How long should a copyright last?

[rkomar]

It seems to me that people here are falling into two camps: those that do and those that don't value the public domain (at least not enough to let it get in the way of commercializing works). I doubt any amount of arguing is going to make anyone switch camps, but it may be useful to think about this when wondering why arguments are falling on deaf ears.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by rkomar

It seems to me that people here are falling into two camps: those that do and those that don't value the public domain (at least not enough to let it get in the way of commercializing works). I doubt any amount of arguing is going to make anyone switch camps, but it may be useful to think about this when wondering why arguments are falling on deaf ears.

I think that's what they call "spin" - yes? An equally ridiculous spin would be to say: that people here are falling into two camps: those that do and those that don't value original works.

Neither of those statements are true. There is a fairly wide spread of views expressed even in the the small sample we see here. Copyright has always been a trade-off, a compromise. Not just between the value of original works versus the value of public domain, but also between the various costs of managing copyright, and the relative importance of a creator having some control over their creation. It's not surprising that different people place different levels of importance, different values, on the various factors. It is not a simple topic.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by rkomar

It seems to me that people here are falling into two camps: those that do and those that don't value the public domain (at least not enough to let it get in the way of commercializing works). I doubt any amount of arguing is going to make anyone switch camps, but it may be useful to think about this when wondering why arguments are falling on deaf ears.

I think there are more than two camps or maybe they are sub-camps.

I am firmly in the camp that says I don't care what you do, just don't expect a pat on the head and sympathy because someone feels that they have been forced to pirate a work rather than giving up the price of several cups of coffee or waiting a month or so to get it from the library. If someone is comfortable with it just do it, they don't need my approval.

The other camp I am in is the one where authors deserve to be paid if people like their books. Very few make a living at it and for those that do actually get published, we want to take away the fruits of their labour after 20 years? Does the book quality deteriorate with time? Some do of course, but a good book endures.

What I fail to understand is the 20-50-75 years thing. Were the books published 20 years ago of better quality than the ones published 50 years ago or 80 years ago. Some are, some aren't. Most acclaimed books published 20 years ago are pretty available.
And the benefit of people being able to write spin-offs of their favorite series if only they were allowed to sooner. Do they want to wait 20 years? I doubt it. And who would care when they did.

Just saying.

Helen

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, and not to be hyperbolic, but, seriously, I know women who know men who raped them. Does that mean I should shoot you on sight?

One egregious act does not a trend make. Many egregious acts create a trend. In the cosmic scope of all the copyrighted works in the world, that now or have ever existed, seriously, how many have a history like this one? Even if there are 10, or 20 or 100--it's still silliness in the scope of millions of copyrighted works. Millions. How many works did the EU alone determine might be lost? How many millions? Which indicates many millions more that aren't lost.

So, come on, guys--can we at least agree that in any business, or type of business, or in any personal arrangement, or types of personal arrangements, bad things will occasionally happen? Brides will be left standing at the altar, guys will get dumped and not get an engagement ring back; terrible people will divorce nice people and their attorneys will rip off the nice one for the bad one; real estate deals will occasionally rip someone off.

Publishing isn't "special" in terms of simply being a business. That's all it is. That it encompasses what may well be art doesn't make it less of a business, or less of a vocation, as, hopefully, we've covered earlier. In any business, there will be bad people or crooks or victims. ANY BUSINESS or ANY personal business. That's life. Life isn't fair. So what?

To determine whether "corporations are evil" in the scope of copyright, you cannot look at one or two or even 50 instances. Certainly you can find an egregious case. You have to look at what publishing and media corporations have done over the entirety of all their actions vis-a-vis copyright--not just holding up a few scandalous situations.

Otherwise, you're skewing the facts when creating your opinions, and if you're going to do that, there's no point at all in bothering with facts.

As is rather famously oft-cited "no amount of fact will ever alter entrenched belief," but I'd like to think that MR'ers, in particular, are better than that.

Hitch
P.S.: For anyone interested in Biased Assimilation: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/...ckfire-effect/

Hitch, how is this any different from individual "piracy". That is just the same thing from my view point. (Or more accurately, mirror images. One side is taking money for an invalid copyright, while the other side is taking a valid copyright without paying. Both are about taking rightful value away from people, for copyright.)

The same organizations you are so cheerfully exonerating of their wrongdoings (it's just an egregious case) are just as cheerfully trying to stop "piracy", even though there is a thriving legtimate I.P. sales business.

Let me use your words...

"To determine whether "corporations are /Piracy is evil" in the scope of copyright, you cannot look at one or two or even 50 instances. Certainly you can find an egregious case. You have to look at what publishing and media corporations/all individuals have done over the entirety of all their actions vis-a-vis copyright--not just holding up a few scandalous situations.

Otherwise, you're skewing the facts when creating your opinions, and if you're going to do that, there's no point at all in bothering with facts."

[Hitch]

I had this lovely big long post written to reply to this, and I'll likely post it later, but in the interim, boys and girls:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...-work-for-free

I'm particularly fond of this bit:

"I absolutely refuse to do anything for free, no matter what it is. It basically supposes that authors live in a rarefied world in which they don't need money. If you want culture to be enriched, you need to enrich authors."

hugs and kisses,
Hitch

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I had this lovely big long post written to reply to this, and I'll likely post it later, but in the interim, boys and girls:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...-work-for-free

He only got called "priggish and ungracious". One (female) science blogger got called a whore for politely declining to write for another site for free.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

He only got called "priggish and ungracious". One (female) science blogger got called a whore for politely declining to write for another site for free.

Yes. It's amazing how suddenly, all authors are supposed to live on air. Scads of people on this thread have been going on about how the length of copyright won't affect whether or not writers write, but this type of thing absolutely affects my ideas, personally, on whether or not I'd ever bother to finish a manuscript I've had half-done for ages. Here's three short paragraphs from the article (for those of you that didn't read it):

Hensher, who was shortlisted for the Man Booker prize in 2008 for his novel The Northern Clemency, a portrait of Britain's social landscape through the Thatcher era, wrote his first two novels while working a day job, but said: "I always had an eye to when I would make a living from it. If people who claim to respect literature – professors of literature at Cambridge University – expect it, then I see no future for young authors. Why would you start on a career if it's not just impossible, but improper, to expect payment?"

Author Guy Walters, this week vented his frustrations at a rising number of requests to work for free in an article for literary journal the Literary Review. In it, he cursed his own foolishness for having accepted an invitation to speak at Hay festival in return for six bottles of wine.

"The problem is not just festivals, it's across the lots and lots of different institutions, organisations, literary prizes and events who expect authors to do things for very little or no money, because it's an honour to do it," Walters said. "There's a romantic notion that authors work for the love of culture and high ideals, but it doesn't put food on the table. If you value culture, you must pay artists. It's a complete con and an absolute racket. There's a word for working for free: it's slavery." - from Guardian, Liz Bury, today's date: http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...-work-for-free

Food for thought. I'm off to read the "whore" article--see more nice people who think artists should be grateful for being asked to work for free...

Hitch

[calvin-c]

Work. Now there's an interesting concept. As a programmer I don't consider programming work-to me it's fun. Yes, I want to get paid for it-but I don't insist that I need to get paid for all that I do. As long as I make enough to decently live on (an amount that varies not only from person to person but also, with me, from time to time) I'm fine. I guess authors are different-or maybe they're as different from each other as everybody else is?

[arjaybe]

We're lucky we have copyright at all. Give us an inch . . ?

rjb

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Hitch

P.S.: For anyone interested in Biased Assimilation: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/...ckfire-effect/

Interesting article. Thanks

helen

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Work. Now there's an interesting concept. As a programmer I don't consider programming work-to me it's fun. Yes, I want to get paid for it-but I don't insist that I need to get paid for all that I do. As long as I make enough to decently live on (an amount that varies not only from person to person but also, with me, from time to time) I'm fine. I guess authors are different-or maybe they're as different from each other as everybody else is?

Calvin:

And how do you know that all these authors are "making enough to decently live on?" I think that's the entire point that they are trying to make. They're not all Dan Brown or Rowling, y'know. Being listed for the Booker doesn't mean he's independently wealthy. I think people here have a bizarrely distorted idea of what the average--and I mean, average--author really earns.

And, by the way: lucky you, that you manage to earn doing something that you think is fun, and don't consider "work." You do realize that most people aren't in that situation, don't you? Very few people are so fortunate.

Hitch

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Calvin:

And how do you know that all these authors are "making enough to decently live on?" I think that's the entire point that they are trying to make. They're not all Dan Brown or Rowling, y'know. Being listed for the Booker doesn't mean he's independently wealthy. I think people here have a bizarrely distorted idea of what the average--and I mean, average--author really earns.

And, by the way: lucky you, that you manage to earn doing something that you think is fun, and don't consider "work." You do realize that most people aren't in that situation, don't you? Very few people are so fortunate.

Hitch

I wonder why people pursue a profession that is so poorly renumerated. Nothing stops them from pursuing some other profession that is more renumerative. After all, if money is what counts....

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Work. Now there's an interesting concept. As a programmer I don't consider programming work-to me it's fun. Yes, I want to get paid for it-but I don't insist that I need to get paid for all that I do. As long as I make enough to decently live on (an amount that varies not only from person to person but also, with me, from time to time) I'm fine. I guess authors are different-or maybe they're as different from each other as everybody else is?

I suspect authors are much like the rest of us. For some it is fun and for others it is difficult and stressful. For some it is just a job.

I was a programmer for quite a few years, and it was rarely fun. But it paid well. I still do it on occasion when greed takes over, but still not fun.

I know at least two people to whom cleaning is the greatest pleasure. I'm talking down and dirty cleaning involving disgusting environments. Each to their own I guess.

If you were out of work you would probably continue programming as a hobby. Would you spend as much time and energy on it if you were providing it free of charge to people who could afford to pay for it and chose not to because you like doing it so why should you get paid?

Lots of people enjoy hobbies and they give away the fruits of their labours because after all what are you going to do with 200 crocheted tea cozies, and lots of authors give away books, and programmers write programs for free, just because they can. But for most there comes a time when they say enough is enough. Not only does it take up increasing amounts of time, but people become demanding. A friend of mine used to knit dishcloths and give them to friends. Two different people approached her and asked her to make a hundred or more so they could use them for Christmas gifts. Only one offered to pay for the materials, the other wanted to know if she could have them in two weeks.

My friend politely told them it took her an hour or so to make one so she would have to take time off work at $30 an hour to do it in a timely manner and most likely have to work 24/7 to do it. Wish I had been there to see the proverbial blank stares

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I wonder why people pursue a profession that is so poorly renumerated. Nothing stops them from pursuing some other profession that is more renumerative. After all, if money is what counts....

Not quite understanding what you are saying here.

Are you saying money doesn't count and that you work for free and are happy to do so? Kind of sounds that way.

Or perhaps you are hoping that authors come to their senses and get paid by the hour jobs and quit annoying society with their books and their grandiose desires to get paid by those enjoying them. Pernicious devils aren't they?

Pretty sure it is the second, but maybe not.

Helen

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I wonder why people pursue a profession that is so poorly renumerated. Nothing stops them from pursuing some other profession that is more renumerative. After all, if money is what counts....

Good lord, man. That is what this entire conversation has been about: money. Money, apparently, IS all that counts, because this whole discussion has been about nothing more than the idea that folks who want copyright ended sooner want to get their hands on someone's original work for NOTHING. Whether to read it for NOTHING, own it for NOTHING, or use it, for NOTHING, upon which to build their own "artistic" endeavors (which they in turn will copyright and sell)...what else is this whole discussion about?

All the rest of the diversions, u-turns, prestidigitation, bloviating about how big evil corporations are ripping off poor starving artists and enriching themselves, lost works, blah-blah-blah--it's all distraction. You can dress it up however you want, but: this is ALL ABOUT MONEY, and proponents of reducing terms of copyright want the work "to fall into the public domain" which means nothing more than "we get it for free, and the creator no longer has any rights to it." Look at the whole lost works discussion in the sector--everyone claimed that they were "really" concerned that all these books not be lost (which is why they should all go into the PD), but now they bitch that Google digitized them and saved them. Because now they have to pay a small fee to access them. The books were indeed saved. But I guess that's not what they REALLY wanted--they wanted those books scanned, OCR'ed, digitized,and made FREELY available...so that somebody else would do all the heavy lifting, for NOTHING.

Period, end statement. All the rest of it--citing Macauley's speech of 1841, when 56 years meant a significantly longer portion of a person's lifetime than it does now, corporations, rights, kines--it's all window dressing. It all comes down to a single thing: money. There's no getting around it. Anyone--anyone at all--could approach any author out there and ask for a license to use their creations in their own book, to create more, uh, "homages" to someone's work, or "reboots." They don't need to wait for PD. Why don't they? MONEY. Why do people want to obtain books that are in the PD, instead of just buying them? MONEY.

Can we all please just stop jelld***ing around, and just get to the core of the discussion? It IS about money. It's about money from the artist's side, and it's about money from the acquirer's side, or user's side. It's not about anything else. Nobody really wants to talk about THAT end of it, do they? The acquirer's side, and money. Or the "none" thereof. They just want to talk about taking rights away from the creators, stopping evil corporations who are enriching themselves unjustly, whether or not authors should write for nothing, etc. It's all well and good to talk about somebody ELSE'S money, and how they've "made enough," or how their great works will be lost, or how their crappy grandaughter doesn't deserve it.

Why don't we talk about the motivations of all the people who want works in the PD sooner? Why don't we talk about why somebody can't buy a used book from 1960 for a few bucks, instead of arguing why it should drop into the PD? Or how evil cheap people can't spend a few dollars to buy a copy of a work they want, thereby unjustly enriching their brains with the entertainment that they claim no longer has any "value," but apparently, had enough value to them that they wanted a copy of it? Piffle.

Hitch