European Green Party policy on copyright

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Personally, I think it is a step in the right direction, but perhaps goes a bit too far. Companies have too much sway over legislation, and 20 years isn't very long. I mean, look at how much people still buy that are 20+ years old, and it wouldn't stop those sales, just cut the creator out of the loop.

Yes. I agree. There certainly should be restrictions during the copyright term around making copies non-commercially.

The length and ownership are the crucial items that need change in my opinion.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by crossi

No, I think people would still buy books whose copyrights had expired. Amazon makes it easy to find the book you are looking for, it's free storage of the books plus syncing between devices and keeping track of your last page, notes and shared highlights would make Amazons version more desireable even if you had to pay for it (if the price wasn't TOO high anyway) for a lot of people.

I've bought a number of things from Delphi Classics recently. Primarily due to their bulk packaging of "All Works by XXX" and that sort of thing.

I love the bookmarking across devices via kindle.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just in case anyone isn't aware of it, this is a fringe party whose policies stand as much chance of becoming law, as I have of becoming Emperor of the Galaxy.

Well, I wouldn't vote for you anyway.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Music corporations prey on young musicians and get them to sign away their rights on the promise of fame and riches. ....

And the same is true of book publishers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright should last long enough for the average work to have a chance to make a reasonable profit, no longer.

Unfortunately, copyright laws stopped being about "promotion of the arts" a long time ago, and are purely to serve the greed/power interests of the corporations.

Damn, did Hell freeze over?

Shaggy and I agree on something!

[astrodad]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright should last long enough for the average work to have a chance to make a reasonable profit, no longer.

Unfortunately, copyright laws stopped being about "promotion of the arts" a long time ago, and are purely to serve the greed/power interests of the corporations.

And what exactly is reasonable? Who will determine what is "reasonable"? Do you want to be the one to suggest that we impose profit restrictions on someone's work? How would you feel if you were told that you could no longer make a profit on a product, despite a demand?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by astrodad

How would you feel if you were told that you could no longer make a profit on a product...

That means you've taken copyright beyond the scope of "promotion of the arts" and are using it for guaranteeing control and protecting revenue.

[astrodad]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That means you've taken copyright beyond the scope of "promotion of the arts" and are using it for guaranteeing control and protecting revenue.

Exactly.

Just to clarify a couple of things:

1. There are many reasons for copyright, economic incentive is just one of them. It can, as an example, be used to restrict the distribution of a work. (Copyright applies to almost everything, even if it isn't published.)
2. Public domain works were certainly available in the past. Certain publishers seemed to specialize in printing public domain works. Project Gutenberg has been around for about 30 years.
3. Copyright laws are usually made stronger when copying becomes easier. This may sound contradictory, but it makes some sense because a market would still exist after the copyright expired when copying was hard.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on long copyright terms, but I am disgusted by retroactive copyright extensions. Not only does it introduce unpredictability in industries that depend upon the public domain, but it completely contradicts the most commonly cited purpose of copyright laws: the incentive to create new works. As the Green Party implied, 20 years provides incentive to create a new work. Over 20 years provides an economic disincentive to create new works (since you can live off of the old).

One idea that I find appealing are fee based copyright extensions: free for the first 20 years, $100,000 (or whatever, and inflation adjusted) for each 10 years thereafter. This solves the problem of abandoned works because it automatically enters the public domain in a reasonable time frame if no one can prove ownership over it. It provides economic incentives for "great works", i.e. anything of lasting value. It also ensure that a work can still serve the public good even if the economic incentive to publish it no longer exists.

Finally, I don't think the idea of private copying (which is different from non-profits copying) would work any more. Simply put, copying has become too easy. But I do think that private copying should be treated more like tickets: small and reasonable fines based upon the offence rather than mostly arbitrary court rulings.