Duration of copyright poll.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say you are 21. You write a novel. You reach the age of 72. Your work just became public domain. Some movie stuido decided to make a movie based on your work. The movie studio makes tons and tons of money from this movie. You are still alive, watching others make lots of money from your work and there is not a thing you can do about it. That is not fair in the least. You would be so pissed off.

Careful with that "you." Maybe it would be better not to make assumptions about how the rest of us would feel in that circumstance.

I think after even 10-20 years, the ideas in a book or other creative work, if it was circulated widely, are so much a part of the common culture that it doesn't make sense to say we can tell whether something was based on the original work, or just on the reflections of the ideas in the culture.

And based on movies made "from books" in the past, odds are good that the resulting movie will have little or nothing to do with the original book, unless the movie studio chose to hire the original author as a creative consultant... and even then, the movie will probably be a completely different animal. So saying the movie studios are making tons of money off the author's work doesn't really make sense. It's like other authors saying they wrote about wizard schools before J.K. Rowling, so she should owe them something.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by nekokami

It's like other authors saying they wrote about wizard schools before J.K. Rowling, so she should owe them something.

Don't go there...

(Who was first?)

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Don't go there...

(Who was first?)

I have no idea.

When I was in high school, I wrote a short story about some people with psychic powers who were being persecuted as witches in medieval times. My high school teacher, who was completely unfamiliar with science fiction or fantasy, stumbled across a copy of Katherine Kurtz's High Deryni in a book store, thought the story looked similar to mine (based on the synopsis on the back cover), and suggested to me, rather strongly, that I needed to put an acknowledgment to Kurtz in my story... or even submit a different story for the assignment, as she though mine was too much like Kurtz'.

My story wasn't especially great, but it wasn't anything like what Kurtz had written, as I had reason to know, having read all of Kurtz' Deryni stories as well as numerous other works of science fiction and fantasy with similar themes. I told her I thought I owed more to Gillian Bradshaw for stylistic reasons, or perhaps Lloyd Alexander, and eventually included an acknowledgment listing about a dozen authors. But the idea of people with unusual abilities being persecuted was so common that it didn't seem reasonable to me to even draw a comparison between my story and Kurtz'.

The teacher didn't really get the point, and I think it's the same point we're discussing here. After some period of time, ideas pass into the common culture, whether we want them to or not, and after that point the "original" author really has no "right" to try to control those ideas. They aren't original anymore. Acknowledging a limit on copyright term seems to me to recognize this.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by nekokami

The teacher didn't really get the point, and I think it's the same point we're discussing here. After some period of time, ideas pass into the common culture, whether we want them to or not, and after that point the "original" author really has no "right" to try to control those ideas. They aren't original anymore. Acknowledging a limit on copyright term seems to me to recognize this.

yes, and enrich the common culture, inspiring and influencing more creation, often very indirectly or distantly. which is the whole point of public domain. i think your story is an excellent example of that, neko-chan.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say you are 21. You write a novel. You reach the age of 72. Your work just became public domain. Some movie stuido decided to make a movie based on your work. The movie studio makes tons and tons of money from this movie. You are still alive, watching others make lots of money from your work and there is not a thing you can do about it. That is not fair in the least. You would be so pissed off.

You've had 50 years to try making money out of what you wrote, then either:

a) You made lots of money. Then you shouldn't be so pissed off someone else makes money too.

b) You didn't see a dime. Then maybe, just maybe, your novel was not that good, and the movie made so much money not due to the story you wrote, but to its cinematographic quality, special effects, or marketing.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say you are 21. You write a novel. You reach the age of 72. Your work just became public domain. Some movie stuido decided to make a movie based on your work. The movie studio makes tons and tons of money from this movie. You are still alive, watching others make lots of money from your work and there is not a thing you can do about it. That is not fair in the least.

Well it's "fair" because all authors work under the same copyright rules. Also, you had 50 years to sell the movie rights!!!

So, what if they make the move 2 years after you die at 73 (for example) is it then fair?

Anyhow... they is why I say Date of Publish + 40 years or till authors death, whichever is later.

Plus, that studio may have spent $10million to make the movie and could have lost money too. Many movies have been made of or based on PD stories.

BOb

[RobertJSawyer]

It's an interesting poll topic, but it has a flaw in its methodology. It assumes that every voter thinks that the current span is the maximum that copyright terms should ever be: that is, it assumes that every voter wants a span of liftetime of the creator plus 70 years, or some amount less than that.

That's certainly not what Disney wants, and there's no way from these poll results to assess if anyone here feels that a longer span is the way to go (indeed, if one choice is copyright should be abolished, another should be that copyright is permanent and never expires).

I'm not advocating for any particular position here, but my mother the statistician would spank me if I didn't point out the inherent bias in the way the question is phrased.

[vivaldirules]

Biased? Yes, of course. I'm actually a little surprised that anyone voted for the current length. But I think the probability that anyone would vote for an infinite copyright protection is pretty tiny.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by RobertJSawyer

It's an interesting poll topic, but it has a flaw in its methodology. It assumes that every voter thinks that the current span is the maximum that copyright terms should ever be: that is, it assumes that every voter wants a span of liftetime of the creator plus 70 years, or some amount less than that.

That's certainly not what Disney wants, and there's no way from these poll results to assess if anyone here feels that a longer span is the way to go (indeed, if one choice is copyright should be abolished, another should be that copyright is permanent and never expires).

I'm not advocating for any particular position here, but my mother the statistician would spank me if I didn't point out the inherent bias in the way the question is phrased.

Well I consider this is an obvious starting point from the current position. When copyright was introduced it was always ment as a *temporary* concession to the author, never permament. However as the lobbies were formed and confronted on the realisation of the details, its obvious how the publisher lobby was much stronger than a "users lobby" if this is existend after all. So when they say, oh yes its only temporary, but death +70 years, for "normal" social happenings of our society, this is already close to permanent, I mean who really can plan of things to happen in +100 years... Its just not existend in our thinking..

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Biased? Yes, of course. I'm actually a little surprised that anyone voted for the current length. But I think the probability that anyone would vote for an infinite copyright protection is pretty tiny.

Well, I wouldn't expect that anyone would have voter for NO copyright protection at all either. But it happened.

BOb

[rixte]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Ok, I'm going to revise. 40 years from publish date OR until the authors death, whichever comes later.

This would provide plenty of ability for the author to get paid for his work. It would also allow for a very simple way of determining if a work was still copyrighted... you only need to answer two questions...

1. What was the published date?
2. Is the author still alive? (which can be hard at times to answer.)

(I answered 30 in the poll since 40 wasn't an option.)

BOb

This is actually what I prefer, although I'd tend toward 50 years over 40.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by rixte

This is actually what I prefer.

me too.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Biased? Yes, of course. I'm actually a little surprised that anyone voted for the current length. But I think the probability that anyone would vote for an infinite copyright protection is pretty tiny.

yes, i would be very interested to hear their point of view. also, i wonder if they have large round black ears on the top of their head.

[mrmikel]

Once people start talking about rights, I disagree. There is no inherent right in something that is not real property. It is something granted by the state to encourage creative endeavor. And it is therefore up to us, the members of that state to decide just for how long we want to encourage that creative endeavor.

At some point, the need to encourage creative endeavor becomes less important and the need to make works of literature, etc more widely available and at a lower cost becomes more important. This is point is what this poll perhaps reflects.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by mrmikel

Once people start talking about rights, I disagree. There is no inherent right in something that is not real property. I

I agree, even with "real property" its no "inherent right", but property a usefull idea which allowed human settlements to work. That those who cared of field and cattle are those who are entitled to "harvest" them... otherwise nobody would be encouraged to care for them until harvesting season. If its one thing anthropology showed us, is that "close-nature" societies often don't even know of the concept of property, especially if it are hunting societies not doing field work.