The Fall of Gondolin

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Again, I do understand the "point" of copyright. But I think the value of what the writer creates should be something that he can pass down to his heirs. I don't understand why something of value, created by the writer can't benefit his children and their children.

I understand the limitations of copyright, I just don't agree with that limitation. I realize it's probably not a very popular opinion here. But it is what it is.

The problem with perpetual copyright is that it's a one-sided arrangement. The author and their heirs get their copyrights forever. The government gets the cost of enforcing the copyrights forever. What does the government and the people they represent get back in return? You seem to be fixated on the authors' side of the arrangement, and give no thought to the other side.

In a way, I kind of hate having this pointless debate. The authors and culture have nothing to do with current and future copyright terms. They are determined by corporations (and those that control them) and those in government who have their pockets lined to push them through. It's only about the money.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The problem with perpetual copyright is that it's a one-sided arrangement. The author and their heirs get their copyrights forever. The government gets the cost of enforcing the copyrights forever. What does the government and the people they represent get back in return? You seem to be fixated on the authors' side of the arrangement, and give no thought to the other side. ...

Huh? What exactly is involved in the "cost of enforcing copyrights forever"? As far as I know, you pay a fee to the government to register your copyright. Once the copyright has been registered, it's up to you (the author) to take any copyright violators to court, not the government.

As for what the government gets back in return? — I was unaware that book sales were not taxed.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Huh? What exactly is involved in the "cost of enforcing copyrights forever"? As far as I know, you pay a fee to the government to register your copyright. Once the copyright has been registered, it's up to you (the author) to take any copyright violators to court, not the government.

As for what the government gets back in return? — I was unaware that book sales were not taxed.

The courts cost money. The people who enforce the court decisions cost money. Thus, enforcing copyrights costs money.

After some time, most books stop generating sales (or at least enough to make it worth putting up for sale). So, no revenue is generated to tax. However, the copyrights would still be in place and cost money to enforce.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Huh? What exactly is involved in the "cost of enforcing copyrights forever"? As far as I know, you pay a fee to the government to register your copyright. Once the copyright has been registered, it's up to you (the author) to take any copyright violators to court, not the government.

As for what the government gets back in return? — I was unaware that book sales were not taxed.

Actually, you don't have to pay anything. Copyright comes into play as soon as the work is created, whether or not the author/creator chooses to formally register it with the government.

If an author/creator wants to be able to bring an infringement lawsuit, however, *then* they need to register the copyright. There is a small charge of $35 to file the registration online. If you wish to print out the registration form and mail it in, the fee is $85.

Shari

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The courts cost money. The people who enforce the court decisions cost money. Thus, enforcing copyrights costs money.

Which, of course, is what government is for and it's why we pay taxes. But, in a civil law suit, the losing side pays the court costs. But where else do you want to apply this? To articles of incorporation? Should they expire also because of the "ongoing costs to government?" This is red herring argument.

Originally Posted by rkomar

After some time, most books stop generating sales (or at least enough to make it worth putting up for sale). So, no revenue is generated to tax. However, the copyrights would still be in place and cost money to enforce.

Okay, this whole sub-thread started because someone said that the great grand-child of an author shouldn't "be able to go to university" on his great-great grandfather's work. Obviously Tolkien's work still has value. So claiming "no revenue involved" is yet another red herring argument here.

But even if it wasn't, what is the cost of filing a copyright and keeping it on record? A copyright is proof of the author's ownership, nothing more. The "expense" of keeping this copyright on record is negligible — and getting a copyright is not free and renewing one is not free. The cost of enforcing the copyright is the responsibility of the author — not the government.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by shalym

Actually, you don't have to pay anything. Copyright comes into play as soon as the work is created, whether or not the author/creator chooses to formally register it with the government.

I understand. But copyright is hard(er) to prove if it's not registered.

This is really gotten off topic. If I go AWOL from this thread it will be because I've made my position clear on the subject — and repeating the same thing over and over will just turn me into a crank (if I'm not already there).

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Which, of course, is what government is for and it's why we pay taxes. But, in a civil law suit, the losing side pays the court costs. But where else do you want to apply this? To articles of incorporation? Should they expire also because of the "ongoing costs to government?" This is red herring argument.

I don't agree about it being a red herring argument. It would be cheaper to not enforce copyrights indefinitely. Most laws are there to benefit society as a whole, so it is society that pays for them. You still have to come up with a good argument for why everyone else should pay for a perpetual copyright that has no benefit for them.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't agree about it being a red herring argument. It would be cheaper to not enforce copyrights indefinitely. Most laws are there to benefit society as a whole, so it is society that pays for them. You still have to come up with a good argument for why everyone else should pay for a perpetual copyright that has no benefit for them.

What -- exactly -- would be the "expense of enforcing copyrights indefinitely"? You register a copyright, it sits in a file. That's about it.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by rcentros

What -- exactly -- would be the "expense of enforcing copyrights indefinitely"? You register a copyright, it sits in a file. That's about it.

If that's all it was, you wouldn't call it "enforcing". "Enforcing" refers to bringing the hammer down on those who violate copyrights. It's not a passive operation.