A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I do like life +50 better than life +70 (although I wish people would stop blaming that on Disney and start blaming it on Berne)

50 is Berne. 70 is Disney. 95 years for corporate works is definitely Disney.

I'd *love* to see the US decide to retroactively limit copyright to the Berne convention minimums, and throw everything registered by a corporation before 1960 into the public domain, deal with Life+50 for personally-authored works.

Expect an increasing number of bizarre copyright law attempts as Steamboat Willy gets closer to the public domain, but congressfolks are also being barraged by the problem of orphan works, so "just add another 25 years" no longer seems like a reasonable reaction to their increasingly-vocal net-savvy constituents.

...but I would like for there to be a provision allowing orphaned works to come off of copyright much sooner...maybe there is a $500 relicensing fee every 20 years or something.

One proposal that was rejected was a $20 relicensing fee. Because it would be TOO HARD for copyright owners to be required to do ANYTHING to claim their rights.

But in general, I think that a life + X formulation is the best way of fixing a copyright date. A straightforward term of years could lead to a situation where the author is still alive and loses his rights to a body of work he might still be working on...or planning on working on.

So? We managed to produce books, movies, songs and artwork for hundreds of years on that system.

Publication + 25 years; extend another 25 for a hefty fee. Unpublished works: Life+25, or publication+25 if published posthumously.

Of course, one of the big problems that mainstream media companies haven't touched is "what is publication?"... 50 years ago, that was simple. Now, not so much. Is a locked blog post published? A private email cc'd to 10 people? Code written for a website that's members-only and has no membership? (Company dissolved before it got started, perhaps.) Office memos pinned to corkboards?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

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.

Whether a copyright is an asset is something I am not sure of.
The book itself is an asset if people buy the book and I assume that is true if people are willing to buy the copyright?

A loaf of bread is an asset until you sell it or eat it. A recipe for a loaf of bread is an asset if it allows you to sell more bread.

The bread is tangible in that you can hold it, smell it, eat it or throw it out. You cannot do all of these things with the recipe but it lasts a lot longer.

And how would you suggest a government(law) treating copyright?

Take the case of an author dying at 27 or at 97.
Both might have an equal number of published works. Both might be successful or one, or neither.

27 year old author has children, 97 year old author has great grandchildren. All might be affluent or all might be poverty stricken or any combination.

If the book becomes popular after the authors death does the reading public have the greater right to read these books for free while the authors dependants or inheritors go without? And how can any agency make these determinations on a case by case situation. Would this not put government employees in charge of individual determinations that they are not all qualified to make at a greater expense to most readers through taxes than the current antiquainted system?

I agree with HarryT on this one

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

not to be flip but hey, thats life. why go to work tomorrow, you might die.

if you've got a contract for your book then you already got paid for it. why should your kids be entitled to continue receiving profits from a job that was completed and that you already received payment for? adjust the royalty system then so that authors aren't waiting to get paid.

i respect authors. i appreciate the time they gave to something they enjoy doing. i just don't think their heirs are entitled to profit in perpetuity from their writing. if they want more money they should pick up a pen themselves.

an author who writes solely in hopes that they're setting up a gravy train for their kids isn't one i'd like to support anyway.

Anyone who acquires anything of value that they don't plan on selling before they die or is saving money they don't plan on spending is trying to set up a gravy train for their kids. I personally don't see it as evil even though my parents did not manage to do it. It is a survival of the species mechanism perhaps.

Helen

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Blame where blame is due. The Berne convention only calls for Life + 50. All the extensions are from lobbying by large corporate copyright holders, in virtually every nation where copyright is respected. The Rodent House is the most vociferious about extensions.....(and thse same large copyright holders demand that the US not follow Berne when it suits them, hence no public domain day in the US since 1978 (with one year (1922) as an oops exception...)

You're right about Berne; I was thinking about the EU copyright directive.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

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.

There's no balancing. Limited copyright is legalized theft. Books (and other works of "art") should belong to the rights holder until such time as those rights are voluntarily relinquished.

Since society has some warped view on the definition of property, I'll gladly take the extensions that keep getting tacked onto existing copyright.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

There's no balancing. Limited copyright is legalized theft. Books (and other works of "art") should belong to the rights holder until such time as those rights are voluntarily relinquished.

Since society has some warped view on the definition of property, I'll gladly take the extensions that keep getting tacked onto existing copyright.

You can say that copyright is theft, but based on what? Property exists without government, you can carry your possessions on your body or lock them up to prevent others from taking them.

But copyright is meaningless without government; copyright is a government-granted limited time monopoly on copying. Unlike physical property, once you let people read a book, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from copying it. You can get the government to enforce your limited time monopoly.

[QuantumIguana]

If limited copyright is legalized theft, then so is limited patents. This means that every invention which is based on some other invention without permission is theft.

If you really mean that, then give up everything which is based on "stolen" inventions. Don't wear clothes, everything you're wearing was invented by someone. Don't live in houses. No knives, someone invented that. Even fire, the means for starting fires was invented.

And if you really think that limited copyright is theft, do you pay for all of your public domain books?

And further, if limited copyright is some sort of "warped understanding" of property, then why is copyright of any sort only 300 years old?

[Giggleton]

Perpetual copyright can only work when it is not possible to sell copyrightable goods. Meaning everything is available with varying levels of access fees.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Perpetual copyright can only work when it is not possible to sell copyrightable goods. Meaning everything is available with varying levels of access fees.

That doesn't make a bit of sense. Making everything available at different levels of access fees is called SELLING.

Copyright is a government-granted exclusive right to copy. Like patents, this protection is given in exchange for the work eventually entering the public domain. It doesn't have anything to do with selling.

Both perpetual copyright and no copyright at all are bad ideas.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That doesn't make a bit of sense. Making everything available at different levels of access fees is called SELLING.

The first level is access itself, available to everyone. Everything else is negotiable.

[QuantumIguana]

Yes, the selling price is negotiable. The buyer may attempt to come to an agreement with the seller. If they can agree to a price, they make the exchange at that price. If not, no exchange is made.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

There's no balancing. Limited copyright is legalized theft. Books (and other works of "art") should belong to the rights holder until such time as those rights are voluntarily relinquished.

Limited copyright can't be construed as legalized theft, because it was copyright that essentially created the notion of intellectual property in the first place.

If you want to retain perpetual rights over a work of art, then there is an easy way to do it; never publish it. Ever.

As it is, copyright is an agreement that is made between authors and the public (via the government) that provides an incentive to publish (limited exclusive rights) in return for agreeing to let the work go into the public domain. If you publish you essentially have become a party of this agreement.

Since society has some warped view on the definition of property, I'll gladly take the extensions that keep getting tacked onto existing copyright.

What any definition of property other than yours is warped?

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You can say that copyright is theft, but based on what? Property exists without government, you can carry your possessions on your body or lock them up to prevent others from taking them.

But copyright is meaningless without government; copyright is a government-granted limited time monopoly on copying. Unlike physical property, once you let people read a book, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from copying it. You can get the government to enforce your limited time monopoly.

Try owning a field without government.

--
Bill

[The Straven]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Try owning a field without government.

Have to point out that the history of Man has proven that one can own almost anything and anyone given sufficient force.

[The Straven]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Limited copyright is legalized theft.

Very good. What evidence can you provide to support your assertion? I take it you are necessarily arguing that copyright is primarily a moral rather than a legal concern; just how bad is limited copyright? Is it worse than manslaughter? First degree murder? Serial killing? Genocide? If I give my grandmother a couple of mp3s, is that better or worse than killing puppies? If I confess to my priest that I made a photocopy of a Farside strip to hang up at work, should he consider turning me in? Just how bad is theft itself, anyway? Maybe we should pass a law that punishes shoplifters by cutting their hands off, just to be safe.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Since society has some warped view on the definition of property...

Again, care to support your assertion? History suggests that your view is in fact the warped one. I present the writings and opinions of the U.S. Founding Fathers and other Enlightenment figures as evidence.