How long should a copyright last?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Here is the big picture, arjaybe. You have three parties, which are fighting over the moral high ground. The one that proves to the others that they have the moral high ground can then dictate terms to the other two. Simple, no? Let me list the three. (Actuallty, there is a fourth, the "data wants to be free" type, but they are not part of this debate.)


Party #1 - The Creators.

The Creators standpoint is simple. I made it, I own it. I control it. Now and forever. I worked hard and took risks to create the material, I deserve to be compensated for my efforts, now and forever, because <I own it!>. Even though I sell copies to the public, I still own my creation.

Party #2 - The Public.

The public standpoint is also very simple. Creator, you own your creation until you release it to the public. That effective constitutes a <sale>, ending your further rights to your creation, the same as if you sold any piece of real property.

However, because the Public feels that this acts as a hinderance to getting a Creator to create, the Public decided to grant a time limited <monopoly> to the Creator, to act as an encouragement. At the end of the term, the creation reverts to the Public. This viewpoint has been codified in Law since copyright has existed in the Western Civilization.

Party #3 - The Opportunist

These as usually (but not always) middlemen who have (and will continue to) profit off of the existing limited monopolies They do no care about the Creator, other than they create the creation that the Opportunist can exploit. The Opportunist is not usually encouraged to create new works (although sometimes they do), but wants to be able to exploit the creations they have control over - forever.


That's the three-cornered debate that's going on here. Obviously, I support party #2, the public. Helen is mostly supporting Party #1, the creator. Hitch is a mix of Party #1 and Party #3. All of us seek the moral high ground.

Where you stand on what copyright length should be depend on what camp you belong to. Parties #1 and #3 want it as long as possible. Part #2 wants it to be only long enough to act as an adequate encouragement for creation, and no longer. Parties #2 vastly outnumber Parties #1 and #3, but Parties #1 and #3 have much more money (especially Party #3) to get their view implemented.

From my perspective, 56 years has proven to be adequate for the purpose, as shown from 1909 to 1976. I could live with something a little longer. But anything less than forever is unacceptable to Parties #1 and #3.

Hmmm. You were sounding pretty reasonable until you said anything less than forever is unacceptable to parties #1 and #3.

I have read a lot of books and if no one ever wrote another would not run out. I guess I am guilty of being grateful that the authors and the evil publishers made this possible. Maybe no one needs them any more, but I find this hard to believe. I don't think every author deserves to be paid any more than I think every bus driver or store clerk or food server deserves to be paid. Some just don't. In general I think the same rules apply. If the person is doing an adequate job they deserve to be paid. If they are doing an inadequate job they don't deserve to be paid. If they are doing a super job, they should and do get a lot more.

A good restaurant server will probably make 80K a year in a mall restaurant. 200K in a really nice place. Sure someone may come in and not tip, but who cares as long as they don't come in too often. (not always the case as I know guys making $500a day who will chase non tippers down the street yelling at them)

I could be wrong but authors generally do not have the same advantages. Probably you will say, they should take up serving instead. You would be right in most cases.

After all if a fat 63 year old server can make $300 a day after taxes without breaking out of a slow waddle, imagine what a an author with small stories to tell the customer could make

Helen

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Hmmm. You were sounding pretty reasonable until you said anything less than forever is unacceptable to parties #1 and #3.

I have read a lot of books and if no one ever wrote another would not run out. I guess I am guilty of being grateful that the authors and the evil publishers made this possible. Maybe no one needs them any more, but I find this hard to believe. I don't think every author deserves to be paid any more than I think every bus driver or store clerk or food server deserves to be paid. Some just don't. In general I think the same rules apply. If the person is doing an adequate job they deserve to be paid. If they are doing an inadequate job they don't deserve to be paid. If they are doing a super job, they should and do get a lot more.

A good restaurant server will probably make 80K a year in a mall restaurant. 200K in a really nice place. Sure someone may come in and not tip, but who cares as long as they don't come in too often. (not always the case as I know guys making $500a day who will chase non tippers down the street yelling at them)

I could be wrong but authors generally do not have the same advantages. Probably you will say, they should take up serving instead. You would be right in most cases.

After all if a fat 63 year old server can make $300 a day after taxes without breaking out of a slow waddle, imagine what a an author with small stories to tell the customer could make

Helen

I merely observe. The main copyright law has been extended twice, both times by heavy lobbying by from very rich middlemen. There are no signs that the lobbying for extention has stopped, one was granted for musical performances as recently as 2009 (from 2047 to 2067). Many authors cheerfully go along with that lobbying, as least as portrayed on this website. Still, I undoubtably painted with too broad of a brush. Chalk that up to frustration.

I do state that if a current author is not making a living at writing, and considers money important, (and those are two ifs) then I do suggest that said author go do something else that makes him or her more money. The economic realities of being an author should be studied before one chooses to become one, just like any other profession. To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant. Inventors have more direct impact on society, but they make do with much less protection and at a much higher price to obtain it. I don't here drumbeat screams about how badly they are being treated.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I merely observe. The main copyright law has been extended twice, both times by heavy lobbying by from very rich middlemen. There are no signs that the lobbying for extention has stopped, one was granted for musical performances as recently as 2009 (from 2047 to 2067). Many authors cheerfully go along with that lobbying, as least as portrayed on this website. Still, I undoubtably painted with too broad of a brush. Chalk that up to frustration.

I do state that if a current author is not making a living at writing, and considers money important, (and those are two ifs) then I do suggest that said author go do something else that makes him or her more money. The economic realities of being an author should be studied before one chooses to become one, just like any other profession. To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant. Inventors have more direct impact on society, but they make do with much less protection and at a much higher price to obtain it. I don't here drumbeat screams about how badly they are being treated.

I don't chalk it up to frustration, I'd apply arjaybe's "deliberately mis-construing" description. Every post wants to put their own spin on what was said before, so you tell us things like: "The Creators standpoint is simple. I made it, I own it. I control it. Now and forever." - and yet that is not what has been said. You repeat "To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant." and yet never acknowledge that these "special privileges" (if, indeed they are so special, which I have questioned previously) are indeed open to everyone in society, it's part of how copyright works. Discussion of patents has been deliberately limited because although the "special privileges" are similar in nature, it is quite a different subject - if you want to hear the drumbeat screams I could send you to some other forums.

Despite much of the rhetoric you have been spouting, I don't actually get the impression that you are advocating that copyright should be dropped altogether (even though you find the privileges "repugnant"). In one of your posts you say "From my perspective, 56 years has proven to be adequate for the purpose," and that doesn't put us that far apart.

Anything less than 20 to 30 years will definitely have an impact on what is produced. Going far above 50 years is a case of diminishing returns. Personally I support the "life plus" version, because that allows an author to continue building on their collection without interference for their entire career (thinking Agatha Christie and similar here). So anything from life plus 30 to life plus 50 seems a reasonable compromise to me.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I do state that if a current author is not making a living at writing, and considers money important, (and those are two ifs) then I do suggest that said author go do something else that makes him or her more money. The economic realities of being an author should be studied before one chooses to become one, just like any other profession. To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant. Inventors have more direct impact on society, but they make do with much less protection and at a much higher price to obtain it. I don't here drumbeat screams about how badly they are being treated.

Many jobs give special privileges, in the form of pension plans, medical benefits pension plans (that do carry on for the survivors) or just a whole lot of cash. Generally it is the low level don't want to do that but want to eat jobs that don't.

Typically, to use a previous example, a good server will make $2-300 a day after taxes. Some make 3 times that much. They don't get big pensions but many get some and healthcare etc. Plus free meals, discounts for family and friends, and some pretty substantial performance bonuses in many cases. I'm coming around to your viewpoint. Authors should just get server jobs and quit the repugnant writing nonsense.


Helen

Originally Posted by arjaybe

There's a lot of missing the point going on here.

I suspect it's because the guilty parties see things in absolute terms. The categorization of creators, public, and opportunists demonstrate this well. There is going to be plenty of variation within these three groups. (My apologies to Ralph Sir Edward. I agree with your point, albeit as a generalization and not an absolute.)

In my case, I both agree and disagree with copyright. There are a multitude of reasons for this. In it's favour, copyright gives creators an opportunity to earn a living from their work. It also allows pecuniar compensation based upon how well the work is received. Yet I also see the value of the public domain.

I'll give you an example: the city that I live in has a chunk of land designated as "the commons." The land has had many uses over the centuries, but large chunks of it are of benefit to the public: parks, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries currently occupy this land. Or simply think of where you live: how much would you lose if you lost all of your public spaces? (Don't forget that roads are also public spaces.)

Now I know that the public domain is different. The public domain involves taking something that is owned and making it into something that is not owned. Unfortunately, it's something that we need to do if we want a literary public domain since writing doesn't exist until it is authored.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I suspect it's because the guilty parties see things in absolute terms.[...]

I don't think that's true. Some of the arguments come out sounding that way, when taken out of context of the entire discussion, because the debate ranges from point to point. For example when someone suggests that there is significant work involved in creating a work, the argument is really one to show that the copyright is not a money-for-nothing offering, but taken out of context its purported to show that all authors expect to receive such money. And from the other side, when someone suggests a value in the public domain, it's taken as suggesting that everyone wants everything for free. In each case it is not the original point that is argued as an absolute, it is the slant put on it by the opposing view. Even RSE, who finds the privileges of copyright "repugnant", is found saying that 56 years is adequate - which seems to suggest some acceptance that copyright is useful.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

[...]Now I know that the public domain is different. The public domain involves taking something that is owned and making it into something that is not owned. Unfortunately, it's something that we need to do if we want a literary public domain since writing doesn't exist until it is authored.

If I'm reading that right, I think it makes an important point. Public domain does have a value and purpose, though it may be hard to define, but part of its value feeds off the value created by copyright. How many people would care about "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" if "Pride and Prejudice" had never been published? So we have to trade off how important it is that we have enough incentive for someone to create "Harry Potter ...", against how important it is that we see "Harry Potter the Zombies" any time soon. (The examples are, or may sound, a little facetious, but that's mainly because the value of the public domain is difficult to define, but I don't deny it exists - I only place my own priorities on its value, and those weigh toward wanting to encourage more original work.)

[shalym]

It's been said before by others in this thread, but I'm going to say it again and hope that it sinks in this time.

NOT EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF A SHORTENED COPYRIGHT IS LOOKING FOR FREE BOOKS

I'm in favor of shortened copyrights because there are a number of books that I would like to have in e-format that aren't available because of copyright, and some that aren't available to buy new at all from anywhere. (before someone says that my preferences don't matter, I "prefer" e format because it's almost impossible for me to read a paper book anymore)

Some of the books I'm talking about are still available in print, and some aren't. With some of the books, the authors don't want to put in e-format, and in that case, I have no argument--the work DOES and SHOULD belong to the author. In some it's because of publishing houses not wanting to go to the expense or hassle of re-printing or publishing backlist books electronically. In that case, copyright should be forfeit. If the publisher is the copyright holder, and they refuse to publish, the rights should revert to the author. If the author isn't alive, then the rights default to the author's heirs. If the heirs refuse to re-publish a work, the work goes into the public domain (after all, the argument is that the heirs should get the monetary benefit, right?)

I'm sure that there are LOTS of people who only care about copyright/public domain because they're looking for free books. I'm not one of them. I just want all books to be made available to buy. Right now, the overwhelming majority of sci-fi from the forties and fifties (the golden age) is not available under any circumstances. (This applies to many other genres too, I'm sure, but for my selfish purposes, golden age sci-fi is mainly what I'm looking for)

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I suspect it's because the guilty parties see things in absolute terms. The categorization of creators, public, and opportunists demonstrate this well. There is going to be plenty of variation within these three groups. (My apologies to Ralph Sir Edward. I agree with your point, albeit as a generalization and not an absolute.)

In my case, I both agree and disagree with copyright. There are a multitude of reasons for this. In it's favour, copyright gives creators an opportunity to earn a living from their work. It also allows pecuniar compensation based upon how well the work is received. Yet I also see the value of the public domain.

I'll give you an example: the city that I live in has a chunk of land designated as "the commons." The land has had many uses over the centuries, but large chunks of it are of benefit to the public: parks, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries currently occupy this land. Or simply think of where you live: how much would you lose if you lost all of your public spaces? (Don't forget that roads are also public spaces.)

Now I know that the public domain is different. The public domain involves taking something that is owned and making it into something that is not owned. Unfortunately, it's something that we need to do if we want a literary public domain since writing doesn't exist until it is authored.

They were meant as generalisations, not absolute pigeonholes. If that didn't come across, it's due to my deficiencies in writing. (I make no claim to having any writing talent, as readers in the forum can easily attest...)

[calvin-c]

This has been fascinating. Honestly I had no idea that the topic would generate this many replies (else I'd have set the poll period shorter) or that we wouldn't reach a general consensus. That's going to make it harder to summarize the 'consensus' since there will obviously be several. I appreciate all the viewpoints though. Thanks.

[Greg Anos]

The phrase from my previous post should have been expanded. Please let me revise and expand my remarks...

"To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant."

Let me go into more detail. I'll give two examples.

Example #1. I'm a CEO for a huge company, my compensation package is a large salary, a much larger incentive bonus, a rich deferred pension, stock options, and restricted (deferred) stock. While much of my compenation is deferred to a later date, it is earned at the current time, for current labor. Furthermore, it is fixed, at the time the labor is being performed.

Example #2. I am a copyright creator. I spend 3 years, without pay, writing a book that becomes a perennial bestseller. At the time I published it, copyright is defined as 56 years.

First of all, both people are free to plan for their own future, by taking the profits of their labor, and investing it as they so choose. Those investments are free to be passed along to any heirs and assigns, or they may expire with the person's death (say the person buys an annuity, which is merely a private pension. It would expire with the person's death). If they spend it all along the way, that's their heirs and assigns woe.

Now Example #1 dies. The pension he earned as part of his/her compensation package ends when he/she does, leaving any heirs cut off for any further benefits from it. Those were the terms of the pension. They are legally unaltereable, nor would anybody claim otherwise.

Now Example #2 dies. For sake of argument, copyright creator dies exactly 56 years after his copyright was issued. He/she bought some annuities with his/her profits. The annuities expire (just like pensions). Once again, they are legally unaltereable, nor would anybody claim otherwise. What about the copyrights?

They should expire as well, as their duration has completed.


But wait! The creator was having organization X produce the copies of this perennial bestseller. Organization X will lose their guaranteed profit from the perennial bestseller. This is considered unfair by organization X. Organization X lobbys the government for an extension of copyright to maintain their profits on the perennial bestseller.

Is this right? Fair? Moral? In my opinion - <BLEEP> NO! Everybody knew the terms, everybody agreed to them upon the release of the copyright creator's work. They all should be held to them, just the same as if they were pensions or annuities. I find this extending morally repugnant, and a priviledge over and above those that anybody else in society gets. Not ever creators of other forms of "intellectual property" get them. From my perspective, it's theft, every bit as much as "piracy". Only this "piracy" is legally sanctioned. Who is being stolen from? We, the public. We, the public, granted the copyright, and it's terms and conditions, and they should be held to.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So an independent contractor, seeking out customers, maybe getting stiffed by them, performing the labor before getting paid, has no entrepreneureal aspect at all? No carrying costs, no risk?

Right, buddy....

Excuse me, "buddy," but the example that the OP gave, if you read it, was about an employee programmer, not an indie contractor. I was quite explicit in my reply.

From BWinmill's original post:

It doesn't matter whether the programmer is salaried or paid hourly, they are paid for the work rather than based upon the sales of the product.

However, that being said, an independent contractor--who may or may not get stiffed--is still doing work for hire. He's not taking the risk of creating his own software product, nor does he own it when he's done. If he wants to own it when he's done, he makes it and funds it himself; he doesn't expect that the software he writes on someone else's dime belongs to him.

My explanation to the OP still stands: any employee, or any person who is being paid by someone else to do the work, is not in the same position as an author. Period. You persist in this "authors do not belong to some ENTITLED class" shtick, but the bottom line is, authors/publishers/bands are the only creators in the world stuck selling their wares one copy at a time. A sculptor sells his whole statue; a painter his whole painting. A broker sells his clients' stocks, pockets the selling commission, and then may do with them forever--forever--what he wants, even if his client loses money on the deal.

So, no: I'm not arguing that authors belong to some "entitled" class, and I wish you'd get off that high horse. I absolutely do think that as they are forced, by their extremely narrow limited monopoly, to do something that nobody else has to do--earn all their money one copy at a time--that they are entitled to do it longer than a few years, because by definition, they are getting paid relative pennies on each sale.

That's my entire point. If you earned tens of thousands of dollars by saying "buy" or "sell," then I suspect you simply are incapable of understanding what it's like for someone who earns $1.23 or what-have-you on each "sale." You have your money to leave to your kids, or the ASPCA, or whomever you want; you don't have to worry that there could be earnings from your work that occur later, after you're dead. Look at the GOT series; yes, he got fortunate, and he'll earn from the TV series, but there are many, many books and series that "catch on" long after the author has written them; sometimes after they are dead (LOTR and the Dune Chronicles, as two examples).

I'm done with this argument now. What this seems to have come down to is a slanging match, with each side simply castigating the other. I absolutely never said that copyrights should last forever; I said that they should not cease the instant the creator dies, for the reasons I've stated over and over. I think that's utterly ridiculous. The annuity example is created specifically to end when the buyer dies; if the buyer had simply bought stocks instead, they certainly wouldn't vaporize upon his death. Yes, the pension stops--but his stock and his cash don't Death-Star. It's apples and oranges, and anyone here who's ever worked for a living knows it.

That there are people here, like Shalym (sp?), who want a book in ebook form, and therefore argue for public domain, so that s/he can obtain a copy, and argues thusly:

If the publisher is the copyright holder, and they refuse to publish, the rights should revert to the author. If the author isn't alive, then the rights default to the author's heirs. If the heirs refuse to re-publish a work, the work goes into the public domain (after all, the argument is that the heirs should get the monetary benefit, right?)

...basically nullifying copyright, and giving those who demand a copy the power of eminent domain, boggles me. "If you published a book, and have zero interest in republishing it, we get to take it," idea. It's this whole sense that someone else gets to take your bloody property that amazes me, and people think that just because they want it, it's justifiable.

Nobody here would apply the same logic to any type of physical property, because they'd obviously know that was theft; but intellectual property? That's fair game to be taken away from the control of whomever owns it, simply because someone else wants it. Everyone here forgets, in the endless "copyright isn't property" argument that while copyright itself isn't property, what it protects is: it's literary property, as defined legally.

So, once the book has been forcibly taken away from the nefarious copyright holder who won't make it available, does the next person in line--the person who petitioned for, and got the book--then have the obligation to digitize it, and make it available for everyone? I mean, the argument is that this is being done for the public good, right?

And does that same person have the obligation to make it available, in print, for free, as well? For that part of the public that doesn't have e-readers? What, no? Why not? I mean, as we're now in the business of taking stuff away from people--stuff that has value, and belongs to them--why not go that extra step, and make sure that it's out there for everyone, whether they have an e-reader or not? Or do the "rights" of public domain now only accrue and inure to people with computers, who know how to use Project Gutenberg? And who's going to force PG to make the book? At what point do we say, "oh, no, we can't force X to do such-and-such?" Is forcing PG to make a book bad? I mean, as we're all entitled to it? Should we force them to make the print copy, too? And put it on bookshelves in libraries for folks without those handy-dandy computers? Oh, but wait--who's going to pay for that to be done? I guess that will be another new governmental department, with another New Czar, which we can fund with our apparently-endless supply of tax dollars.

What I mostly see in this thread are people who want books/songs put into the public domain for their own use, period. Ranging from, "I simply want it in ebook form (to buy)" to "I simply want to be able to buy it (in any form)," to "I want to download it for free" or "I want to sell/use/capitalize upon it on some commercial website I want to create, and copyright holders are standing in my way," the gist seems to be that for whatever purpose, somebody wants access to copyrighted material that they can't have. In more than 90% of the examples, we're talking about entertainment (we certainly are in the music industry)--not matters of life and death. We're not all sitting on some desert island, unable to download a 1950's copyrighted manual on self-surgery, without which we'll perish. It's ENTERTAINMENT. And if you want it so badly that you'll sit here and argue for it, I guess it does have value, doesn't it? It apparently has value for the people arguing to get it, in whatever form, for whatever use.

I could better respect the argument for forcible taking if we were talking about a patent for a heart valve, rather than, "Oh, if I don't get to read Flash Gordon #29, my head will explode."

Seriously, done now. It's just become ridiculous. And before the whole "buddy" thing turns into ad hominem attacks or name-calling, which isn't my bag, I'm outta here.

Hitch

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Hitch

That there are people here, like Shalym (sp?), who want a book in ebook form, and therefore argue for public domain, so that s/he can obtain a copy, and argues thusly:

...basically nullifying copyright, and giving those who demand a copy the power of eminent domain, boggles me. "If you published a book, and have zero interest in republishing it, we get to take it," idea. It's this whole sense that someone else gets to take your bloody property that amazes me, and people think that just because they want it, it's justifiable.

Nobody here would apply the same logic to any type of physical property, because they'd obviously know that was theft; but intellectual property? That's fair game to be taken away from the control of whomever owns it, simply because someone else wants it. Everyone here forgets, in the endless "copyright isn't property" argument that while copyright itself isn't property, what it protects is: it's literary property, as defined legally.

So, once the book has been forcibly taken away from the nefarious copyright holder who won't make it available, does the next person in line--the person who petitioned for, and got the book--then have the obligation to digitize it, and make it available for everyone? I mean, the argument is that this is being done for the public good, right?

And does that same person have the obligation to make it available, in print, for free, as well? For that part of the public that doesn't have e-readers? What, no? Why not? I mean, as we're now in the business of taking stuff away from people--stuff that has value, and belongs to them--why not go that extra step, and make sure that it's out there for everyone, whether they have an e-reader or not? Or do the "rights" of public domain now only accrue and inure to people with computers, who know how to use Project Gutenberg? And who's going to force PG to make the book? At what point do we say, "oh, no, we can't force X to do such-and-such?" Is forcing PG to make a book bad? I mean, as we're all entitled to it? Should we force them to make the print copy, too? And put it on bookshelves in libraries for folks without those handy-dandy computers? Oh, but wait--who's going to pay for that to be done? I guess that will be another new governmental department, with another New Czar, which we can fund with our apparently-endless supply of tax dollars.
....<snip>....
Seriously, done now. It's just become ridiculous. And before the whole "buddy" thing turns into ad hominem attacks or name-calling, which isn't my bag, I'm outta here.

Hitch

You make it sound like I am advocating snatching the livelihood away from authors or their poor starving families. If you read what I wrote, that is exactly NOT what I am proposing. What I am proposing is that as long as the author is alive, the work is theirs to do whatever they wish--as you point out, they created it, and it belongs to them. Once they die, if the work falls out of distribution, it moves into the public domain. If the work is out of distribution, then nobody is benefitting from it anyway. How is this hurting the author or their family? Or even the publisher? If the work is being published and offered for sale, it is still protected.

Shari

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by shalym

It's been said before by others in this thread, but I'm going to say it again and hope that it sinks in this time.

NOT EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF A SHORTENED COPYRIGHT IS LOOKING FOR FREE BOOKS

I'm in favor of shortened copyrights because there are a number of books that I would like to have in e-format that aren't available because of copyright, and some that aren't available to buy new at all from anywhere. (before someone says that my preferences don't matter, I "prefer" e format because it's almost impossible for me to read a paper book anymore)

Some of the books I'm talking about are still available in print, and some aren't. With some of the books, the authors don't want to put in e-format, and in that case, I have no argument--the work DOES and SHOULD belong to the author. In some it's because of publishing houses not wanting to go to the expense or hassle of re-printing or publishing backlist books electronically. In that case, copyright should be forfeit. If the publisher is the copyright holder, and they refuse to publish, the rights should revert to the author. If the author isn't alive, then the rights default to the author's heirs. If the heirs refuse to re-publish a work, the work goes into the public domain (after all, the argument is that the heirs should get the monetary benefit, right?)



Shari

I do not think everyone who wants copyright shortened wants free books. I also have nothing against people wanting free books. I get a lot of free books myself from the library and I don't cower in guilt.

A lot of 'Golden Age ' Science fiction is not being published, and I think that you are reasonable in your desire to see books not being published within a certain time frame entering the public domain. In a sense they are abandon-ware.

I just do not see how lowering the copyright term is applicable. Should all rights holders be deprived of reasonable benefits because some rights holders aren't doing as we would wish? Doesn't seem fair to me.

I read the 'Golden Age' Science fiction in the 50's and 60's and up until the 80's. Believe you me, it wasn't all that accessible then. Not like every bookstore had a Science fiction section even. High school libraries had a better selection than the regular libraries and that wasn't very grandiose. Your best bet was tearing out a card in the back of a book you had and ordering it via mail. Try doing that when you are twelve years old and lucky to afford a stamp. No online ordering, no credit or ATM cards, no PayPal.

You went to the post office with your order card clenched in your hand and the money to pay the postage etc. The postal clerk regards you over the rim of his glasses and says "Do your parents know you are spending money on this garbage".

Sorry for the digression.

If Fritz Leiber's books or Samuel R. Delaney's went into the public domain
today would you reap big benefits? Maybe you would or maybe a whole lot of people would be selling ugly copies. Lotta that going around even with newer books one hears. And of course in most cases you can borrow or buy the paper copies for a buck or so.

I don't advocate any particular copyright length although I think anything less than the life of the creator is kind of a throwback to plantation owning ancestors. Personally, I don't care if it is perpetual. I buy a book or I borrow a book. Doesn't affect me as I am not going into the publishing business. And shorter copyright or no copyright would not likely mean I would run out of books to read. I'd be more annoyed, if I was in your position, by downloading a scanned piece of crap and paying money for it. I'd actually prefer to read paper to that.



Helen

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

[...]First of all, both people are free to plan for their own future, by taking the profits of their labor, and investing it as they so choose.

What your examples are missing is the understanding that the period of copyright is about acquiring "the profits of their labour" (or trying to). Example one is being paid as he goes. Example two is hoping that he will eventually get paid something. When person one dies his superannuation and outstanding wages are still his, they don't fall into the public domain just because he died.

The second may, eventually, also get money to invest the same way as example one, but he's also lost the investment period between the labour and the income (if any) for that labour. This is not trying to "cry poor", it's merely pointing out that they are different income models and such simple comparisons don't hold up very well.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

[...]But wait! The creator was having organization X produce the copies of this perennial bestseller. Organization X will lose their guaranteed profit from the perennial bestseller. This is considered unfair by organization X. Organization X lobbys the government for an extension of copyright to maintain their profits on the perennial bestseller.

Is this right? Fair? Moral? In my opinion - <BLEEP> NO! Everybody knew the terms, everybody agreed to them upon the release of the copyright creator's work. They all should be held to them, just the same as if they were pensions or annuities. I find this extending morally repugnant, and a priviledge over and above those that anybody else in society gets. Not ever creators of other forms of "intellectual property" get them. From my perspective, it's theft, every bit as much as "piracy". Only this "piracy" is legally sanctioned. Who is being stolen from? We, the public. We, the public, granted the copyright, and it's terms and conditions, and they should be held to.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for this view - that the retrospective changes to copyright may seem unfair, it wasn't the original bargain. But aside from the few outliers, the evil corporations who gain large profit from this change, I don't actually see the change as that significant overall - not in its real value impact to the public domain. (But, as noted earlier, my own priorities lean heavily toward wanting original, not derivative work.)

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Is this right? Fair? Moral? In my opinion - <BLEEP> NO! Everybody knew the terms, everybody agreed to them upon the release of the copyright creator's work. They all should be held to them, just the same as if they were pensions or annuities. I find this extending morally repugnant, and a priviledge over and above those that anybody else in society gets. Not ever creators of other forms of "intellectual property" get them. From my perspective, it's theft, every bit as much as "piracy". Only this "piracy" is legally sanctioned. Who is being stolen from? We, the public. We, the public, granted the copyright, and it's terms and conditions, and they should be held to.

So you are saying in effect that everyone who published under shorter copyright terms should remain that way and that the vast majority who published and continue to publish under the terms as they are right now should have those rights no matter what the future changes in the law may be?

Seems reasonable.

Helen