Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by norway1456

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.

I disagree. I don't see eternal copyright as a restriction upon creativity. For example; even if Dracula was still under copyright, there'd still be plenty of room for innovation in the genre of vampires since Dracula was based upon folklore passed down for centuries. Anyone would be free to create their own stories based upon this folklore without infringing upon Dracula's copyright.

[Iznogood]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I disagree. I don't see eternal copyright as a restriction upon creativity. For example; even if Dracula was still under copyright, there'd still be plenty of room for innovation in the genre of vampires since Dracula was based upon folklore passed down for centuries. Anyone would be free to create their own stories based upon this folklore without infringing upon Dracula's copyright.

I did not say that Stoker had a copyright on the phenomenon of vampires; I realize that twilight as work is unaffected by whether Dracula is under copyright or not and that anyone can write about any vampire they wish to. But I think it is safe to say that the popularity of this genre would not have been what it is without the history of the vampire in films, books and plays, and much of this is due to the legacy of Dracula and the films of the 30's to 50's, and later works based on Dracula. The position of the vampire in fiction is due to the early use of Dracula in film and theatres.

Of course, it's impossible to tell what will be, and what would have been if the past wasn't what is is, but this is my personal opinion about this.

[Greg Anos]

[QUOTE=Kali Yuga;2151499]Uh... no. That's not even close to my position.

I am not, in any way shape or form, advocating for perpetual copyrights. Absolutely nothing I've said here could possibly be correctly interpreted as opposition to public domain, or as an advocation of perpetual copyrights. I even explicitly stated -- in the section you quoted -- that public domain is beneficial.

What I am saying here is:

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

• Copyright law is not designed to favor the middle man. It's designed to favor the rights holder.

If that is the case, wouldn't the majority of economic benefit go to the creator? Follow the money. It doesn't. Now if you define "rights holder" as a non-creative intermediary, then you are right, but my definition of "middle man" is also the non-creative intermediary(s). The non-creative intermediary keeps a lion's share of the money...

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

• Both copyright and public domain are social constructions. Thus the term "natural" does not apply.

Once again we seem to be stumbling on sematics. In a legal world without copyright laws (and such worlds have existed, more than worlds with copyright) all creative expressions become common property of all upon public release. Items released from copyright in a legal world with copyright, also become the common property of all, upon copyright release. (Assuming you define creative expressions as property.) I note that the end result is the same, and that the same end result would exist whether or not there is copyright law. Where in my description did I drop anything?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

• Short copyright terms will not solve any issues, and will not dissuade anyone from violating copyright.

It won't stop violations of copyright, only the abandonment of certain technologies will. However, the question is not stopping, but loss mitigation. How do you get average people to say to each other, "this is wrong, even if I can do it easily". One is cheap and easy to access legal alternatives (see iTunes and Amazon). Another is the sense that copyright treats everybody fairly - both the creators and the public. That has fallen in to complete disrepute in the US due to grasping greed of the rights holders. Abrogation of agreed-to contracts for the continual gain on one party in the contract has caused a complete disrespect for the entire concept of copyright.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by norway1456

But I think it is safe to say that the popularity of this genre would not have been what it is without the history of the vampire in films, books and plays, and much of this is due to the legacy of Dracula and the films of the 30's to 50's, and later works based on Dracula

It doesn't matter, because there's always something else.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If that is the case, wouldn't the majority of economic benefit go to the creator?

Until very recently, the creator chose to transfer the rights. Thus, the laws favor whoever holds the rights.

As self-publishing becomes more common, we'll see more examples of content creators receiving direct compensation for their work.

Originally Posted by RSE

Follow the money. It doesn't. Now if you define "rights holder" as a non-creative intermediary....

That's not the definition.

The rights holder is whoever currently holds the copyright. If I self-publish, it's me. If I self-publish, pass away, and bequeath my rights to my successors, it's them. If I transfer my rights to a publisher, it's the publisher.

Originally Posted by RSE

In a legal world without copyright laws (and such worlds have existed, more than worlds with copyright) all creative expressions become common property of all upon public release.

Fine, but that is as relevant as saying you should fear the Spanish Inquisition.

Originally Posted by RSE

It won't stop violations of copyright, only the abandonment of certain technologies will.

If you are referring to DRM, clearly that is not the case.

Yet again: Music is now available without DRM, in standard formats, at reasonable prices, from multiple vendors. That's been the case for a few years now. And yet, music is still widely pirated, and the only thing that mitigates any amount of piracy is legal action.

I'd also expect that the average person, and pirate, actually have no idea how long copyright terms are in their country.

Piracy isn't a protest. It isn't encouraged by DRM. It isn't encouraged by long copyright terms. It isn't a result of outrageous prices. We have piracy because people like free stuff.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Format C: View Post
If you're not good enough to make money in 28 years, why should you be granted by law to try longer?

It bears mentioning too that "good enough" may not be the issue--it could be what is "popular." Anne Rice (like her or hate her) is enjoying a resurgence of popularity with her books because vamps came back into style.

And the reason you should be granted by law to try longer is part economics and part the fact that you're still alive:

Twenty-eight years does not cover retirement years--I probably won't be mentally competent to write new novels when I'm 80...or even younger. But what if those Dragons suddenly become popular when I'm 80? Seems like it would be a lot nicer for everyone involved if the government wasn't picking up the tab for my existence at 80 in a nursing home. Maybe that book will be making enough change to provide me a few bibs.

Some careers make money at the front end. Some the back end, some never. I work very, very hard at writing. I may or may not be good at it--BUT if people are still buying the book, I think I should have the right to use that money whether I'm 80 or 90 or whatever. Whether it's 28 days or 28 years from the creation of said work. The fact is, at 80, I probably need the money more than the public needs it free.

Let's look at basketball and their outrageous salaries. Shouldn't they have to do broadcasting and commercials for free after they retire? After all, they're just living off their past glory. Why shouldn't they be forced to just work for the public good? They made their millions. They should go and work for a charity rather than rely on their good looks and expertise to keep bilking the deserving public of their expertise...right??? It's not fair that they keep making money just because they were once popular.

[DarkScribe]

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.

Not sure who was using "classic" as a genre - it certainly wasn't me. I like a number of genres, some of them could be described as classic. I prefer writers who write well, not just tell a good story - that tends to mean that most of my favourites are not recent. I spent my early years living in an old Manor House in a little village in Hampshire. The village was East Meon and the house was known as Glenthorne. The reason for mentioning this is that the house was seven hundred years old and had a comprehensive library that had been added to over several centuries. As I child I read my way through much of it. I often wish that I still had access to it.

I also bought print copies of many classic books, but generally at a low cost. I haunted (still do) junk/thrift/charity shops in every town or city I visit looking for "special" finds. My Grandmother is French and I strive to find books for her. They are difficult to find in Australia, but in the UK and Canada I have much more success. I still find exploring old bookshops to be a very pleasant way to pass an afternoon. I have just found a complete collection of Anais Nin at a very good price. Some pre-fifties, the rest posthumous.

I have no reason to want copyright duration changed - either lengthened or shortened, but I do regard most of the reasons being quoted as spurious. There will be no rush to re-publish out of copyright "classics" as many of the existing copyrighted works have negligible fees attached to licensing and they are not being released - there is no market.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

There will be no rush to re-publish out of copyright "classics" as many of the existing copyrighted works have negligible fees attached to licensing and they are not being released - there is no market.

The advantage, though, is that nobody needs to publish them; they can be made available on sites such as this.

A case in point: I enjoy the works of the late 19th/early 20th century author, Sir Henry Rider Haggard, all of which are out of copyright. Only two of his works, "King Solomon's Mines" and "She" - are easily found today in print, but all 60+ of his novels can be found online and free of charge.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I disagree. I don't see eternal copyright as a restriction upon creativity. For example; even if Dracula was still under copyright, there'd still be plenty of room for innovation in the genre of vampires since Dracula was based upon folklore passed down for centuries. Anyone would be free to create their own stories based upon this folklore without infringing upon Dracula's copyright.

That's a perfect example of the damage that eternal copyright would do. You said it yourself, Dracula was based upon folklore passed down for centuries. In other words, Dracula was based on the public domain. Had copyright been eternal, Bram Stoker could never have created Dracula.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Not sure who was using "classic" as a genre - it certainly wasn't me.

Oh, I wasn't saying anyone did say that.... it's just that I've seen the general attitude of "old books" being something they don't want to go for. While that is fine - of course anyone can read what they WANT... it's almost as IF people thought of it as an old dusty genre in and of itself.... i'm probably articulating myself worse now.... LOL.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's a perfect example of the damage that eternal copyright would do. You said it yourself, Dracula was based upon folklore passed down for centuries. In other words, Dracula was based on the public domain. Had copyright been eternal, Bram Stoker could never have created Dracula.

Copyrighting the Three Little Pigs doesn't stop someone from using other animals in a different setting to relate a similar morality tale.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by norway1456

....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.

And yet, we have the entire fantasy genre essentially growing out of the works of Tolkien, without infringing his copyrights.

We also see quite a few big authors allowing non-commercial derivative works (aka fanfic).

Originally Posted by norway1456

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.

So, you get an agreement.

Have you not noticed how many movies are made off of properties still under copyright, including years of superhero movies?

It's also unclear that, for example, the Lord of the Rings would in fact benefit from every nerd in existence making their own LOTR movie, writing their own LOTR video game, and so on.

Originally Posted by norway1456

When the copyright is too long, it will block innovation and creativity, and actually have the opposite effect from the intended effect.

And yet, we are still surrounded by utter tons of new material, and more people are writing books than ever before.

PD is good, but I don't take the claims that "zomg it's killing creativity" all that seriously. In turn, I don't think a set period of 50 years would kill creativity either.

[ficbot]

A film about Jimi Hendrix that doesn't feature his music seems absurd to me, and imho proves what many on this thread are saying.

If you keep works locked up by copyright forever, you restrict creativity. The idea that people can use copyrighted works no problem if they just get permission so what's the big deal doesn't hold up when you start getting rights-holders *denying* the permission. Why should someone TODAY be unable to make a derivative work of Dracula if they want to just because a great-great-great-grandchild of Bram Stoker might not allow them to? It's absurd. There was a story here about a film-maker who wanted to make a movie about his famous politician grandfather, and had to shelve the project because the rights-holders of some archival news footage wouldn't grant him permission---to use images of HIS OWN GRANDFATHER---in the film. How is society benefiting from that? How is art and creativity benefiting from that? There needs to be a balance.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ficbot

A film about Jimi Hendrix that doesn't feature his music seems absurd to me, and imho proves what many on this thread are saying.

If you keep works locked up by copyright forever, you restrict creativity. The idea that people can use copyrighted works no problem if they just get permission so what's the big deal doesn't hold up when you start getting rights-holders *denying* the permission.

Who says the public deserves free use of someone else's works? Why is Hendrix's estate obligated to allow use of copyrighted material for every film about him that comes down the pike?

Why should someone TODAY be unable to make a derivative work of Dracula if they want to just because a great-great-great-grandchild of Bram Stoker might not allow them to? It's absurd.

Because they can make other derivative works about vampires without infringing upon someone else's copyright. I thought authors were imaginative and creative?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ficbot

A film about Jimi Hendrix that doesn't feature his music seems absurd to me, and imho proves what many on this thread are saying.

If you keep works locked up by copyright forever, you restrict creativity. The idea that people can use copyrighted works no problem if they just get permission so what's the big deal doesn't hold up when you start getting rights-holders *denying* the permission.

Or when you can't find the rights-holders. Hostage works, restricted from public use because nobody can be found to grant permission to use them, are a growing problem.

Life+70, or even Life+50, with no registry, means that many works--perhaps the majority of all copyrighted works (because that's not limited to formally published works), are untraceable after the creator's death. Two generations later? Nobody has any idea who owns the rights. There are no nice clear laws about copyright inheritance... are the copyrights owned by spouse? Surviving children? Split between them at some odd percentage level? What if there's no spouse, but 4 grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren at the time of the creator's death? Or no direct descendents, and no siblings, but the author's cousin's grandchildren are still alive?

The idea that someone wanting to research "letters to soldiers" and needing to get permission to quote a letter from from "Billy Smith, age 8" in NYC from 1972, is ridiculous.