What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Fbone

If you're ever in the US, you can legally download it from Gutenberg.

Even in a lot of European countries you can legally download it. Making it available would be illegal though.

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

A corporation is not only expected but legally required to charge as much as possible while delivering as little as possible; individuals, of course, want to pay as little as possible and get as much as possible.

Corporations are most definitely _NOT_ legally required to charge as much as possible (or the other magic phrase "maximize shareholder value").

I'm a direct shareholder (I hold stock in my own name -- not even through a broker) in a dozen companies and I can assure you few of their boards make decisions that result in maximizing what I (or the rest of the shareholders) can hope to be paid. Heck, these days, I don't even think they necessarily make decisions that are good for the long-term solvency of the companies they manage. I do think the companies I've invested in are the "least bad" of those publicly traded, but that's a different topic .

The landmark court case that's usually quoted as the source of "maximizing shareholder value" was "Dodge v. Ford Motor Company" (yes, that Dodge). The Dodge brothers owned stock in Ford and were planning on making use of dividend payments to start a rival car company. Henry Ford wanted to cut dividend payments and use the money to build more plants and employ more workers. His goal was to effectively turn the company into a giant work-based charity, and cut out the minority shareholders completely. The courts ruled that he was not allowed to turn a for-profit company into a for-employee charity.

Googling for "Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company" will turn up more reading on the topic, as will reading up on "Duty of Loyalty" and "Duty of Care" and the "Business Judgement Rule".

[HarryT]

I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, the directors of a company have a legal duty to run the company "in the best interests of the shareholders". That certainly doesn't always mean maximizing profits.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you create something valuable, though, you are allowed to leave it to your heirs. If you wrote for a living, and had a family, wouldn't you want the royalty payments from your sales to go to your family after your death?

We can argue about how long copyright terms should be, but I have no problem with the fundamental principle of posthumous copyright.

Not with the fundamental principle. But I do have one with the current setup. I still think a "x years after first publication" and not "x years after death"... With the first, the heirs will still get something if the author dies within that x years.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Not with the fundamental principle. But I do have one with the current setup. I still think a "x years after first publication" and not "x years after death"... With the first, the heirs will still get something if the author dies within that x years.

The only problem is - how do you define publication? If you define "publish" as the first time it's committed to a tangible form? Then you're counting on being able to trace that specific date of creation. That's the advantage of the current system - death dates are a lot easier to figure out than "the first date he wrote that down on paper". If you define it as being released publicly, that's a whole 'nother thing because not all original works created get released publicly in any form.

Let's use songwriting as an example - should my works only get protection if a publishing company takes me on and adds them to their catalog?

Or screenplays - the majority of those never get in front of an agent, let alone being optioned for production. Granted, with screenplays, proper form dictates putting a date on the cover, but that's a specification of the form, not required for copyright protection.

With books, the recent rise in self-publishing means that more books will see the light of day, but certainly not all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

The only problem is - how do you define publication? If you define "publish" as the first time it's committed to a tangible form? Then you're counting on being able to trace that specific date of creation. That's the advantage of the current system - death dates are a lot easier to figure out than "the first date he wrote that down on paper". If you define it as being released publicly, that's a whole 'nother thing because not all original works created get released publicly in any form.

"Publication" is a well-defined concept. For example, in the EU we have the concept of a "typographical copyright" (which I don't think exists in the US). This is protection for a particular "layout" of a work, and has a non-extendable 25 year term from the date of initial publication.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Publication" is a well-defined concept. For example, in the EU we have the concept of a "typographical copyright" (which I don't think exists in the US). This is protection for a particular "layout" of a work, and has a non-extendable 25 year term from the date of initial publication.

Which is why I asked - I wanted to know specifically what Sweetpea was referring to by "publication" because I am in the US and I believe Sweetpea is in the Netherlands. I wanted to be clear how the word was being used, especially since in the book world people most often use in the sense of whether or not an author was lucky/good/rich enough to "get published". In other fields, it can be used with a different meaning, and changes made to copyright law affect more than just books.

I hope that the current terms are not extended yet again, but the "Life+" system is still easier to sort out than creation date. Unless we go back to requiring registration for protection, which I would not agree with unless they made it a free process, and that's not gonna happen here.

[HarryT]

In terms of typographical copyrights, "initial publication" is the first time the book (or whatever it may be) is publically available (sold, given away, or whatever means are used for its distribution). In today's world the "initial publication" of an eBook would be the first occasion that it was uploaded to a web site.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Other people's creative lifework isn't supposed to be the freebie playground for society.

Yes it is! That's part of the deal. Society helps the author by having laws that stop people publishing the work without permission for a limited time. But after that time is up, the works become available freely to everyone.

I have no argument with the principal of copyright (although I admit that some people do). I do think that the length of copyright is excessive.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Publication" is a well-defined concept....

It is, but it's insufficient protection for many content creators.

For example, a photograph or painting will need copyright protection long before it is "published." Same with a screenplay that a writer submits to a studio.

IIRC the Berne Convention also specifies protection the instant the work is in a "fixed form." IMO that's a much better standard than publication date.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It is, but it's insufficient protection for many content creators.

For example, a photograph or painting will need copyright protection long before it is "published." Same with a screenplay that a writer submits to a studio.

IIRC the Berne Convention also specifies protection the instant the work is in a "fixed form." IMO that's a much better standard than publication date.

I agree with you. I'm very happy with a "life + x" copyright term; but I would like to see perhaps "x=25" rather than its current 70 years.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Certain corporations have been trying to define content as "intellectual property" partly so they can insist that copying that property constitutes theft, for quite some time, and it appears that some people have bought into it. It's not the same thing, though.

You're trying to make your argument look better by suggesting that since corporations are behind the idea of "intellectual property," it's bad - but that's not even the case. The term was first used in the 1870's by the Swiss Office for Intellectual Property, which handled patents and copyrights. It has nothing to do with corporations.

And of course intellectual property *is* property. You can own it, you can buy it, you can sell it, lease it, rent it license it, donate it, give it away, pass it on to your heirs by will or intestate succession. It's *property,* and it's pointless to try to pretend it isn't.

I'm reminded of a case of a cracker from many, many years back who broke into the AT&T administrative system and, as proof he'd been there, copied a manual about setting up phone systems. In court, AT&T declared that the manual was worth -- and he had stolen -- thousands of dollars, as they added up all the time it took someone to write it, type it up, etc. (for reasons I'll leave open to your speculation, they didn't mention that when they sold this manual, it went for $20) They quite deliberately conflated the idea of taking something away from its owner, who then can't use it, and who has hence lost the value of all that staff time doing the writing, with the idea of copying that item, which, if they hadn't found out from other sources, they would never know had happened.

Relevance?

If I photograph your house, have I stolen the house? Obviously not; you're still living there. It would be ridiculous to say I've stolen your house. But mixing the idea of real or chattel property into the equation, and calling the privileges statutorily granted to content creators "property" as if it was no different from a house, makes people think that it's the same. And it isn't. A publisher can't do a print run of 50,000 copies of your house, or sell as many identical e-houses as they have buyers for. Only one person or specific group can use your house at a time. And once the builder sold that house, it's not his house anymore; he doesn't keep getting paid over and over when you sell the house to me, and I sell it to FizzyWater, and so on. When he stops building houses -- whether he died, or retired, or became a chef instead -- he stops getting paid for houses.

We have always had different rules for different kinds of property - real property as opposed to personal property, for example. For a long time, this was a huge distinction: personal property could be left by will; real property could not. Adding intellectual property to the mix doesn't really confuse people.

If I own a store and you steal my inventory, I lose money because I can't sell it to anyone else. If I write e-books and you give away copies of my e-book to people who would otherwise have purchased it, I lose money because I can't sell it to them. This is really simple point. And it is a much more important point than esoteric arguments that nonrivalrous goods aren't property.

Pensions, life insurance, and so on don't equate either. They're all things that you bought and paid for, and they're paying you back, usually with interest. You can designate a beneficiary for survivor's benefits, but they're still getting paid from (theoretically, at least, unless it's a giant Ponzi scheme) the money you paid in. You may not see it because the payments came from your employer or from your taxes but they're there somewhere. You pay in; it pays you out. It has nothing to do with this situation.

It has everything to do with this situation. In some case I do work, translate it to money, and spend the money on something; in other cases, I do work and produce the copyrighted goods myself.

The reason a monopoly on selling a book isn't the same kind of "property" as ownership of a house has to do with the nature of a book: You can duplicate the book without changing the original, or taking its away from the person who owns it. Whether it's a monk in a scriptorium with a quill pen or a person with a computer and a save button, the book is still there; now there are two of them. Or two million of them. That monopoly on sales is granted by legislation of some kind -- in the US, the clause in the Constitution about "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" -- for specific social reasons. It doesn't mention "for the enrichment of the first person to claim authorship" -- it's for the benefit of society as a whole (promotion of progress), and the benefit to an individual is a way of achieving that, by making it possible to make a living as an author.

The real basis for *all* property is legislation. Until the statute of wills (in England) in the 1500's, you couldn't pass land to your heirs by will. You still can't possess or sell certain items (i.e., cocaine) in the US or most other countries.

[quote]

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

If I write e-books and you give away copies of my e-book to people who would otherwise have purchased it, I lose money because I can't sell it to them. This is really simple point. And it is a much more important point than esoteric arguments that nonrivalrous goods aren't property.

Exactly. Copyright protection ensures, above all else (to me, at least), that if I create something I get first option to do with it as I wish, including profit from it. I do feel that the terms are being stretched too far and should not be extended beyond their current limits, but the idea that protections should not exist or should be limited because "corporations do bad things" in the realm of IP is definitely not something I can get on board with.

Lets look at the AT&T case. What if, instead of breaking in there, he broke into my house and stole my manuscript, copied and and sold it? Just because the law also protects corporations from the same thing and entitles them to seek the damages the same way does not make it a bad law.

It's already hard enough for the average person to enforce their copyright. We can't afford to let the existing protections be muddied for the sake of preventing corporations from acting a certain way.

I've been ripped off. It's not fun. Fortunately, a cease and desist letter written by a lawyer friend was enough to scare them, because proving damages is almost impossible in a lot of cases, if you haven't already lost your mind by the time you actually get in front of a jury.

Sorry for the rant. IP and copyright are a touchy subject for me.

Edited to fix typo.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

If it was purely based on publication date, how would you deal with re-releases (real question, not being sarcastic)?

If a book is initially released in 1980, but has a resurgence 20 years later, would it be from original publication date or from the later one?

From the copyright date in the book, for example (or on the film, ect.) They're in the fine print at the front, usually. (No sarcasm intended back). Even reprints say copyright such-and-such, not the year of the reprint.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

You're trying to make your argument look better by suggesting that since corporations are behind the idea of "intellectual property," it's bad - but that's not even the case. The term was first used in the 1870's by the Swiss Office for Intellectual Property, which handled patents and copyrights. It has nothing to do with corporations.

And of course intellectual property *is* property. You can own it, you can buy it, you can sell it, lease it, rent it license it, donate it, give it away, pass it on to your heirs by will or intestate succession. It's *property,* and it's pointless to try to pretend it isn't.


Relevance?


We have always had different rules for different kinds of property - real property as opposed to personal property, for example. For a long time, this was a huge distinction: personal property could be left by will; real property could not. Adding intellectual property to the mix doesn't really confuse people.

If I own a store and you steal my inventory, I lose money because I can't sell it to anyone else. If I write e-books and you give away copies of my e-book to people who would otherwise have purchased it, I lose money because I can't sell it to them. This is really simple point. And it is a much more important point than esoteric arguments that nonrivalrous goods aren't property.



It has everything to do with this situation. In some case I do work, translate it to money, and spend the money on something; in other cases, I do work and produce the copyrighted goods myself.


The real basis for *all* property is legislation. Until the statute of wills (in England) in the 1500's, you couldn't pass land to your heirs by will. You still can't possess or sell certain items (i.e., cocaine) in the US or most other countries.

Andrew H, I'm not certain you grasp the difference between Real and intellectual property. The difference is massive and important.

Simply put, when you sell a piece of real property, of whatever sort, you transfer total ownership of said piece of property. The new owner is under no obligation to do anything you may prefer to the property. it his property now.

With I.P. you claim to retain all rights to copy. But you Sold a property!
You can't have it both ways.

Society allows it to be both ways for a limited period of time to encourage more I.P. production. Period. Not to create a perpetual new kind of property, just an extra carrot.