Why public domain

[pdurrant]

Eternal copyright would be the death of creativity.

Corporations would buy up old copyrights, and then so-one would be able produce anything new without being sued for infringing the copyright of something in the corporations' vast repositories.

"Oh", you say, "but if it's new then it can't be infringing". But how much money is a new author going to be able to spend defending themselves against copyright trolls?

It's already getting pretty dire in the music industry, with people being sued, not for direct copying, but because a song has a similar feel to a previous song.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Eternal copyright would be the death of creativity.

Corporations would buy up old copyrights, and then so-one would be able produce anything new without being sued for infringing the copyright of something in the corporations' vast repositories.

Creativity didn't stop when Mickey Mouse hit the scene as evidenced by the numerous other anthropomorphic mice created since then.

"Oh", you say, "but if it's new then it can't be infringing". But how much money is a new author going to be able to spend defending themselves against copyright trolls?

It's already getting pretty dire in the music industry, with people being sued, not for direct copying, but because a song has a similar feel to a previous song.

That's a problem with allowing copyright to be defined in terms that are too general. The laws need to be tweaked to narrow the definition of what is allowed to be copyrighted.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...we're all doomed

Why so sarcastic?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Why so sarcastic?

See post 89.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you build a house....50 years later nobody comes along and says “this house now belongs to the public”.

If you sell the house and put the money in the bank. It stays your money and your kids inherit it.

If you open a restaurant...and you work in the business all your life...it doesn’t become “the public’s restaurant” when you die. You can sell the restaurant...or your kids can keep the restaurant going.

If you are a farmer....the fields don’t go to the public just because you retire from farming. You have all the crops you previously harvested...and the land is there to grow future crops that your kids farm...or they sell the farm.

If a book/story still has economic value...why shouldn’t the copyright holder continue to benefit? The public did nothing to create the work so why should they confiscate the economic value from the heirs or the owner?

All of those things have to be maintained and tax paid on them. Copyright doesn't have to be maintained, and tax only needs to be paid if there is an income from the copyright. Property tax on a house, or a farm, or a restaurant have to be paid whether they are creating income or not.

Shari

[hildea]

A question to those of you who are in favour of eternal copyright:

Do you think it would be a good thing if Mobileread library and Gutenberg would have to delete almost all its works? (This would, obviously, happen if copyright law was changed the way you want.)
Or do you think that it would be regrettable, but that the upsides (which are still pretty unclear to me) make it worth it?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by shalym

All of those things have to be maintained and tax paid on them. Copyright doesn't have to be maintained, and tax only needs to be paid if there is an income from the copyright. Property tax on a house, or a farm, or a restaurant have to be paid whether they are creating income or not.

Shari

Copyright cases are adjudicated in federal courts, which are funded through federal income taxes. So copyright holders are helping to support copyright laws.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by hildea

A question to those of you who are in favour of eternal copyright:

Do you think it would be a good thing if Mobileread library and Gutenberg would have to delete almost all its works? (This would, obviously, happen if copyright law was changed the way you want.)
Or do you think that it would be regrettable, but that the upsides (which are still pretty unclear to me) make it worth it?

How do you go back and copyright everything currently in the public domain? For example, who gets the copyright for Beowulf or Chaucer?

Unless it can be done in an equitable manner, I'm not in favor of re-establishing copyright for past works.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

How do you go back and copyright everything currently in the public domain? For example, who gets the copyright for Beowulf or Chaucer?

Unless it can be done in an equitable manner, I'm not in favor of re-establishing copyright for past works.

So you're an après moi le déluge kind of monkey. Nice. Let the death of creativity hit the folks in a hundred years.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

So you're an après moi le déluge kind of monkey. Nice. Let the death of creativity hit the folks in a hundred years.

Depriving future generations of the free use of Mickey Mouse is not going to kill creativity.

In a hundred years, kids will be enjoying The Continuing Adventures of Cosmic Mouse

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Depriving future generations of the free use of Mickey Mouse is not going to kill creativity.

True, it won't. But eternal copyright would mean that also works being written now that aren't mere entertainment fluff, and that might become classics, could never be used the way our classics have been and are being used.

As I said in an earlier post, if it was only the Mouse and the Marvel frigging cinematic effing universe, they can choke on eternal copyright for all that I care. But their eternal copyright would drag everything down with it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

True, it won't. But eternal copyright would mean that also works being written now that aren't mere entertainment fluff, and that might become classics, could never be used the way our classics have been and are being used.

Used in what manner? How does "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" address anything that couldn't have been accomplished by creating new characters interacting with zombies?

As I said in an earlier post, if it was only the Mouse and the Marvel frigging cinematic effing universe, they can choke on eternal copyright for all that I care. But their eternal copyright would drag everything down with it.

Then make eternal copyright selective. Since most laws are arbitrary to begin with, exempt the Mouse and move on. It's very doable. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

FTR, I'd support partial eternal copyright as a partial victory only.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Used in what manner? How does "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" address anything that couldn't have been accomplished by creating new characters interacting with zombies?

Because it might be funny as a story in itself, but it's a lot funnier if you already know the character's from Austen's novel. Although I didn't find Pride and Prejudice and Zombies all that great anyway.

But think of something like Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels. They wouldn't make any sense at all if they couldn't use fictional characters that everybody knows. There are so many allusions and jokes that wouldn't work. Or, also mentioned before, Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. The whole play lives from the use of Shakespeare's characters.

Or think of how much modernist literature lives from incorporating quotes from older works.

Or take Bob Dylan: For over twenty years, basically everything he has written has been stitched together from quotes taken from everybody: from Ovid to Time magazine, and digging into the sources can give the writing new dimensions. (Of course Dylan is rich enough to blithely ignore copyright; he just goes ahead and uses anything, and if somebody sues, he settles with them. Not an MO everybody can afford, but the way he works with other texts should be open to every writer at least for PD stuff.)

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then make eternal copyright selective. Since most laws are arbitrary to begin with, exempt the Mouse and move on. It's very doable. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

Good luck with that. So who should get eternal copyright and why? I don't see that as a workable proposition at all.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Good luck with that. So who should get eternal copyright and why?

Whoever can bribe the most lawmakers. It's how our system works.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Because it might be funny as a story in itself, but it's a lot funnier if you already know the character's from Austen's novel. Although I didn't find Pride and Prejudice and Zombies all that great anyway.

But think of something like Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels. They wouldn't make any sense at all if they couldn't use fictional characters that everybody knows. There are so many allusions and jokes that wouldn't work. Or, also mentioned before, Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. The whole play lives from the use of Shakespeare's characters.

Or think of how much modernist literature lives from incorporating quotes from older works.

Or take Bob Dylan: For over twenty years, basically everything he has written has been stitched together from quotes taken from everybody: from Ovid to Time magazine, and digging into the sources can give the writing new dimensions. (Of course Dylan is rich enough to blithely ignore copyright; he just goes ahead and uses anything, and if somebody sues, he settles with them. Not an MO everybody can afford, but the way he works with other texts should be open to every writer at least for PD stuff.)

Nothing you've stated is a compelling reason for society to steal the works of authors. If authors didn't have public domain works to incorporate into their stories, they'd draw inspiration from elsewhere. There's no reason why stories have to incorporate characters the public is already familiar with.

The human imagination is not limited.