A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I think your conclusions make certain assumptions about the purpose of copyright. At least in the United States I will go with the Constitution where at least one of the purposes of copyright is to provide an incentive to authors to create and publish more works. So any term of copyright should be tested against this idea.

Having life copyright can provide a significant disincentive for an author to publish new works. One wonders whether J.D. Salinger would have spent his last 40-50 years not publishing anything if he had been unable to rely on the royalty checks for Catcher in the Rye?

Likewise, knowing that the work can provide income for his family after death can provide an author who is late in life an incentive to write one last book (And an incentive for publishing companies to purchase it).

I really don't think that line of reasoning has much merit. The few authors I know write because they want to communicate something or has stories banging on the inside of their skulls, desperately wanting out. I'm sure there are people writing only to make money, but I'm equally sure those are the people whose books I've never managed to finish reading, or will never bother picking up.

To suggest (if that was what you intended) that J. D. Salinger, or any other great author, would not have written x, y or z if copyright had ended on their deathbed and they wouldn't be able to monetise their art, is both ludicrous and somewhat insulting in my opinion.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

To suggest (if that was what you intended) that J. D. Salinger, or any other great author, would not have written x, y or z if copyright had ended on their deathbed and they wouldn't be able to monetise their art, is both ludicrous and somewhat insulting in my opinion.

It would be perfectly true for authors such as William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. Both of those gentlemen wrote solely for money.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably, then, you'd also like to prohibit any form of inheritance? An author's copyrights are his assets which he passes to his heirs.

I'm pretty sure you know full well that that is a false assumption. An author's copyrights are part of his assets only because current laws say they are. Laws can be changed, to make this no longer be the case.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It would be perfectly true for authors such as William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. Both of those gentlemen wrote solely for money.

I very, very much doubt that to be the case.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably, then, you'd also like to prohibit any form of inheritance? An author's copyrights are his assets which he passes to his heirs.

Exactly.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I would like to see life + 10 years. But definitely agree that while living, the author should have complete control over his/her work.

Control includes the right to sell their copyright to anyone of their choosing, including a corporation?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I very, very much doubt that to be the case.

That may be so... but your doubts do not reflect reality... Dickens wasn't exactly a great success until he wrote and he relied on his book and associated earnings for his lifestyle and that includes everything from food onwards... and William relied on his play and stage incomes/patronage for his lifestyle... without those incomes then there would have been very little work as they would have either starved to death or had to do something else for a living... and only the wealthy had "spare time" for a writing "hobby"

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by nogle

Control includes the right to sell their copyright to anyone of their choosing, including a corporation?

Of course it does. However, the length of the copyright shouldn't change. It should expire 10 years after the death of the author.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I really don't think that line of reasoning has much merit. The few authors I know write because they want to communicate something or has stories banging on the inside of their skulls, desperately wanting out. I'm sure there are people writing only to make money, but I'm equally sure those are the people whose books I've never managed to finish reading, or will never bother picking up.

To suggest (if that was what you intended) that J. D. Salinger, or any other great author, would not have written x, y or z if copyright had ended on their deathbed and they wouldn't be able to monetise their art, is both ludicrous and somewhat insulting in my opinion.

I specifically mentioned J. D. Salinger because it is generally acknowledged that even though he only published 4 books in his lifetime (and none in the last 50 years of his life), that he wrote quite a few more since the publication of his last book. He was able to not publish because of the royalties he made on his novels (particularly Catcher in the Rye). So, in his case, it may not have stopped him writing, but it did stop him publishing. Now most of these books will probably be published, but who knows if some were lost in the intervening decades. I.e., this specific line of argument is against the current life + term we currently have in favor of a shorter fixed period.

That being said, lets say copyright ends at death. It is generally agreed that Salinger wrote at least 15 novels in the last 50 years. If his family can't profit from those novels, what motivation do they have to publish them? Likewise, if a publisher can't have exclusive rights to them, it lowers their incentive to actually publish the novels.

However, the other argument was that money provides an incentive for writers to write. Yes some writers will write regardless of whether or not their books will make money, but many authors do write exactly because of the money it provides them and some of them are quite good. Why do you think that Charles Dickens cared so much about the fact that his works were not copyrighted in the United States? Why do you think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle continued to write Sherlock Holmes stories long after he grew to despise the character (Though I will grant that his later Holmes stories are not up to the same standard as the first ones). Most authors want to make money from their work; it may not be their primary goal, but it is an important one.

--
Bill

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It would be perfectly true for authors such as William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. Both of those gentlemen wrote solely for money.

Whoa. English Major Flag On The Play. What we actually know and can verify about Shakespeare The Person is so meager that no one can say what motivated him to do what he did. There's still considerable controversy about whether all the plays and poems attributed to that name came from the same writer or if some were written by (or in collaboration with) someone else.

Dickens, on the other hand, did write for the money, but there is a considerable amount of people who are of the opinion that his works would have better had he not been paid in the manner that he was.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

If his family can't profit from those novels, what motivation do they have to publish them? Likewise, if a publisher can't have exclusive rights to them, it lowers their incentive to actually publish the novels.

Whatever is wrong with doing stuff, whatever stuff it might be, for the benefit of culture and society in general? To suggest that no-one will do x if they can't make shedloads of money off it is not just, in my opinion, a fallacy, but also, again, somewhat insulting to a huge number of people. And I say that as someone who has relatively little faith in humanity in general.

However, the other argument was that money provides an incentive for writers to write. Yes some writers will write regardless of whether or not their books will make money, but many authors do write exactly because of the money it provides them and some of them are quite good.

When exactly did this turn from "copyright to end at death" to "no copyright at all"? Because surely that's what you are suggesting?

A good author's books will (hopefully) sell well and earn that author a good income during his or her lifetime. In what way then has the incentive to write for money been removed by limiting copyright to lifetime only? And what is wrong with that author saving some of that income if he or she want to leave something to the next generation? That, after all, is the way most people have to do these things.

The same point addresses Dickens' writing - he made money doing so, during his lifetime, and would hence have continued writing even if copyright ended on his deathbed. Personally I believe that once he had started writing, he would have done so even if it made him little or no money, but that's neither here, nor there, as it can neither be proved, nor disproved.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Whatever is wrong with doing stuff, whatever stuff it might be, for the benefit of culture and society in general?

I don't recall anyone saying there was anything wrong with that.

To suggest that no-one will do x if they can't make shedloads of money off it is not just, in my opinion, a fallacy, but also, again, somewhat insulting to a huge number of people.

Who is saying no one will do X unless they can make money at it? But people do have less incentive to create if they can't make money at it.

A good author's books will (hopefully) sell well and earn that author a good income during his or her lifetime. In what way then has the incentive to write for money been removed by limiting copyright to lifetime only?

In the last year of his life, Ulysses S. Grant found out he was dying of cancer. He sat down and wrote his memoir, to provide for his family, as he was destitute. It was published shortly after his death. If the copyright had been limited to his own life, his family would have made no money, thus the incentive to write his memoirs would not have existed.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably, then, you'd also like to prohibit any form of inheritance? An author's copyrights are his assets which he passes to his heirs.

Copyrights are not assets in the same way tangible property is an asset; authors are grudgingly given a monopoly over a particular expression to encourage them to produce, but they don't "own" the idea or the way its expressed. Copyright is only useful to the extent that it encourages the creation of new creative works, but it is detrimental when that monopoly prevents the creation of new and interesting works by disallowing others to make use of the copyrighted expression.

Copyright should be treated differently than other heritable assets because it is different; treating it as just another form of property is a gross oversimplification that ignores the careful balancing that is at the core of copyright law.

[PKFFW]

Authors should stop being so damn arrogant and selfish as to expect money for creativity! They should just write for the pure enjoyment of writing and not expect anything in return. They have stories in their heads and, as they are our bitches, it is their duty to put those stories on paper(or eink as the case may be) for us to read. Any author who has even the slightest wishful dream of earning money from their creative endeavours is one author we can all do without!

Let there be no more of this gibberish about copyright.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Authors should stop being so damn arrogant and selfish as to expect money for creativity! They should just write for the pure enjoyment of writing and not expect anything in return. They have stories in their heads and, as they are our bitches, it is their duty to put those stories on paper(or eink as the case may be) for us to read. Any author who has even the slightest wishful dream of pricing their creative endeavours is one author we can all do without!

Let there be no more of this gibberish about copyright.

fixed.