrict access. For example, it might be possible to set up a click-through contract on ebooks whereby the purchaser agrees not to re-distribute the work, perhaps based on laws similar to NDA's.

Originally Posted by pricecw

Most money off of a book, image, code base, etc is made long before 14yrs is up.

But other works sell consistently, and in good numbers, for decades. 14 years takes us back to 1996, and there is plenty of material prior to that year which still sells well, especially now with greater access to obscure titles via online sales and POD capabilities.

For example, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone was published in 1997 -- and possibly copyrighted a year before then. I don't think JK Rowling would jump for joy if you told her that in a year or two, anyone could sell copies of, or make movies and video games, off of that book without any necessity to give her one red cent. Even less successful authors would probably hit the ceiling if they only had 14 years to get paid for their work.

Many books do not recoup their costs for the publisher. And for those which have, back-catalog sales turn into high-margin sales; as 50% goes to the retailer, 7-10% goes to the author, 15% goes to paper/distribution.

And if the majority of revenues is generated in that 14 year period, then why would anyone care about longer durations? Obviously it's because there is a desire for works older than 14 years; otherwise, there wouldn't be much reason to care.

Life + 70 may be too long, but 14 years is clearly far too short.

Originally Posted by pricecw

The only purpose that the copyright is granted is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

I see you are a Constitutional originalist. I hope you apply this interpretation of law consistently, instead of merely when it suits you.

By the way, multiple court rulings have upheld the very long current copyright terms. Since they determine what is or is not "constitutional" for US law, I'd say that proclaiming "copyright terms are unconstitutional" requires a bit more backing than "I don't feel like long terms perform functions X and Y."

Originally Posted by pricecw

If the creation is lost to society before that term is up, does it not go against the purpose of copyright?

Not really, no. Tons of work is lost to obscurity or destroyed, it's the nature of things.

Also, for those who choose to be originalists , the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- very clearly and explicitly references commercial use. So I don't really see any problems at all in terms of using copyright to protect economic interests.

That said, I do think we should have legislation to properly manage orphaned works, given the length of current copyright terms. IMO that would resolve some critical issues.

Of course, if the government does start passing laws to address orphan works, expect some fireworks from unexpected quarters. Apparently Britain is drafting one right now, and photographers over there are having fits as they're terrified it will result in widespread infringement of their work under the cover of the infringer claiming they can't find the copyright holder....

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Not really, no. Tons of work is lost to obscurity or destroyed, it's the nature of things.

There is no reason for any significant works to be lost again. Period.

Archive.org, the Archive Team and similar groups are becoming the custodians of our history. Heck, the British Library has announced they will be taking yearly snapshots of the .uk domain space.

For corporate greed to deny us part of Human knowledge in the race for profit is quite literally a crime against Humanity.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's just something that really shouldn't be in the constitution. It relates to business (right to sell your creations) and should just be covered by laws just like all the SEC, antitrust laws etc. etc. we have.




I'd take it out all together, as above. Leave it a legal issue, not a constitutional issue.

Have a law that requires people to register for copyrights, and have the copyrights give them (and/or their publisher etc.) sole control over the sales, distribution, and re-use (re-mixes etc.) of their content from the time of creation/copyright until 10 years after death when it will become the public domain.

No need to mention the for the good of society, progress of the arts etc. That's just BS. People can buy the book, get it from the library, rent the movie, see the painting and/or authorized reproductions in gallaries etc. Things can progress just fine while stuff isn't in the public domain.

The only thing they can do is take it and sell it on their own, remix it etc. until it's in the public domain--hardly any great set back to progress.

Ah, but technically, congress is only granted the powers given in the constitution (I know, abused through the interstate commerce clause).

But again, the reason for the copyright is society, that is why they give up something of material value (ie the ability to copy). You feel entitled to take something without ever having to give back for that ability.

--Carl

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by pricecw

You feel entitled to take something without ever having to give back for that ability.
l

I just can't agree with that, as again it's a very communistic type of statement.

A creator takes nothing from society. They create something, decide to sell it. People are free to decide to buy it or not. The creator doesn't owe society anything, nor does society owe the creator anything.

I get the origin of copyright, I just think it's a bunch of horseshit. Progress isn't halted by copyright as anyone can still access the material be it buying it or freely through libraries, public viewings etc.

The only reason to oppose copyright is greed from people who want to rip it off and sell it as their own, and people who want to get stuff for free. Progress is not halted by copyright.

Again, I agree copyright shouldn't last for every, a decade or so after death is sufficient. But I don't feel that way because of silly sense of the common good/progress of the arts--but because the creator is dead and there's no one else entitled to make money off his creation, so I'm fine with it turning over to society then.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

For example, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone was published in 1997 -- and possibly copyrighted a year before then. I don't think JK Rowling would jump for joy if you told her that in a year or two, anyone could sell copies of, or make movies and video games, off of that book without any necessity to give her one red cent. Even less successful authors would probably hit the ceiling if they only had 14 years to get paid for their work.

I really don't feel bad for Rowling, she went for very poor to one of the richest people in the UK during that time. I think society encouraged her to create just fine there.

For others, did it stop the creation when this was the law in 1996 (there was extensions then too to an extra time)? Authors created under an agreement, (42 years at that time) and then it would be public domain. Then Congress, after being lobbied heavily by corporations, took from the public those works and extended them. No extra motivation to create was done with this, since works already created were extended. Also, it hurt the progress, because people couldn't extend and expand those works, like Disney did with public domain works before.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And if the majority of revenues is generated in that 14 year period, then why would anyone care about longer durations? Obviously it's because there is a desire for works older than 14 years; otherwise, there wouldn't be much reason to care.

Life + 70 may be too long, but 14 years is clearly far too short.

This was done for a few select rich, that have already gotten much more from the system than they needed to progress and encourage the arts.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I see you are a Constitutional originalist. I hope you apply this interpretation of law consistently, instead of merely when it suits you.

Yep I am, I once swore my life to uphold it (USMC), and have payed for that for a long time now, it has been 22-23 years since I have been without pain. I think that the politicians are stealing from us to enrich the few, a lot of times without legal foundations to do it. I also think the Supreme court is not doing it's job correctly. I just hope at some point before total collapse we get people up there that will fix this mess.

One good example is the laws put in place to "regulate" interstate commerce. When the constitution was written, and that power was granted to congress, the term regulate meant to make regular, not impose regulations. It was meant to let the federal government prevent things like tariffs at the borders of states.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

By the way, multiple court rulings have upheld the very long current copyright terms. Since they determine what is or is not "constitutional" for US law, I'd say that proclaiming "copyright terms are unconstitutional" requires a bit more backing than "I don't feel like long terms perform functions X and Y."

I agree they have the ability to do so. That is why I think that a voter revolution (sort of what is happening in the EU) is going to be seen in the US. I think the Pirate Party may gain strength, and a lot of long copyright terms will be revoked/reduced. The creators will scream bloody murder, but we the people have the right to reduce them to 2yrs if we so desire (btw I think that is too short).

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Not really, no. Tons of work is lost to obscurity or destroyed, it's the nature of things.

Also, for those who choose to be originalists , the Statute of Anne -- the first copyright law -- very clearly and explicitly references commercial use. So I don't really see any problems at all in terms of using copyright to protect economic interests.

That said, I do think we should have legislation to properly manage orphaned works, given the length of current copyright terms. IMO that would resolve some critical issues.

Of course, if the government does start passing laws to address orphan works, expect some fireworks from unexpected quarters. Apparently Britain is drafting one right now, and photographers over there are having fits as they're terrified it will result in widespread infringement of their work under the cover of the infringer claiming they can't find the copyright holder....

Yep, that's another reason to just shorten the life of the copyright. It is orphaned after the duration (I don't argue 14yrs is correct, just use it as a counter point to life+70). Now, the drafts of that law made it very easy for corporations to claim they thought something was orphaned. I fully expect copyright to be a balance though, the creators should have a chance to get re-numeration from their creation, the people should get the creation into public domain in a reasonable time. Both sides give up, both sides get something.

BTW, patents are generally 14yrs, and that system has worked fairly well for compensating the creators, and progressing the state of the art. The main problems with that system right now is the patents that should never have been granted since they were not original, and prior art existed for them. (Yes, I have creations that have been patented also).

--Carl

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I just can't agree with that, as again it's a very communistic type of statement.

A creator takes nothing from society. They create something, decide to sell it. People are free to decide to buy it or not. The creator doesn't owe society anything, nor does society owe the creator anything.

I get the origin of copyright, I just think it's a bunch of horseshit. Progress isn't halted by copyright as anyone can still access the material be it buying it or freely through libraries, public viewings etc.

The only reason to oppose copyright is greed from people who want to rip it off and sell it as their own, and people who want to get stuff for free. Progress is not halted by copyright.

Again, I agree copyright shouldn't last for every, a decade or so after death is sufficient. But I don't feel that way because of silly sense of the common good/progress of the arts--but because the creator is dead and there's no one else entitled to make money off his creation, so I'm fine with it turning over to society then.

A counter point. Disney started by taking public domain stories, putting his spin on them and releasing them. This has enhanced the culture. However, through the acts of the Disney corporation, others can not do the same with work that Walt Disney made. Perhaps, if copyright were held to the original terms when he did his work, we would have seen the culture progress farther.

Problem with your argument, and the entitled view, is the creator had nothing before the copyright acts. They could create or not, but the right of reproduction was not property, could not be stolen, etc. There is only one thing that grants this to the creator, and that is the various copyright laws where society says we will give up this right we have and grant you a limited monopoly to reproduce this work. The reason society decided to give up this right they had was it was seen as an overall good for the whole. It was not, and should not be about the creator directly. Otherwise, your are taking from the many for the few without an overall good.

So if copyright is horseshit, then the best thing is for everything to instantly be in the public domain (the way it was before copyright), and a creator may create or not, their choice? I don't think that is a good thing, and I think our culture would suffer for it (although there would still be creation happening).

--Carl

[dmaul1114]

We need copyright, I just disagree on the rational.

We need copyright as we've decided that creators, businesses etc. should have their creations and the right to sell them protected.

What you're talking about is why copyrights don't last for every and get passed down to heirs etc. It was decided that there is worth inthe public domain so that's why copyrights do expire.

But it's not why we have copyrights. We have copyrights as we live in a largely capitalist world with a large legal emphasis on protecting people's rights to make money. That copyright expires is a concession that there is value to the public domain and those rights shouldn't get passed down through multiple generations.

[carbonize]

I'm pretty damn sure that when someone sits down to write their first book they aren't hoping to make a fortune but rather just hoping people will read it and like it.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by carbonize

I'm pretty damn sure that when someone sits down to write their first book they aren't hoping to make a fortune but rather just hoping people will read it and like it.

Yep.

But once they're successful they want to protect their material and make as much money off it as possible.

Anyone can write a book and give it away for free. No one is forcing them to officially get a copyright and legally enforce it etc.

So again, copyrights don't stifle creativity. Lack of them wouldn't stop these upstarts, but I'd suspect a lot of people who've made more money than they'll ever need will retire and quit writing sooner if the copyright term was very short vs lasting until death and beyond.

[carbonize]

Well do we think the likes of Stephen King and Terry Pratchett still write for the money or just because they have stories they want to tell?

I personally don't think authors are the issue but rather the publishers. I'd sooner pay £5 for an ebook knowing that most of it was going to the author than the £15 they want for some ebooks when you know the author will only get about £3 from that. Which takes me back to my earlier suggestion about a site where authors can sell their own work and the site takes something like 10% of each sale to cover bandwidth, server costs etc.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's just something that really shouldn't be in the constitution. It relates to business (right to sell your creations) and should just be covered by laws just like all the SEC, antitrust laws etc. etc. we have.

You already have the right to sell your creations.

If you create a table, you can sell that. If you create a ballgown, you can sell that. If you create a book, you can sell that.

It needs to be in there because it's giving rights that *don't exist* for other creative works. In the case of tables or ballgowns, the person who buys it can copy it at will, create as many more like it as they care to, and sell those. If you want books to be in a different category from clothing, those special rights need to be established.

Have a law that requires people to register for copyrights, and have the copyrights give them (and/or their publisher etc.) sole control over the sales, distribution, and re-use (re-mixes etc.) of their content from the time of creation/copyright until 10 years after death when it will become the public domain.

Why should public domain begin with death of the author? What was wrong with 28 year copyrights?

What makes some creative works--prose, poetry, drawings, song, video--different from other creative works--carving, architecture, sewing, knitting? (Architectural *plans* are copyrighted, but AFAIK houses are not; anyone who can copy a layout is permitted to.)

No need to mention the for the good of society, progress of the arts etc. That's just BS.

No, that's the reason books get copyrights at all, instead of being treated like a line of high-fashion clothes or shoes, where if you want to prevent yours from being copied, you keep prices high & sell to a limited market.

The only thing they can do is take it and sell it on their own, remix it etc. until it's in the public domain--hardly any great set back to progress.

I assume you mean "only thing they can't do." The restriction on remixing and derivatives is a substantial impediment to progress, moreso in the current climate that believes a 60-years-later sequel that doesn't even name the main character is "merely derivative" instead of a transformative re-imagining of the character's life.

The core issue isn't, "does society need all that derivative art?" What we "need" is endlessly debatable. The core issue is, "why is it okay to restrict some people's free speech rights in order to allow other people to make money?"

And this is a decision we often make in favor of "allow some people to make money." We don't allow protesters to block a sidewalk and run sirens to interfere with a business. However, every time the choice occurs, we have to be aware that we're restricting someone's basic civil rights, and we need a strong justification for it--not based on "person X deserves to make money!" We're only allowed to restrict basic civil rights when not doing so is harmful to society. (Costing an author a few bucks from a book sale is not considered "harmful to society," or it'd be illegal to give negative reviews.)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

A creator takes nothing from society. They create something, decide to sell it. People are free to decide to buy it or not. The creator doesn't owe society anything, nor does society owe the creator anything.

The creator takes *everything* from society. The language used for the creation; the myths and literary tropes he expects the readers to understand; the established standards of artistic display (be that painting or book or sculpture); the education (or lack thereof) of his buyers; the sense of humor he expects people to apply when viewing his work; the scientific principles he uses to prove his conclusions; the symbols he expects them to understand; the concept of beauty he expects them to find in his work.

All art is remix. All science builds on previous science.

Copyright as a limited monopoly acknowledges that artists & scientists aren't starting from ground zero, but from a rich history provided by other people.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

We need copyright, I just disagree on the rational.

We need copyright as we've decided that creators, businesses etc. should have their creations and the right to sell them protected.

What you're talking about is why copyrights don't last for every and get passed down to heirs etc. It was decided that there is worth inthe public domain so that's why copyrights do expire.

But it's not why we have copyrights. We have copyrights as we live in a largely capitalist world with a large legal emphasis on protecting people's rights to make money. That copyright expires is a concession that there is value to the public domain and those rights shouldn't get passed down through multiple generations.

Whether you agree with it or not, the rational as has been explained earlier is the reason copyright exists. Get over it.

Frankly, I have a harsh answer to long copyrights...TAXES! You want copyright forever, then you have to pay taxes on it every year, whether you get any money out of it or not. The longer you hold it, the higher they go. We tax land, income, estates, ect. It's about time copyright got is a** taxed off... you don't pay, into the public domain it goes...

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I just can't agree with that, as again it's a very communistic type of statement.

Nuts. A functioning social contract is not "communistic".

Also, if you take any more power away from copyright, you're rapidly going to see libraries became part of Humanity's history rather than the present. It's bluntly disingenuous to talk about them when companies like Macmillian have made it plain they detest them (and indeed, don't allow their ebooks in libraries). Same goes for schools, of course.

Also, your historical revisionism on copyright's origions is precisely why we can't afford to allow works to be lost - the only defence against it is to preserve the primary references


pricew - Patent trolling, especially in America, is a massive problem and issue right now. That's not "working".

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Frankly, I have a harsh answer to long copyrights...TAXES! You want copyright forever, then you have to pay taxes on it every year, whether you get any money out of it or not. The longer you hold it, the higher they go. We tax land, income, estates, ect. It's about time copyright got is a** taxed off... you don't pay, into the public domain it goes...

Oooh, I *like* that. If you keep it away from the public; you pay the public for that right.

Free for the first X years; re-reg for small fee for Y more years; after that, $Z per year per copyright. Even if it's just $10-20 per year. Individual authors could easily keep copyrights for their whole lives if they cared too; Disney, however, can pay for every song (twice--once for music & once for lyrics), every spool of film, every script, every master disc, every comic book and cartoon remix. Every sketchbook it wants to keep restricted. Every memobook full of story outlines.