Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Format C:

If you're not good enough to make money in 28 years, why should you be granted by law to try longer?

If you are not good enough, why would anyone care?

And if the copyright term was lowered to 28 years how many would be happy?

Take myself as an example. Most of my favorite authors are still alive. Some have died fairly recently. In 28 years I will most likely be drooling in my bib in a retirement home if I am still alive.

And realistically, I cannot picture myself at the age of 20 or 30, waiting around for 28 years to read a specific book or group of books. Many of my favorite authors then would now be out of copyright, but I have been reading their books along with many that were public domain, and many more current books which I either borrowed or bought as circumstances or my means dictated. I wouldn't trade my lifetime's worth of reading enjoyment for a million free books today, even if I managed to read several thousand of them.

If copyright was life plus six weeks, there would be some who would bitterly complain that the author could live another 50 years, so they cannot get the book for free today.

Me I hope the author keeps on living and writing whether I like them or not.

Tastes change, I remember at one time being actually keen on L. Ron. Hubbard now I would have to be paid a substantial sum to read him, whether he was dead or alive. No reflection on his writing, but my tastes have changed.

Copyright length to me is irrelevant.

First I wish the authors a long and productive life, with wellbeing and prosperity. Whether I want to read their books or not.

Secondly I do not have the extreme thriftiness required or attention span to make it important enough to get a book for free to wait around for even one year to get one or more books for free, never mind waiting for somebody to die first. The concept eludes me.

How much happier would anyone be waiting only 28 years after an authors death instead of 50. Would you have borrowed it from a friend or the library or perhaps even bought it new or used by that time? Remember the author has to die before copyright even kicks in. Therefore, aside from the distateful connotations of waiting for someone to die so you can save a few dollars, no more books from said author.

Helen

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Umbrage eh? Ok, take some more. It's free.

You are not the norm, as if you were places like Gutenberg would be providing one hell of a lot more texts - per capita - than they do. I have been working - volunteering - with them for years and am still amazed at how little real interest there is in the huge quantity of great literature that is freely available. Many people when they first get an eReader grab a few free books, but few seem to continue to do so. If any of the "statistics" for pirating books are close to true, far more people pirate books than choose free public domain books. If they are pirating books then they are clearly readers, but as so many ignore great literature for modern - often trashy - alternatives, they are not too discerning. I doubt that the status quo would change very much if copyright was reduced.

Quoted because it bears repeating.

I often get confused when people say they don't like "the classics". The classics are not "a genre". They are many genres. There's mystery, comedy, plays, poems, romances, sci-fi, vampires, non-fiction. There are some that I do like and some that I don't.

Prior to discovering PG and MR, and calibre, I was actually BUYing print copies of many classics. I am looking around my shelves now and see Jude the Obscure, The Brothers Karamazov, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Mrs Dalloway, Animal Farm, Anne of Green Gables, Our Mutual Friend, Jane Eyre, 3 copies of Pride and Prejudice, .... etc etc (and far more), because I wanted to catch up on all the "greats" The estimated total I have spent on those books is over 200 dollars, even with a vast majority of them being used or being discounted because they frequently go on sale when school starts.

My first Kobo came with 100 gutenberg classics pre-installed, and I was like wow. I gave my first Kobo (wifi) to my stepdaughter who felt like she had been given the world when she saw the list of free classics on there.

Now, I read quite a bit of modern literature, but very little of it, upon borrowing repeatedly from the library, has captivated me so much that I am just so sad to return it.

Hard for me to say how I feel about copyright length. If I can afford a book, I buy it, if I can't I read it at the library. Not hard for me to work out. There are many books out there that have a sticker price of 15-30 dollars that I have read. I just don't own them. I'm very grateful for libraries for allowing me the chance to experience and taste all kinds of literature.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Umbrage eh? Ok, take some more. It's free.

You are not the norm, as if you were places like Gutenberg would be providing one hell of a lot more texts - per capita - than they do. I have been working - volunteering - with them for years and am still amazed at how little real interest there is in the huge quantity of great literature that is freely available. Many people when they first get an eReader grab a few free books, but few seem to continue to do so. If any of the "statistics" for pirating books are close to true, far more people pirate books than choose free public domain books. If they are pirating books then they are clearly readers, but as so many ignore great literature for modern - often trashy - alternatives, they are not too discerning. I doubt that the status quo would change very much if copyright was reduced.

If PG isn't utilised as much today as it could be (and I don't know any statistics relating to PG usage), that is not an argument as to the role and aims of PG, nor how it may be used in the future, immediate and long term.

How I see it is that PG keeps authors/titles alive and accessible where otherwise, for whatever reasons, they may be buried.

Yes there are so many more books yet to be entered onto their databases, and hopefully it will be a never ending task as fiction and non-fiction books come out of copyright each year.

The resource role of PG can't be understated, or under estimated and copyright duration affects its use as a research base, because it affects the authors/titles that can input onto it.

As to whether or not I am 'the norm' for any type of behaviour, well I'd hesitate to think that I was - much rather be independent of thought and action.


PS: 'umbrage' just rattled off my (keying) fingers as the most apt word/expression for the sentiments I was expressing.

If that word has added to the 'interesting not often used words I've seen today' category - then jolly good!!!

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Quoted because it bears repeating.

I often get confused when people say they don't like "the classics". The classics are not "a genre". They are many genres. There's mystery, comedy, plays, poems, romances, sci-fi, vampires, non-fiction. There are some that I do like and some that I don't.

Prior to discovering PG and MR, and calibre, I was actually BUYing print copies of many classics. I am looking around my shelves now and see Jude the Obscure, The Brothers Karamazov, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Mrs Dalloway, Animal Farm, Anne of Green Gables, Our Mutual Friend, Jane Eyre, 3 copies of Pride and Prejudice, .... etc etc (and far more), because I wanted to catch up on all the "greats" The estimated total I have spent on those books is over 200 dollars, even with a vast majority of them being used or being discounted because they frequently go on sale when school starts.

My first Kobo came with 100 gutenberg classics pre-installed, and I was like wow. I gave my first Kobo (wifi) to my stepdaughter who felt like she had been given the world when she saw the list of free classics on there.

Now, I read quite a bit of modern literature, but very little of it, upon borrowing repeatedly from the library, has captivated me so much that I am just so sad to return it.

Hard for me to say how I feel about copyright length. If I can afford a book, I buy it, if I can't I read it at the library. Not hard for me to work out. There are many books out there that have a sticker price of 15-30 dollars that I have read. I just don't own them. I'm very grateful for libraries for allowing me the chance to experience and taste all kinds of literature.

Spindlegirl I've currently got 5 books 'on hold' at my library, 2 non-fiction and 3 fiction. I couldn't agree more with you reading and returning books without thinking, 'gee I might want to buy that book to keep'.

So many current/ish titles I've returned before I've gotten too many pages in because they don't suit my reading interest. (I tend to pick books up, give them a quick glance, and then borrow them when I'm in a hurry - so end up with quite a lot of duds, lol. Although I've 'found' some authors that way too - a lucky dip really!)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

One of the first books I got from MR was nineteen eighty four

But you presumably live in a place where it's in the public domain, such as Canada. If you'd lived somewhere like the US or the EU, you'd have been breaking the law by downloading it. That's why we (like PG) explicitly tell people that they need to check whether something is in the public domain where they live before they download it.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Kumabjorn, when I read it late at night the other day, I understood it to mean 28 years flat, not life + 28.

Well, that is a bit harsh. Life +28 seems more reasonable, should an author pass away shortly after a child is born then, assuming good sales, that income can go towards the childs upbringing an education. A flat 28 years not so much.

That then begs the question; Why 28 years? Seems like an odd number. The choice of 28 is what made me believe it was life +28 in order to provide for off-spring-

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

That then begs the question; Why 28 years? Seems like an odd number. The choice of 28 is what made me believe it was life +28 in order to provide for off-spring-

It's because 28 years is what the US copyright term used to be in the dim and distant past (I believe it was 14 years, and then a 14-year renewal). It is an odd number, I agree.

[Kumabjorn]

I see. 14 seems a tad strange too.

I could see a copyright of life +25 or +30, that would make sense to me. And it is not about getting access to free material in my case. I'm more than willing to pay for my reading pleasure. I just don't think descendants of an author (or inventor or composer) should be able to live a whole life in perpetual leisure based on what a parent produced. In my mind there is a difference between an entrepreneur making money and an author. An entrepreneur invests in a business and keeps on running it, if the children wants the benefit of that they need to keep that business alive, thereby providing income for those who work and depend on said business. In an author's case royalties keep coming in, and if an author, Kenzaburo Oe comes to mind, have a child with special needs, he will make sure, through investments and savings, that those needs are met even after his demise.

[Lynx-lynx]

I'm wondering why copyright isn't invested in each book, rather than the author.

Photographic copyright was that way, 25 years copyright on the photograph - later it was changed to the photographer.

And now, it's 50 or whatever number of years on the death of the author or photographer.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you presumably live in a place where it's in the public domain, such as Canada. If you'd lived somewhere like the US or the EU, you'd have been breaking the law by downloading it. That's why we (like PG) explicitly tell people that they need to check whether something is in the public domain where they live before they download it.

Yes. I am glad to live in the same country as it's in public domain.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Yes. I am glad to live in the same country as it's in public domain.

It's all a bit daft, to my mind. To expect that the average person is going to know what they're legally allowed to download or not download is expecting a bit much.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's all a bit daft, to my mind. To expect that the average person is going to know what they're legally allowed to download or not download is expecting a bit much.

Can I plead ignorance and start downloading MR's complete library?

1984 and Animal Farm are two of my favorites.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ApK

Anyway, as Harry and the rest of us are telling you, that's a picture of what you can buy where you are. Unless you're using a vpn to spoof your physical location, and also a US Amazon account with US billing method and address, then Amazon knows where you are, with pretty good accuracy, and presents to you accordingly.

Actually, when you are buying from a PC, the VPN is completely unnecessary. Amazon's checks are based on the location of the account, not the location of the IP address you are using at the time. (It may be different buying from an actual Kindle, I don't have one so I don't know.)

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's all a bit daft, to my mind. To expect that the average person is going to know what they're legally allowed to download or not download is expecting a bit much.

This is one of the reasons I wish public domain were universal. It'd also be nice to have a shorter copyright. I don't know much about the laws, and as far as literature is concerned, am really not personally affected so as to join campaigns and such.

But I can see many of today's books going into obscurity, unsold, in 20 years or so, because of stories being "out of date". This even happens with books that were written as much as 20 years ago.

I've read reviews of such books, from people born around the time my children were born indicating they were required to read them in school and they were so out of date and "boring". "Why didn't the victim just dial 911 on her cell phone?"

So many people even here in MR confess to using the Project Gutenberg and MR, and the like as a last resort because they can't afford the "books they really want", when I think that some of the greatest trailblazers in literature are there. For me it was like being handed what I always wanted. These are some of my "desert island" reads. It's like waking up every day and having my favorite guitarist ask me which song he is to play at my beck and call.

To go from maxing out my birthday money and still not obtaining all the books on my wish list to some website saying, "Here you go, all legal and all free" is like wow! I see so many people discovering some of the greats they would have otherwise brushed aside had they not been downloadable for free.

[Iznogood]

There are a certain number of factors that I don't think have been mentioned in this debate. I have not read all the posts, so please forgive me and moderators can feel free to delete this post if this has been posted before.

We have discussed back and forth ad nauseam about securing the income of creators of intellectual property and the damage on said creators when (if?) their work fall into the public domain.

But not so much have been mentioned about the possibilities to create new content based on material in the public domain. One good example of this is the book series about the twilight vampires (and of course other vampires also). I haven't read them myself, but I am told that they are popular and have made a lot of money.

The first well-known vampire in literature was Dracula from 1897. Bram Stoker died in 1912. After todays insane copyright rules Dracula would have been under copyright until 1982; and there wouldn't have been any of the films, books and plays based on the book Dracula, nor any stories featuring the character Dracula until then.

In short, the legacy of Dracula would not have been, and I think it is safe to assume that the popularity of the vampire genre (I think the word is gothic) would not have been what it is today if Dracula had not entered the public domain early.

Another example: Disney (one of the companies fighting for the neverending copyright) filmed 20.000 leagues under the sea in 1955 and earned a great pile of money on it. By todays laws, the works of Jules Verne would have been in copyright until 1975, and unavailable to Disney (at least without an agreement with Vernes heirs) at the time.

A third example. The coming film about Jimi Hendrix will not use Hendrix' music because Hendrix' music has been denied for use in the film by Hendrix' heirs even though Hendrix has been dead for many years.

To summarize: many companies and authors earn money today from works in the public domain, and on the legacy on works in the public domain. This without any noticeable effect on the works or creators by said content. When the copyright is too long, it will block innovation and creativity, and actually have the opposite effect from the intended effect.

Note that I do not say that we should abandon all copyright, but life+70 is far too long to be justified from the intention of copyright.