Publishers continue to live in the past

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Now if you want to propose an international consumer movement to reform copyright laws, I might be in favor of that-but please, don't propose that the governments get involved!

Copyrights are matters of law. Laws are created and enforced by governments. There is no way to not have government involved in copyright reform.
______
Dennis

[pdurrant]

It's funny how in nearly 300 years of copyright law, no government has ever reduced the length of copyright. And so it's gone from 14 years to about 120 years.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Copyrights are matters of law. Laws are created and enforced by governments. There is no way to not have government involved in copyright reform.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's funny how in nearly 300 years of copyright law, no government has ever reduced the length of copyright. And so it's gone from 14 years to about 120 years.

What incentive would they have to do so?

The original intent of copyright was to provide incentive to creators by giving them exclusive rights to their creations.

You can blame a good bit of current rights changes on DisneyCo, who want to insure Mickey Mouse and friends never enter the public domain. While I understand the motivation, it drags a lot of other rights along in its wake.

My suspicion is that an appropriate solution is a recognition of different rights for individuals vs organizations. For an individual, copyright might be "Life + X years". A corporation like Disney doesn't die, so rights held by them might just be considered in force as long as the corporation still wants them.

I don't care if Disney retains the rights to Mickey and friends. I'd just like other work to eventually lapse into the public domain.
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's funny how in nearly 300 years of copyright law, no government has ever reduced the length of copyright. And so it's gone from 14 years to about 120 years.

I'll answer that more broadly. Copyright never seems to shrink, but patent has.

The reason is the when you lose a patent, your loss is balanced by the other people's patents that get made available to you for the same reason. The economic gains and losses tend to balance after the "new" has worn off over a few years.

When you lose a copyright, you don't get anything economic in return (or so it's perceived). So there is no counter-incentive to shorten copyright. Hence the wide difference today....

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

When you lose a copyright, you don't get anything economic in return (or so it's perceived). So there is no counter-incentive to shorten copyright. Hence the wide difference today....

Hmm... You lose exclusivity on your creations, but you can freely use characters and stories first imagined by someone else... I think it's the same.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Hmm... You lose exclusivity on your creations, but you can freely use characters and stories first imagined by someone else... I think it's the same.

But it's not a easily measurable gain with copyright. An individual author can use those "now available" properties for new stories, but there's no guarantee that the new stories will sell.

Whereas you can see how much of you process will benefit economically from not having to pay a patent royalty... this is one reason for so much cross licensing of patents. What you gain in royalties on one hand you lose paying royalties on the other. If the values roughly balance, it's cheaper to just cross license....

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But it's not a easily measurable gain with copyright. An individual author can use those "now available" properties for new stories, but there's no guarantee that the new stories will sell.

And most authors prefer to do their own creations, thank you, and not play in someone else's sandbox.

The exceptions tend to be in media tie ins, where someone else owns the rights, and you are working for a fee in a "work for hire" contract. Star Trek novels are an example. And because they are based on popular properties, there is some guarantee they will sell.

Whereas you can see how much of you process will benefit economically from not having to pay a patent royalty... this is one reason for so much cross licensing of patents. What you gain in royalties on one hand you lose paying royalties on the other. If the values roughly balance, it's cheaper to just cross license....

What you want to do may be covered by someone's else patent, so you damn well better license if it is.

The question is whether it is, and at any moment there are probably millions of dollars worth of infringement suits going on, with one outfit saying "You're infringing our patents! Cease and desist!", and the other saying "No we aren't!"

And it's especially thorny now because we are seeing significant efforts to patent software, and equally significant evidence that the Patent Office isn't qualified to determine whether a piece of software deserves a patent, because they have no idea whether there is prior art.
______
Dennis

[braver]

This talk and cries are typical of this forum -- people with the Kindle do not try to check what works, people without the Kindle belittle it. Green-faced, a bit.

Fact: you can change location back and forth any number of times as of right now, and buy any books in the world from a US-based pre-international Kindle.

All this talk here is useless, and those who speculate are losers!

[pilotbob]

While discussion and debate is more than welcome...

...name calling and personal insults here are NOT acceptable and will not be tolerated. Knock it off.

-Moderator-