Duration of copyright poll.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by axel77

Well, I would say in an ideal world, yes, the revenue of a book writing an avarage writer taking 6 months should be valued for salary of 6 months + a little extra. While this robs Rowling Millions, it would give a very large number authors a real income, they can reckon with, and having a "real" job. However there is an implication of quality. So yes a qualitative work should be worth more than a less qualitative. And the only messure we have about quality, is the amount of sales...

Well, publishing houses could hire writers as "staff", and fire them if they are not good enough. Scientific research works a bit like this, people are paid for their daily work, regardless of how useful or successful their research results end up being (even patents are often filled by the institituons, not the researchers); but of course, bad researchers are not giving contracts while good researchers are given permanent positions...

I don't say this would be a good solution, I don't say it is the best solution for research either, but it's a possibility.

P.S. Why "a little extra" for the salary? If it takes 6 months to write, he should get 6 months of salary (I don't specify which is the right salary per month for a writer, though).

[axel77]

P.S. Why "a little extra" for the salary? If it takes 6 months to write, he should get 6 months of salary (I don't specify which is the right salary per month for a writer, though).

Well first s/he deserves some holidays. Also in the case of the publisher "buying" the book as complete work the little extra should satisfy for "risks" that author had carried, like having an accident middle in the work, or so. If you are contracted that risk would have to carry the employer.

I also want to highlight, I consider within the 6 months in this example not only the time spent actually creating the text, but also the time you need to do your research, to create the charactersets, to draw up the story, and so on.

Yes science runs roughly like you said, it are most of the time say 2 years leap of faith, and when you fail badly in this time, your contract won't get prolonged. Permanent positions are getting really rare however. I think nowadays even most young professors only get 6 year contracts.

I think this situation evolved, because in science you cannot even use the "sales" revenues as messurement of quality. So a system similar to authorship of books could not even work. (Usually quality is assest ex-post, by the number of times being cited)

Yes, I think it would be benefitable for most non-super-star authors as well as society to be contracted in the way described. But the publishers are a powerfull entity, and they don't want that. They don't want to take the risk, of the author to be good/bad even for a shorter time. Why should they, if they can roll off almost all risk to the author (except printing costs), and leave the author with the problem, how to make as far as possible a "normal" life as author.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Format C:

But I think there is a huge difference between putting somebody in charge and complete ownership of an apartment (mankind can live without entering my house), and to put him in charge and ownership of an idea (mankind wouldn't be the same if Homer had copyright and prevented everybody from reading the Odyssey....).So the Odyssey is Homer's complete property until he's living, and it's mankind's property at his death.

That's fair enough to make Homer live from his work, and the whole mankind to develop civilization and education.

For a moment let's imagine ancient Greeks were extremely lawful society.

If Odyssey is Homer's complete property until he dies, then Homer may at some point, say 20 years after the work is created, destroy the work completely. That is, he would tell all the Greeks to forget Odyssey they remember, never think of it, and never pass it on to anyone else.

Any action that would preserve the work for mankind after Homer's death would therefore be a crime, so Homer could cause his work not to be passed to mankind at all.

An idea cannot be a property.

[Falbe Publishing]

Originally Posted by axel77

But the value of your house is totally unrelated to your expected lifetime. Why should the work of creating a copyrighted work have a different value dependent if you live longer or shorter?

To put it simply: You write book X, in total this work is worth Y dollars. You can pass Y dollars to your heirs. I agree the difficulty with intellectual work is that it proofs its value only over time, and nearly impossible to determine in forehand. Thats why a publisher will not give you Y dollars the moment you sell him the book, and then market it himself. He gives you money dependent on the worth this book proofes itself (how often it sells in the coming decades).

I don't understand why any flat rate should be unjust. One can argue how long a copyrighted intellectual work should be protected to give you a revenue that justifies the work and genius put into it. However I don't get it, why this value should depent on your life time. Okay when you can convince me that 50 years is not enough, maybe make it 100 years flat. I just can't get it in my head why the work of a young author should be more worth than the work of an old. The young author can save the revenues of his book until death and bequeath it to the children + the remaining copyright time after his death, why the old one can only bequeath the copyright, which in total was hold a quite shorter time.

The value is related to author's lifetime because it's my creation and I would not want my rights to it taken away from me while I was alive.

As to your point about young author versus old author, I'm sure both young and old authors want to keep their rights during their lifetimes.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Falbe Publishing

As to your point about young author versus old author, I'm sure both young and old authors want to keep their rights during their lifetimes.

But why should the value of their work be assessed differently of society just because they have different age? Now your point indirectly is, it is because they want it so. Yet doesn't make IMHO much sense.

[Greg Anos]

Once more into the breach...

1. An idea cannot be property. Correct. According to the western implementation of societial values, a specific implementation of an idea can be treated as property, for a limited period of time.

2. Although it can be treated as property, it is not property. It is a production monopoly granted for a limited period of time. These production monopolies have only been in existance slightly less than 300 years, and have always been granted on the proposition the society will tolerate the inherent evil of a monopoly for a period of time as a incentive to a skilled creator to do more creating, as more creation is considered a social good for the long term.

3. There is confusion of the terms involved. Because these monopolies can be treated as property, some people think that they are property, and demand all sorts of other aspects of property, such as perpetuity, which are not, and never have been, part of the original grant of monopoly.

4. This is not a social welfare program for creators, or their heirs and assigns. Those interests are meaningless to the granting of the monopoly. It is the society's interest in incentifiying new implemetations of ideas is the only interest concerned.

5. It does create a unique form of rentier income, unique in that it is based on a wasting asset. Property, as separate from granted monopoly, has perpetuity as a central tenant, in a granted monopoly, it does not.

6. Large corporations, over the last 50 years, have refused to give up the rentier income involved in these limited monopolies, and have used some of the profits to bri..excuse me, lobby, governments to continually extend the terms of the monopolies in order to maintain their rentier income for as long as they possibly can.

7. While this has always been sold as "helping the creator", in actually it has been about corporations helping themselves....

8. The original question of how to incent creators of new implementation of ideas for the benefit of society has gone by the wayside. Society's long term benfits have been given short shrift.

9. Technology has shattered these monopoly's grip, even thought they are still legally defined. Because of 6., 7., and 8., the moral standing of these monopolies have been eroded, leading to widespread civil disobedience of these monopolies. This is commonly refered to a theft or piracy, but it is neither, it is unlawful monopoly infringement, and should be referred as such.

10. What constitutes a optimal length for these limited monopolies is still subject to debate. Creator's lifespan has often gotten involved as part of the idea that only a live creator can create. That is the only reason lifespan has gotten involved.


Enough, I'm tired of typing....

[Ea]

Nice summary, thanks! I think it was needed

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by _Ea_

Nice summary, thanks! I think it was needed

Just the facts, ma'am. (or sir as the case may be)

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Just the facts, ma'am. (or sir as the case may be)

Ah, it's ma'am. Thought my name was girlish enough

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by axel77

Thats not the way it runs. As the buyer usually doesn't have a clue how much money the rights are worth, thats why AFAIK publishers give you "revenue by sales" deals.

Sort of. What you get is an initial payment that is considered an advance against future royalties. The amount of the advance will be determined by the negotiating ability of the author's agent, and the best guess the publisher can make on how well a title will do.

Many titles never "earn out", and don't earn more royalties more than the amount of the original advance, so authors don't see additional payments.

(And most agents try to negotiate a high enough initial advance that the book won't earn out.)

Also AFAIk even when you sell exclusively the copyright, the length it is valid depends on *your* life, not on the one who buys it.

Exclusive sales of rights are rare these days. There is increasing recognition that a variety of rights are involved, with their own values. Back on the 50's and 60's, for example, Doubleday published a hardcover SF line, aimed at the library market. The contract they used specified that they got half of the royalties from a paperback sale. The sales to libraries covered their direct costs. The money from the paperback sale made their profit. You are unlikely see that sort of deal now.

What you do see is work for hire contracts. Someone else owns the rights, and the author is paid a fee (and usually gets royalties) to write a book covered by them. A friend makes his living doing media tie-in novels as work for hire. He's writing books based on TV series or movies, using someone else's characters and settings.
______
Dennis