Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[QuantumIguana]

An employee is paid for the hours of work done. It's quite different than with a book, where the rights holder only gets paid for how many books are sold. An editor wouldn't have any claim on the copyright, they've been paid for their work. If copright ended with the death of the author, there would be reduced incentive to create. Ulysses Grant wrote his memoirs near the end of his life to make sure his family didn't starve. If copyright ended at death, there would have been no incentive to write his memoirs.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Irrelevant to my argument. Technology goes through phases of popularity as well. Look at using CO2 as a refrigerant, as an example.

Very relevant to your statement (I don't regard the expression of an opinion regarding the time allowed for an author to earn money to be an argument.)

You said: "If he couldn't make money in thirty years, he has no sympathy from me."

You ignore the fact that there are many reasons why a copyrighted works can continue to earn revenue and at possibly higher rates, as time goes past.

As for your comment about technology and CO2, that isn't a phase, that is development/progress.

BTW, the comment about software was sarcasm.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by theducks

I never understood why anyone other than the immediate family at the time of the works creation had a long term claim (the Plus part)?
spouses and children may have suffered from 'Don't disturb Daddy/Mommy they have a deadline to meet'. But any other inheritor? How did the automatically earn this windfall?
Why not the Editor, The layout designer? They had a big working stake in the success of the work.

But how is that much different from the rest of us who work long or odd hours at a employers (customers) beck and call ? Any Patents or copyrights belong to our Employer to do what they wish with. (Yes! Theducks has his legal name on a company owned patent. I got a Plaque and a dinner as the award. )

Why does anyone who inherits anything have to earn it? Copyrighted works are just as valid as any other property when it comes to inheritance. It was something of value owned by one person and left to another. Nobody's business but theirs.

[GreenMonkey]

I don't have any problem with the copyright concept - it's there for the public good (to encourage works to be created) and to help make sure the creator is compensated.

But the endless extensions have gotten out of hand.

And as far as the years being extended because life spans are longer - sure, that's true on average. But the elites and upper class folks, the kind of people you'd think would be creating works, often lived very long lives. John Adams died at age 90. Ben Franklin was 84. etc.

Copyright shouldn't have been extended much past 28 years. Life and life+ terms are ridiculous, and I think honestly more the doing of corporate interests (like Disney) than anything else.

This is why, however, this kind of petition is pointless. There's too many copyrights in the hands of corporate interests and too much money involved. I think we're at a period of endless copyright, frankly. If Life + a bunch of years isn't too much to be "limited" for the Supreme Court, then what is?

[Greg Anos]

It's great to see the long copyright people admitting that patent exists and try to justify the difference in the length. Here's the real answer...

In the patent world, short terms remain due to the fact that for all the loss of revenue, the holders gain in revenue from using other expired patents. In other words, once the major profit is made off a patent, you save more money using other people's expired patents than you would make keeping yours. Therefore, none of the big corporations are willing to fund the bri-- (oops) campaign contributions it would take to stretch the patent length.

Copyright, on the other hand, doesn't have any gain to offset the loss of revenue from copyrights. So the corporations keep stretching the length, to be able to keep every last cent... The creators here may think it's to help them out, but they're just poster children for big corps.

Follow the money...

(Note, every extension of copyright in the US since 1909 has been at the expiration point of major corporate copyrights. Think Steamboat Willie . That's why the real purpose is to keep the 1928-1959 block of sound films (and Steamboat Willie). Why that period? Because Ronald Reagan sold all the actor's residuals down the drain in a strike settlement in 1960. So therefore, unless somebody had a participation (which hadn't been reall common in that period, and even then restricted to basically the 1950's), the copyright holding corporations get all the money off the old films. (And that has been 10's of billions of dollars over the last 30 years...)

Think I'm joking? 1978 revision. Overrode the 56 year copyright and made it 70. Yes it put in Berne Life +50 for new works, but it could just have easily followed Berne in it's entirety. But that would have hurt Hollywood.

1998 revision. Making it Life + 70 was an attention getter to dodge the real skullduggery. Nothing was going to go out of copyright from Life + 50 until 2029. But those early Hollywood movies were going to start falling back out of copyright in 1997. They lost one year, 1922, but got them extended for another 25 years. Note, post '78, which was not at threat only got 20 years extension but pre '59 got 25. Think that was an accident? Think that there isn't going to be another major move by Hollywood in the next 6-7 years to extend those pre '59 titles again? Like I repeat, follow the money....)

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

The difference, to me, is that the inheritors you mention have to keep up the labor of their predecessors if they want to reap that fruit. The inheritors of authors and musicians don't have to lift a finger. Our societies are built on the premise that we produce, some produce more than others, but still, to have a functional society we are expected to produce. Some of us are physically or mentally not capable, we do our best to take care of those, some societies do more some do less.
So from societies vantage point it seems strange that we would grant some people that are fully capable of being productive members of society a life in perpetual unproductivitiness.

I do not entirely agree. The inheritors of dividend bearing stocks do not have to labour to collect their dividends. The inheritors of money do not have to labour to collect interest and can jsut spend the money. The inheritors of a successful business, can have it managed and the products produced by hired staff. Or they can sell the business and live of the proceeds, no labour involved. The inheritors of a house or condo can live in it with the exact same amount of labour as if you had worked hard yourself to buy the property.

You speak as if the inheritors of authors and musicians are getting a free ride that other inheritors whose parents had different professions aren't. An inheritance is admitedly an advantage that many of us aren't privy to.

And no-one has to labour to get an inheritance. They may or may not have to labour to keep it or live of it. Do you think that the inheritors of multi-million gas station chains are out there manning the pumps?

An author's royalties on most books in most cases have died out or slowed to a trickle before the author dies. There are many exceptions, but still a low percentage overall of auther's heirs receving even enough to pay that college tuition that is often referred to as a possible right of the author's children.

You talk as if an authors heirs are living in the lap of luxury of the average of less than $100 a year they may be lucky enough to receive.

Perhaps if an author or musician is successful, and acquires a million or so in cash and other assets that this should revert? Do you feel that the heirs don't deserve that either?

If there are actual royalties paid after an authors death, then the books are still being read and enjoyed. These books themselves are a product that has an intrinsic value that is solely the result of the author's efforts or no-one would be wanting to read them.

And for good or great authors (whom I assume the majority of squawking is about) royalties are sometimes the only legacy they can leave. Saying this person's books should be free because he/she is dead now, doesn't seem like a fitting memorial. It's rather demeaning to the author and his family and a sad statement of the ethics of some the people who admire the author's work.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by plib

You know, before I started frequenting MobileRead I had no idea that being an author was such a high risk career. Half the justifications I have seen on here for life+x copyright are a variation on "but what if the author dies young".

I must admit I have no claims to be an author. In my time, mostly as a student, I have worked construction on a concrete gang, sometimes 30 odd storeys in the air, as a truck driver, a motor bike courier, a house/furniture removal labourer, a warehouseman and a short time on a production line. However I am relieved that when I eventually chose a profession I decided my talents lay in a direction which doesn't seem to carry such risks of early demise.

What profession would that be I wonder? Does it come with a long life guarentee?

Helen

[plib]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yeah, not really seeing it.

There's a lot of proprietary stuff in software that actually works very well, and in some cases better than an open format. E.g. iOS is proprietary and locked into hardware;

Excellent example. Very astute of you to find a company which has never been accused of benefiting from the assimilation of other people's prior inventions.

Short patent spans also creates issues. For example, drug manufacturers have a limited period of time when they have an exclusive right to sell a drug; after that, other companies can make a generic. The result is that branded drugs are very expensive for many years, as the pharmaceuticals try to recoup their R&D and earn profits as quickly as possible. I.e. shorter patent terms may in fact discourage drug development, and drive up prices before the generic is available.

In addition, drug manufacturers find ways to work around the shorter patent period. They engineer minor formula changes to make a "new" drug (which is no more effective than the old one), or combine two existing and tested drugs to make a "new" drug with a new patent.

This has a lot more to do with the ease with which patent offices grant patents, often on dubious grounds, than with the merits of a longer patent term.

I'd also say that the relative unimportance of content is exactly what makes it feasible to have longer copyright durations than patents. If you have a disease, and only one company has the right to make the drug to cure it for 75 years, even if the company goes bust, that's going to present a serious problem. If you wrote a cheap paperback mystery novel in the 1950s, no one is likely to die because it's out of print.

That bit I think you have right. The public outrage if they were being ripped off for statins, diabetes medications, antibiotics, et. al. for 75 years or more would greatly outweigh any "campaign contributions" the industry could lubricate the politicians with, and the politicians know it. They're not going to commit electoral suicide. But they can get away with it on copyright, partly because it's not as significant in terms of lifesaving effects and partly because there is the safety valve of unauthorized copying. It's a little more difficult more difficult to pirate Lipitor than Led Zeppelin.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

What profession would that be I wonder? Does it come with a long life guarentee?

Helen

Plumber?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

At fifty he had about thirty years of a working career. That's not young. If he couldn't make money in thirty years, he has no sympathy from me.

Maybe it's because I tend to value science more highly than art, but this whole copyright thing strikes me as offensive, in the words of an earlier poster.

If someone creates a useful invention, it only gets protection for 20 years. Why should life saving drugs, or machines that enable you to grow more food, or even spaceflight (SpaceX, not NASA) be valued less than entertainment?

And yet, if we increased the length of a patent, it would cripple our scientific, and economic, progress. Witness the state of the software industry. I can't in good conscience support a longer patent. And in doing so, I can't support this insanely longer copyright term. Even if an author dies the day after publishing, the item is still controlled for 3.5 times as long as an invention.

That's just wrong.

Are you saying that the terrible burden of borrowing a book or God forbid purchasing one for entertainment is the same as not having access to lifesaving medication or food or spaceflight?

Helen

[plib]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

What profession would that be I wonder? Does it come with a long life guarentee?

Helen

No guarantee. I'm not aware of the actuarial analysis of it, although it can be high stress at times, but it would appear to be safer than all the early demise authors.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Plumber?

Nothing remotely as useful as a plumber.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by plib

Force absolutely defines what is owned.

Wrong. Put down your simplistic libertarian tracts.

Force may ultimately *determine* what is owned. But it doesn't define it.
The property law defines what is owned. The government has an army, but the government can't ignore property law. (In the developed world, anyway.) If the courts tell them that they are done, they are done.

The fact that most societies communally delegate that force to the police and the army doesn't make it any less the use of force.

We aren't talking about the use of force. We are talking about the use of force defining what property it. It doesn't.

It just means the robber barons have to work within different rules from their ancestors who gained/held the land by force in the first place.

Robber barons didn't work within rules. That was kind of the point. They took what they wanted. Hence the name.

Lawyers might like to think they define property, but they're just the peripheral minions who codify rules under which force, if necessary, is applied.

The legislature, typically subject to strict constitutional limits, define property law.

Try evicting some of the foreclosures now taking place in the US without the backup of the police if someone decides to start shooting the bailiffs. Or, more on topic, try imprisoning or fining copyright offenders without a police force to back up a court judgement.

Again, *force* isn't defining what property is. The law is defining that. People being evicted from their houses due to mortgage foreclosures are being evicted in accordance with various tenets of contract and property law; they aren't being evicted because might makes right. Similarly, people who were not evicted due to technical problems with their foreclosures due to bank sloppiness (and there were a lot of them) didn't get to stay in their houses because they outgunned police.

TL;DR: In developed socities with the rule of law, might doesn't make right. Even if might is necessary to carry out the laws.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Wrong. Put down your simplistic libertarian tracts.

So good of you to tell us what sources are acceptable.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Wrong. Put down your simplistic libertarian tracts.

You obviously haven't been paying a lot of attention. I'm very far from a libertarian. However I'll give you irony points for a good simplistic knee-jerk reaction.

Force may ultimately *determine* what is owned. But it doesn't define it.
The property law defines what is owned. The government has an army, but the government can't ignore property law. (In the developed world, anyway.) If the courts tell them that they are done, they are done.
We aren't talking about the use of force. We are talking about the use of force defining what property it. It doesn't.

In other words lawyers mess about at the edges writing reams of paper on real estate and contract law once the real matter of who owns what is decided. If you noticed on your way to your knee-jerk reaction the phrase I used was " Force absolutely defines what is owned". I didn't say it defines the nature of property, I didn't say it defined the rules of ownership what I said what it defines who owns it. You can come up with all the legal definitions you want but the fact remains that if you can't defend something then you don't own it, or at least you won't own for much longer. If you disagree then I suggest you have a conversation with a Plains Indian, or any Indian for that matter - Sioux, Commanche, Navajo, Creek, I think you'd find they all have a similar view.

Robber barons didn't work within rules. That was kind of the point. They took what they wanted. Hence the name.
The legislature, typically subject to strict constitutional limits, define property law.

And that was kinda my point, the legislature can only define property law, and make it stick, if the robber barons go along with it, or there is enough force exerted on them by the rest of society to make them go along with it. Legislation on property law isn't worth a fart in the wind if they can't enforce it.

Again, *force* isn't defining what property is. The law is defining that.

Again, if you read what I said, I never said it did. I said it defines who owns it.

People being evicted from their houses due to mortgage foreclosures are being evicted in accordance with various tenets of contract and property law; they aren't being evicted because might makes right. Similarly, people who were not evicted due to technical problems with their foreclosures due to bank sloppiness (and there were a lot of them) didn't get to stay in their houses because they outgunned police.

And do you think the people who were evicted would have gone if they could have outgunned the police, and subsequently the FBI or Army? What, precisely, would have made them move out if they didn't want to? Absent the threat of force who would leave? And if they didn't leave the the bank's bit of paper defining the "tenets of the contract" is just a worthless piece of paper.

TL;DR: In developed socities with the rule of law, might doesn't make right. Even if might is necessary to carry out the laws.

TL;DR: If you don't believe force ultimately determines who owns what, society with "rule of law" or not, then go resettle Plains Indians on the great plains, or Palestinians in Israel, or white farmers on Zimbabwean farms (admittedly that's pushing the "rule of law" bit, but in a way proves the point even better). Even a country that purports to operate by "the rule of law" can only do so because the ultimate sanction of the law is the application of force. At which point lawyers are irrelevant.