Which classics fall out of copyright in 2012?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Laws that say so. That's the difference.

I think the difference is money... Laws can be changed. But certain laws won't be changed because people (or groups of people) with a lot of money don't want them to be changed.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I think the difference is money... Laws can be changed. But certain laws won't be changed because people (or groups of people) with a lot of money don't want them to be changed.

The real question is --- why is it good for society when a book enters public domain? A book that can be sold creates jobs at publishers and retailers. A PD book creates no value. And those who can't afford to buy it can always go to the library.

[HarryT]

As a counter argument, Hans, I'd suggest that there are far more people making money from producing and selling different editions of Dickens's work now than there were when the book protected by copyright. So, does society benefit from the fact that Charles Dickens's work is in the public domain? Yes, I think it does.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a counter argument, Hans, I'd suggest that there are far more people making money from producing and selling different editions of Dickens's work now than there were when the book protected by copyright. So, does society benefit from the fact that Charles Dickens's work is in the public domain? Yes, I think it does.

Then there's absolutely no reason for copyright to extend beyond death.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then there's absolutely no reason for copyright to extend beyond death.

Yes, there is; to provide an income for an author's dependants. The question is, though, how long after death is reasonable. Most people here probably feel that 70 years is too long.

[johnnyb]

Originally Posted by osnova

And yet, differences there are:
1. Tangible property is pretty much fungible (unless it's a work of art or protected by a patent). IP is not. So, monopoly over IP is monopoly over a unique product. To make my point, think of somebody owning the Grand Canyon or entire Mississippi. Which leads us to the second point.

Ok, so what about money. This is an intangible property, too. Should, what has not been spent by heirs 70 years after the moneymaker's death be released into public domain (which it is somehow in the form of inheritance tax but this is a bit of a one-sided institution that does not include corporations).
And to defend my claim that money is intangible while it is potentially tied to tangibility: if money is not spent, that is, tied to tangible goods, it is unnecessary (with certain exceptions that do not violate the rule).

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a counter argument, Hans, I'd suggest that there are far more people making money from producing and selling different editions of Dickens's work now than there were when the book protected by copyright. So, does society benefit from the fact that Charles Dickens's work is in the public domain? Yes, I think it does.

But that was in the age of print. Such opportunities are very limited now, special editions, etc.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But that was in the age of print.

I'm afraid you've completely lost me there. Care to elaborate?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, there is; to provide an income for an author's dependants. The question is, though, how long after death is reasonable. Most people here probably feel that 70 years is too long.

Harry, Please explain to me why copyright, separate from all other forms of human economic endevour, should allow the harvesting of money after death as part of it's existence. You can't get it from any form of labor, nor from patent. (We can quibble over trademark.)

Why are copyrights so special?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by johnnyb

Ok, so what about money. This is an intangible property, too. Should, what has not been spent by heirs 70 years after the moneymaker's death be released into public domain (which it is somehow in the form of inheritance tax but this is a bit of a one-sided institution that does not include corporations).
And to defend my claim that money is intangible while it is potentially tied to tangibility: if money is not spent, that is, tied to tangible goods, it is unnecessary (with certain exceptions that do not violate the rule).

The inhereted money was earned while the original person was alive. It wasn't earned by the original person after death. Only copyright allows the dead person to earn money...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then there's absolutely no reason for copyright to extend beyond death.

Got it in one!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Harry, Please explain to me why copyright, separate from all other forms of human economic endevour, should allow the harvesting of money after death as part of it's existence. You can't get it from any form of labor, nor from patent. (We can quibble over trademark.)

Why are copyrights so special?

It's not "separate from all other forms of human endeavour". If you buy shares in a company, you can leave those shares to your family, who will be able to "harvest money" from them after your death. An author's legacy to his family is the income from his books.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not "separate from all other forms of human endeavour". If you buy shares in a company, you can leave those shares to your family, who will be able to "harvest money" from them after your death. An author's legacy to his family is the income from his books.

Why? If I die, my family won't enjoy my pension...

And I won't buy a comparison between a company and a book. Any company is a tool to generate produce to generate money. A book is not the tool, it's the produce.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not "separate from all other forms of human endeavour". If you buy shares in a company, you can leave those shares to your family, who will be able to "harvest money" from them after your death. An author's legacy to his family is the income from his books.

But to buy those shares in the first place, I had to earn money. Nobody except copyright holders can earn money after they're dead.

At death I can pass on my worldly goods, based upon what I earned. I can defer payment of money, lots of things. But I can't earn new money. The assets I pass on may earn income, but they do that irrrespective of my corporeal status. (Or who owns them.)

Only copyright holders keep earning from their labor after death. Nobody else. I don't see the philosophical reason for them to be treated differently.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But to buy those shares in the first place, I had to earn money. Nobody except copyright holders can earn money after they're dead.

Sure they can. If you're in a company pension scheme, that pension will (generally speaking) continue to pay money to your wife after you die. Royalty payments are a writer's pension fund.