Petition to reduce US copyright to 28 years

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Copyright (as it is currently used in the US), is best thought of a price supports for artists. Sorta like the old "soil banking" for farmers (I.e. paying a farmer not to farm so prices will stay higher for those farmer who do farm their land). It keeps the old works off the shelves, competing with the new art.

That may not have been the intention, but that is the use today. An enormous amount of art was made in the US prior to 1976. The golden age of Hollywood, the golden age of Radio shows, painters and illustrators like Maxfield Parrish, et. al., the maturation of the pulps to literature, like the golden age of detective fiction, science fiction, ect., Jazz and Big Band music, and on, and on...

Nobody complained that they couldn't create art because copyright was too short, instead, they created and made (or lost) money. Artforms rose and fell, but not because copyright was too short.

But now, under the old rules, much of that would have fallen into the Public Domain. And the P.D. doesn't cost anything. This leads to a two-fold situation.

#1. If P.D. stuff is free, why should somebody pay for the latest? Why not be cheap and get old (but new to you) art? Of course, not everybody will take that attitude, but for every one that does, that's one less sale of current material.
#2. If enough people actually wants that old stuff, the extended copyright holders can re-issue it (if they bother to choose to) for a profit. actually a bigger profit that new stuff, because, for the most part, the upfront expenses have already been paid. Nobody wants to look at this way but by selling it as near or at new retail price, the old works don't undercut the current art pricing.

BearMountain - how much worse off, as a reader, to have all the US works before Jan 1 1955 in the Public Domain? As a writer, yes, because of the tremendous amount of low cost competition, but as a reader? I don't see the problem.

If you say this will cause a drop in new art creation, the market for people who want new, will always be there. What you will lose is the market of those who are forced to pay for old at the same rate as new, and who therefore may opt for new, instead. And frankly, the world doesn't owe you that market...

So assuming that books from back then are suddenly cheaper, the COST to me as a reader is that any time you push prices down on goods, it will push prices down on current goods (or could.) That sounds great to me as a reader until my favorite writers stop writing. Those writers writing today may not be inclined to continue a series (even if they want to, their publisher may say, sorry, not enough sales.) I've already had multiple series cancelled that I was enjoying and at least one writer who hasn't written in years. It's just not a viable career for many a writer.

I've already seen some of this "lack of buying" due to all the freebies. I'm not saying the world owes me any market. I put out a product. I put a price on it. I think it's a fair price and because I don't put DRM on it, I have to trust the reader to be honest--and either pay it because they want the book or pass on it because it isn't worth the few bucks to them. If enough people decide it isn't worth a few bucks, then I'll eventually move on to something else. I don't think it's a terrible thing to have copyright protection that keeps (or may keep) some other person from copying characters/phrases from my novels, pasting the entire thing into a new cover and selling it, etc.

I view copyright as: If you don't want to pay for it, don't. But I don't think copyright HURTS any reader because there are multiple ways to obtain materials for reasonable costs that include a price tag of zero. I think lack of copyright or too short of a copyright could actually hurt writers and readers in the long run.

If current readers want the convenience of the latest and greatest technology (ebooks) I don't see any reason the owners shouldn't be protected and make a buck or two. If readers don't want to pay for it, don't. And some older books? Get them the old fashioned way by buying used or whatever other legal means is available.

I'm not for price-gouging, but no one is going to produce other goods for me for free and I really don't think copyright is harmful to readers because there are multiple ways to get the good for a reasonable price.

In the old days it was sometimes impossible to find a book. With the internet, so much more is available. It may not be in the form I want or convenient, but generally speaking I can find it.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

"You're all a bunch of greedy bastards who want everything without ever paying for anything."

versus

"You're all a bunch of greedy bastards who want to get paid for everything in perpetuity."

This sums it up nicely. I keep hearing "If authors didn't get paid, they wouldn't have any inspiration to write". True....

Well, the reverse is true, too. If I got lucky and somehow, wrote one giant hit of a novel that everyone likes... and constantly made millions because people couldn't stop buying my one masterpiece, (guaranteed royalties until I died and beyond) why would I need to create more? I'd be rolling in money and could have retired and bought a nice house before reaching 25. That would be however if money were the *deciding* factor on whether or not I wrote.

In that novel by Nick Hornby "About a Boy" the lead character Will is a caricature of a man who has never had a job because "My dad wrote a Christmas Carol once and I live off the royalties". Now, that was a fiction (It's been a while since I read the book, but I own the movie on DVD) but illustrates a point.

I see people who work in real-time jobs who need to come up with creative ideas on a daily basis in order to get paid for their work. Their creativity has a shelf-life, and they need to keep producing to get more money.

This is only my opinion, because I'm on the "I wish I could afford to buy more books" end of things, and I am like a kid in a candy store at PG's library, saving the bought stuff for things I theoretically "can't live without".... so consider the source.

Having a shorter copyright would definitely be appreciated, but I've been able to read books thus far, so in the end, but business side of things isn't up to me.

[BearMountainBooks]

By the way, in reference to innovation still occurring and being quite healthy under older copyright rules or in cases where copyright/patents didn't exist at all--it should be noted that back in earlier days, it was much, much more difficult to "copy" or redistribute goods. It took a lot more work to take a book (in or out of copyright) and reproduce it. The lack if technology made theft or redistribution unlikely. So innovation and money-making could occur without as much threat as exists today.

The same holds true with patents on technology or drugs. The knowledge to recreate a drug was difficult to come by. The ability to copy car technology was not easy to come by. The sheer lack of being able to share intelligence protected innovators for a time. These days, not so much.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

So assuming that books from back then are suddenly cheaper, the COST to me as a reader is that any time you push prices down on goods, it will push prices down on current goods (or could.) That sounds great to me as a reader until my favorite writers stop writing.

Would those be your favorite writers if you had access to the full range of books produced in the last century? Or rather: would new readers, kids just learning to enjoy books, prefer books by modern writers, who write contemporary stories but have unfinished series that may never get done, over books released several decades ago, which have the advantage of being complete sets?

Would modern romance writers be glutting the market, if the entire backlog of romance books were widely available at low cost? Some would probably sell well--trends in literature are different now--but the majority of the midlist in most genres would probably be unable to compete with the weight of history.

I don't think this is a bad thing. The public shouldn't be paying romance writers to re-invent the third wheel just because the last hundred times that story was done, it wasn't reprinted and fell into obscurity. Maybe if writers had to produce *new* situations, characters, and snappy dialog, the profession would get more respect--and the authors who were able to produce a new twist on longstanding themes would get paid more.

Those writers writing today may not be inclined to continue a series (even if they want to, their publisher may say, sorry, not enough sales.) I've already had multiple series cancelled that I was enjoying and at least one writer who hasn't written in years. It's just not a viable career for many a writer.

So, we should cheat the public out of connection with their history, not allowing open sharing and distribution of the works that shaped our parents' or grandparents' youths, in order to support a handful of writers who can't write or market as well EL James?

(That's exaggerated for effect. I am not saying that authors who've had to give up on their careers are not as good as EL James. I *am* saying that "find customers" is an essential part of a writer's career... and I don't support the idea of "remove other options from potential customers" as a fair and reasonable way to go about that.)

I view copyright as: If you don't want to pay for it, don't. But I don't think copyright HURTS any reader because there are multiple ways to obtain materials for reasonable costs that include a price tag of zero. I think lack of copyright or too short of a copyright could actually hurt writers and readers in the long run.

Sure. But I suspect we disagree on what "too short copyright" would be. I'm in favor of 10 years for free, and then a need to register for 10 more years, and re-register every 10 years after that, with increasing reg fees. If you want to keep your works away from public use, pay the public for the right to have a monopoly.

And some older books? Get them the old fashioned way by buying used or whatever other legal means is available.

So, "readers don't NEED to read those books, so there's no reason to allow easy distribution. But we NEED to support today's authors, even if they're not writing stuff that's as good as those older books."

(Again: exaggerating for effect; not saying you directly meant that.)

In the old days it was sometimes impossible to find a book. With the internet, so much more is available. It may not be in the form I want or convenient, but generally speaking I can find it.

"Not in the form I want" is an inconvenience to me. It's total inaccessibility to some readers.

Almost none--maybe none--of John Kenneth Galbraith's books are legitimately available as ebooks. Most are out of print. I suppose it's fine that people who need large-text versions or audiobooks wait another 70 years to read his books.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

By the way, in reference to innovation still occurring and being quite healthy under older copyright rules or in cases where copyright/patents didn't exist at all--it should be noted that back in earlier days, it was much, much more difficult to "copy" or redistribute goods. It took a lot more work to take a book (in or out of copyright) and reproduce it. The lack if technology made theft or redistribution unlikely. So innovation and money-making could occur without as much threat as exists today.

The same holds true with patents on technology or drugs. The knowledge to recreate a drug was difficult to come by. The ability to copy car technology was not easy to come by. The sheer lack of being able to share intelligence protected innovators for a time. These days, not so much.

I've made that point over and over. Technology created copyright, technology is now killing it. The only way to stop technology from killing copyright is to get rid of the technology involved. And that isn't going to happen. Too embedded for other purposes, too much money involved.

When gunpowder became used for weapontry, chivalry died. Many people were horrified at the time, but nothing they could do could stop it's death, except for getting rid of gunpowder. In Japan, they had the same problem, they did get rid of gunpowder, and stayed isolated, without gunpowder for 2 centuries.

Do you want to shut the doors to the rest of the world and scrap all the computers, to keep your favorite author writing? Think about it...

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

When gunpowder became used for weapontry, chivalry died. Many people were horrified at the time, but nothing they could do could stop it's death, except for getting rid of gunpowder. In Japan, they had the same problem, they did get rid of gunpowder, and stayed isolated, without gunpowder for 2 centuries.

Ehhhr, no they didn't. Firearms however, did not evolve. When travelling to Edo the retinue of a Daimyo had to check their weapons at a toll gate, they were then returned when they went back to their domain. In essence the Japanese had 15th century technology from Portugal available to them, since there was no internal strife from 1600 on and no extrenal threats until Commodore Perry they never felt any need to develop those firearms.

[AnemicOak]

What would be wrong with a 28 year renewable copyright that can be renewed throughout the life of the creator and then once by the creators estate after death?


I know there are some niche books I'd like to get ahold of for personal research purposes that were printed only once decades ago that can only be had for $400-$500+ for a beat up copy, IF you can find one at all. If the copyright on those had been allowed to expire due to lack of renewal there would be a better chance at them being accessible now.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

What would be wrong with a 28 year renewable copyright that can be renewed throughout the life of the creator and then once by the creators estate after death?


I know there are some niche books I'd like to get ahold of for personal research purposes that were printed only once decades ago that can only be had for $400-$500+ for a beat up copy, IF you can find one at all. If the copyright on those had been allowed to expire due to lack of renewal there would be a better chance at them being accessible now.

By the same token, having more stuff in the public domain wouldn't allow business to keep anything out of publication, and corporate America would lose one of its censorship tools. 1984 and 451 aren't kept in print for nothing, y'know.

[Quexos]

Reducing (c) to 28 years would be good for consumers. Therefore I support it.

[ficbot]

To me, it's not an issue of engaging in this action or that one in order to make the work available for free to readers. It's about freeing it up for innovation by others as part of our shared cultural heritage. For instance, Gregory Maguire could not have written Wicked if he was not able to draw upon the public domain classic Wizard of Oz.

And it's also a reciprocal respect issue: as you, the writer, were enriched during your education by these other authors and were free to draw upon their public domain materials for this sort of creative adaptation, so should other writers down the line be able to benefit from and use your creative works when they enter the public domain. Even Shakespeare drew upon other sources. It's part of creative life. You take, but then you give back later.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

What would be wrong with a 28 year renewable copyright that can be renewed throughout the life of the creator and then once by the creators estate after death?

I like the idea of a renewable copyright. And I would even go so far as to say the cost to renew (because of course the government would charge for the right) shouldn't be prohibitive.

I for one don't particularly care if Disney keeps an everlasting copyright on Mickey Mouse. Let them keep renewing it.

But allow all those forgotten "orphaned" works out to become of interest to some, just because they'd then be possibly available for free.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Yeah, I'm not seeing the upside to this for me at all, not even as a reader. Good Gads, I'm trying to make a living from my writing. I really don't quite understand all the negativity towards copyright lately. For the most part books are still one of the cheapest entertainment going and there are multiple ways buy or borrow them too.

Sure, I get that a 25 dollar ebook that can't be lent is steep. But a 25 dollar hardback can be lent, sold or shared--or bought used for half or less than half.

I'm a buyer of art and books. While making a bunch of artwork public domain so that I could use it for a cover might sound nice, it isn't practical to put the artist out of work. They make a pittance as it is for the most part.

Lately I wanted to try a bunch of new authors, but didn't want to spend 8 to 10 bucks a book. I was able to borrow them from the library for 2.50 each. That's a total bargain.

I know authors who have stopped writing because there wasn't enough money in it. One of them was a favorite author from way back. She had to move on to other things. Yeah, there are other books. Yeah, some people don't care. But there's nothing wrong with giving people a chance at their dreams and a chance to make a living. Copyright law even as long as it is today is not keeping anyone from being able to read what they want if they are willing to go find it.

Your library charges per book?

The only ones who really can make a profit from it are the prolific ones, and usually only the ones who are able to do that are the ones who manage to be famous.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Copyrights, under law, are just like trading cards, they can be bought, sold, swapped, ect. If it doesn't help the creator....

That depends entirely on how the content creator chose to dispose of their rights. A content creator who gets a good royalty rate or holds onto their rights will benefit for a long time.

Originally Posted by RSE

What is protected is the middlemen's right to exploit copyrights.

No, what's protected is the rights holder's ability to maintain copyright. A copyright that is kept by the content creator gets the exact same protection as one that is transferred.

In fact, content creators in the US can file to reclaim their copyrights 35 years after publication, if the work was created after 1978 and certain other conditions are met.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Your library charges per book?

The only ones who really can make a profit from it are the prolific ones, and usually only the ones who are able to do that are the ones who manage to be famous.

My library is fairly small so a lot of what I read is interlibrary loan--and that costs me 2.50 per book.

As for most of this, I'll just have to respectfully disagree. I think it's okay to protect the copyright holder for at least a lifetime if not longer. Saying it isn't public domain does not mean the public doesn't have access (as someone above said that I gained from previous works and built upon that--well those works would still be available for me to purchase. Just because they aren't public domain doesn't mean I don't have access to them.) I value books and I value the work that went into them. I don't mind paying something for them. I pay taxes to the library and they buy books. That helps support authors, publishers and innovators.

As for my favorites, and whether older stuff would be my favorites--I have access to even older works now whether they are public domain or not. There's plenty of older stuff out there, some of if PD and some not. And in my case making it public domain would not encourage me to seek it out. It's a recommendation that causes me to seek out a work and the act of paying for it would not keep me from accessing it, assuming it's a fairly accessible fee. If it is not, I will find something else to read and wish luck and happiness on those who can afford the price--just like I might want to drive an Aston Martin or a Lexus, but won't be doing that. I hold no ill will that it's not in my budget, nor do I think that the technology or the car is owed to me as a "public" domain right.

It's fine with me if people want to read only pubic domain works, but it's also fine with me if other authors/writers/publishers attempt to sell that work.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

My library is fairly small so a lot of what I read is interlibrary loan--and that costs me 2.50 per book.

Last time I was able to check out a book thru interlibrary, it didn't cost me a cent as long as I got it back on time.

Not living within the city limits, the only way I could get access to some of the more entertaining books was that way, because the city library kept denying my library card application. Never mind the fact that the city surrounded me on all four sides. If I'd had to pay for that, the parents would've probably nixed it.