Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I wasn't talking about the case when the publisher owns the copyright, but publishers do have an innate characteristic as they are the ones who make copies.

Copyright law gives temporary monopoly to the author but the author doesn't make copies, so publishers end up enjoying the temporary monopoly which is why I say that copyright benefits the publishers.

Copyright does benefit publishers in the sense that it gives them an incentive to publish at all. While I think most of us can agree that in most cases the most significant work is done by the author, a publisher adds (or at least use to be) a lot of value through editing, printing, distributing, promoting, etc. The publisher would have no incentive to either publish, or pay the author if such a limited monopoly didn't exist. The public domain books that are still published today are ones with a proven audience. A certain number of people will buy Sherlock Holmes stories regardless of how old they are.

When copyright is extended it means that there are more works that publishers can have monopoly over, so the value of the work (i.e. how much a publisher is willing to pay the author) decreases so this hurts authors. This isn't immediately apparent if you think of it from the point of view of older works. Their authors had their works valued higher as copyright was shorter and there was less competition, and now simply get extra time to gather benefits. But the creation of new works will suffer.

I think this argument is rather weak. Lets remember the vast majority of books are only commercially viable for a few years. Ebooks change the equation somewhat, but most books will be difficult if not impossible to find on book store shelves 5 years after they have been published and after they have gone out of print, they may never be printed again because they simply do not sell enough to justify the expense. Longer copyrights do benefit publishers and some authors, but only for a very small fraction of the works that are ever produced in the first place. The lions share of profits though are still made with new works.

--
Bill

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I wasn't talking about the case when the publisher owns the copyright, but publishers do have an innate characteristic as they are the ones who make copies.

Copyright law gives temporary monopoly to the author but the author doesn't make copies, so publishers end up enjoying the temporary monopoly which is why I say that copyright benefits the publishers.

When copyright is extended it means that there are more works that publishers can have monopoly over, so the value of the work (i.e. how much a publisher is willing to pay the author) decreases so this hurts authors. This isn't immediately apparent if you think of it from the point of view of older works. Their authors had their works valued higher as copyright was shorter and there was less competition, and now simply get extra time to gather benefits. But the creation of new works will suffer.

Are you saying that there was less competition because copyright was shorter or that works were valued higher because there was less competition?

I don't see that anything will decrease competition significantly at this point short of a catastrophic event.

And while I have nothing against derivative works per se, I see plenty of non derivative works being published, as well as derivative ones.

I understand that making it possible for anyone to create a work based on current bestsellers would make many people happy, especially those with very limited tastes, but I fail to see a large benefit to society of allowing anyone to freely use the creations of others. Sure we would have more Nero Wolfe novels, Harry Dresden, Sookie Stackhose etc. and many would be good I am sure, but would it make the world an infinitely better place or tend to devalue the original creations?

Perhaps it would keep those who only read Harry Potter books (and I know two adults who do) happy and that is enough?

Helen

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Are you saying that there was less competition because copyright was shorter or that works were valued higher because there was less competition?

I don't see that anything will decrease competition significantly at this point short of a catastrophic event.

And while I have nothing against derivative works per se, I see plenty of non derivative works being published, as well as derivative ones.

I understand that making it possible for anyone to create a work based on current bestsellers would make many people happy, especially those with very limited tastes, but I fail to see a large benefit to society of allowing anyone to freely use the creations of others. Sure we would have more Nero Wolfe novels, Harry Dresden, Sookie Stackhose etc. and many would be good I am sure, but would it make the world an infinitely better place or tend to devalue the original creations?

Perhaps it would keep those who only read Harry Potter books (and I know two adults who do) happy and that is enough?

Helen

It might turn on what is definable as a derivative work, can no one write about a youth's adventures learning magic at a school, because Harry Potter books are in copyright? Can there be other wizards named Harry? Will Dresden need to change his name?

Luck;
Ken

[crich70]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

I don't agree. Creation doesn't happen in vacuum. If we argue that creation is a process that creates something from nothing, then we've changed the playing field entirely. But that's not the case. Creation is as much remix as it is innovation, if not more so. As much as some content creators like to argue that they are a self-sufficient island, they are influenced and pull from ideas in the public domain and popular culture as much as anyone else.

And even if they could prove that they didn't borrow from the Public Domain or the culture in which they live they would still have to admit that others around them had had an influence on them. It's likely that William Shakespeare never committed a murder but he knew what his society exacted as punishment for the act and it's likely he knew at least some of the feelings that could drive one to murder. i.e. Anger & Jealousy. Not to mention envy and the desire to have something that another has. That's part of being human.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by crich70

And even if they could prove that they didn't borrow from the Public Domain or the culture in which they live they would still have to admit that others around them had had an influence on them. It's likely that William Shakespeare never committed a murder but he knew what his society exacted as punishment for the act and it's likely he knew at least some of the feelings that could drive one to murder. i.e. Anger & Jealousy. Not to mention envy and the desire to have something that another has. That's part of being human.

People pay taxes to pay their debt to society. Other people are not expected or required to do more. A worker uses roads to get to work and earn his living. Why is paying taxes enough for him, but not for copyright holders?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

People pay taxes to pay their debt to society. Other people are not expected or required to do more. A worker uses roads to get to work and earn his living. Why is paying taxes enough for him, but not for copyright holders?

Because the copyright holder is gaining special protection by the very copyright. Without the copyright, an author would have a very hard time finding a way to profit from their work. With copyright, they have plenty of time to try and profit. The social contract that allows copyright to exist in the first place also ensures that copyright only exists for a limited time.

--
Bill

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Because the copyright holder is gaining special protection by the very copyright. Without the copyright, an author would have a very hard time finding a way to profit from their work. With copyright, they have plenty of time to try and profit. The social contract that allows copyright to exist in the first place also ensures that copyright only exists for a limited time.

--
Bill

That is just my point. It is unfair that to consider copyright to be "special protection". If you make a chair to sell you also need society's protection (or else someone could steal it or cheat you), there should not be a difference. Just because the product is different, you don't deserve less. The social contract is a smokescreen, since there is no such social contract for others.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is just my point. It is unfair that to consider copyright to be "special protection". If you make a chair to sell you also need society's protection (or else someone could steal it or cheat you), there should not be a difference. Just because the product is different, you don't deserve less. The social contract is a smokescreen, since there is no such social contract for others.

Actually there is a difference. If I make a chair and sell it to you I no longer have that exact chair. If I want to sell another I have to make it just like I did the 1st. Things like books and music files are different in that you can make an exact duplicate. With other things like painting and sculpture though each work is unique. Copies can be made in that pics can be taken or other such methods can be used, but the original is still unique.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The social contract is a smokescreen, since there is no such social contract for others.

It is possible for a private individual to protect their own physical property to some extent.

Without the presence of copyright laws, and the courts and bailiffs to enforce them, there is no way to protect "intellectual property".

Copyright is entirely a social and legal contract. And it is currently far too long.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Copyright does benefit publishers in the sense that it gives them an incentive to publish at all. While I think most of us can agree that in most cases the most significant work is done by the author, a publisher adds (or at least use to be) a lot of value through editing, printing, distributing, promoting, etc. The publisher would have no incentive to either publish, or pay the author if such a limited monopoly didn't exist. The public domain books that are still published today are ones with a proven audience. A certain number of people will buy Sherlock Holmes stories regardless of how old they are.

Books were being published before copyright existed.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I think this argument is rather weak. Lets remember the vast majority of books are only commercially viable for a few years. Ebooks change the equation somewhat, but most books will be difficult if not impossible to find on book store shelves 5 years after they have been published and after they have gone out of print, they may never be printed again because they simply do not sell enough to justify the expense. Longer copyrights do benefit publishers and some authors, but only for a very small fraction of the works that are ever produced in the first place.

Your observation doesn't go against my argument, but in support of it. The reason why books are only commercially viable for a short period of time is because of the large competition. A publisher can't maintain in bookstores all the titles that they published in the last 5 years, and they have monopoly over books published over decades.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

The lions share of profits though are still made with new works.

And this has nothing to do with my point. It's not about how much profit is being made, it's about how much of it goes to the author.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Are you saying that there was less competition because copyright was shorter or that works were valued higher because there was less competition?

Both. Shorter copyright = fewer titles under copyright = less competition => higher value for the publishers compared to today.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't see that anything will decrease competition significantly at this point short of a catastrophic event.

The length of the copyright could be determined based on what is best for authors.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And while I have nothing against derivative works per se, I see plenty of non derivative works being published, as well as derivative ones.

I understand that making it possible for anyone to create a work based on current bestsellers would make many people happy, especially those with very limited tastes, but I fail to see a large benefit to society of allowing anyone to freely use the creations of others. Sure we would have more Nero Wolfe novels, Harry Dresden, Sookie Stackhose etc. and many would be good I am sure, but would it make the world an infinitely better place or tend to devalue the original creations?

Perhaps it would keep those who only read Harry Potter books (and I know two adults who do) happy and that is enough?

I'm lost as to your point here. Anyone can freely use the creations of others if they are in the public domain, and even use the creations that are under copyright as long as they use them for derivative works.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is just my point. It is unfair that to consider copyright to be "special protection". If you make a chair to sell you also need society's protection (or else someone could steal it or cheat you), there should not be a difference. Just because the product is different, you don't deserve less. The social contract is a smokescreen, since there is no such social contract for others.

The "special protection" is that the author gets to keep the copyright after selling the work. Without copyright law the situation would be like selling a chair: you make the chair/write a story, trade it for money, and if you want to make more money you make another chair/write another story.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

...The "special protection" is that the author gets to keep the copyright after selling the work. Without copyright law the situation would be like selling a chair: you make the chair/write a story, trade it for money, and if you want to make more money you make another chair/write another story.

IMO, This is a perfect definition of the difference between real property and intellectual property, right here.

Shari

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is just my point. It is unfair that to consider copyright to be "special protection". If you make a chair to sell you also need society's protection (or else someone could steal it or cheat you), there should not be a difference. Just because the product is different, you don't deserve less. The social contract is a smokescreen, since there is no such social contract for others.

Prior to copyright there was no protection of written works. A good example is the Matter of Britain. How many different retellings of the King Arthur legend were created in the Middle Ages (And how many still today). If an author created a new story to add to the cycle, another author could immediately use that story as well. There was no effective way to stop them. This had benefits (i.e., the rich tradition of Arthurian literature we now enjoy) but also negatives.

I would point out that there is in fact a social contract for other types of property as well. That is what property law, patent law and copyright law are all about. But it is folly to pretend that each type of property is identical and it has never been treated as such. Thus, a chair is treated differently to a piece of land and both are treated differently than a creative work.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Books were being published before copyright existed.

Not nearly as many.. and often the author of such works might receive nothing from the printer of such works (especially the more popular works).

Your observation doesn't go against my argument, but in support of it. The reason why books are only commercially viable for a short period of time is because of the large competition. A publisher can't maintain in bookstores all the titles that they published in the last 5 years, and they have monopoly over books published over decades.

You are making an unjustified (imho) logical leap there. Prior to ebooks (which obviously changes the game), it would have been impractical to say the least for the author to self publish. Even if we maintained the original copyright laws of the United States (14 years renewable (by the author or his heirs) once for 14 years), I sincerely doubt it would have had any beneficial outcome for the vast majority of authors. I believe many author contracts include clauses where rights revert after a work has been out of print for a given period of time.

And this has nothing to do with my point. It's not about how much profit is being made, it's about how much of it goes to the author.


Both. Shorter copyright = fewer titles under copyright = less competition => higher value for the publishers compared to today.

No it doesn't. A book that is out of print is out of print because it is no longer competitive in the market place. Lets look at it this way, of all the novels published in the 1970s, the vast majority are now out of print and have effectively zero commercial value (Perhaps not even worth the effort of converting them to ebooks). The fact that they might remain under copyright for another 100 years (i.e., their author might live another 30 years) has zero impact on their value. Those novels do not compete with the latest novels being published in any practical form.

--
Bill

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The "special protection" is that the author gets to keep the copyright after selling the work. Without copyright law the situation would be like selling a chair: you make the chair/write a story, trade it for money, and if you want to make more money you make another chair/write another story.

Perhaps; but it may be more like: You design and build a chair, the chair making companies consider your chair, most don't think much of it but a few think it could sell to the chair buying public, because of the "special protection" you can sell the right to make copies of your chair to one of the chair companies, the other chair companies, (because of the "special protection") would be prevented from making copies of your chair/design. You and the chair company you sold the rights to, make more or less money depending on how many chair buyers purchase your chairs. If your chairs really catch on and dominate the chair market, all the chair makers will want to make and sell that chair design, but (for a time) they are prevented from doing so by the "special protection".

Luck;
Ken

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Perhaps; but it may be more like: You design and build a chair, the chair making companies consider your chair, most don't think much of it but a few think it could sell to the chair buying public, because of the "special protection" you can sell the right to make copies of your chair to one of the chair companies, the other chair companies, (because of the "special protection") would be prevented from making copies of your chair/design. You and the chair company you sold the rights to, make more or less money depending on how many chair buyers purchase your chairs. If your chairs really catch on and dominate the chair market, all the chair makers will want to make and sell that chair design, but (for a time) they are prevented from doing so by the "special protection".

Luck;
Ken

Hmm...isn't that a design patent? Or is my interpretation totally wrong? If so, then we are back to talking about intellectual property, not real property.

Shari