Death of copyright, film at 11?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

As an author you have been granted a monopoly on the reproduction of your literary output for your lifetime and for 70 years after that, to encourage you to create.

IMO this is an excessive period. Would you really be less inclined to write, if your monopoly only lasted for the greater of fifty years from publication or your lifetime?

Lifetime+70 is just far too long.

You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with you that life + 70 is excessive. I'd be happy with, say, life + 25. I think the point about it being "more" than life is important; if I'm an author with a wife and young children, they should be able to continue to receive income from my books in the event of my death.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with you that life + 70 is excessive. I'd be happy with, say, life + 25. I think the point about it being "more" than life is important; if I'm an author with a wife and young children, they should be able to continue to receive income from my books in the event of my death.

Are they going to produce more new work? Then what is the point of extending the monopoly?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with you that life + 70 is excessive. I'd be happy with, say, life + 25. I think the point about it being "more" than life is important; if I'm an author with a wife and young children, they should be able to continue to receive income from my books in the event of my death.

Why? You do not get a salary after you have died so why should this time limited monopol behave differently?

[HarryT]

Rather than writing a book, suppose I build a widget-making factory. Should my family be prohibited from continuing to receive the profits from that factory after I die, or should I be allowed to pass the ownership of it to my descendents in my will? It's an exactly parallel situation.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Rather than writing a book, suppose I build a widget-making factory. Should my family be prohibited from continuing to receive the profits from that factory after I die, or should I be allowed to pass the ownership of it to my descendents in my will? It's an exactly parallel situation.

A more accurate question would be: Should your family still own the _idea_ of making widget after your death?

The difference is that your family doesn't actually own the printing press that makes your books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

A more accurate question would be: Should your family still own the _idea_ of making widget after your death?

The difference is that your family doesn't actually own the printing press that makes your books.

If the idea of widget making is a "trade secret", and my family own the factory, then that is precisely what I would be handing on.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If the idea of widget making is a "trade secret", and my family own the factory, then that is precisely what I would be handing on.

The difference is that you don't publish a trade secret. If you don't publish your book you can be sure that no one will copy it during your life, or even well after your death.

BOb

[HarryT]

I'm sorry, but you're just not "getting" the fundamental point - that writing a book is just as much "work" as doing any other job, and to try to use 300 year old ideas of "limited monopolies" to pretend that it isn't is a completely outdated concept. The law needs to be changed to grant the creators of intellectual property the same rights as the creators of "physical" property.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, Ralph, you're on very shaky ground trying to use the ideas of 300 years ago to justify today's laws. For one thing, we live far longer: average life expectency in the early 18th century was under 40; today, in most western countries, it's in the mid 80s. For another, there were virtually no professional authors at that time; today, many people make a living writing, and by other "creative" activities. I can honestly see absolutely no rational justification for considering the "work" of writing a book to be trated differently from any other type of work, in terms of being able to pass on its benefits to one's family.

The whole concept of "owned property" date back 5000 years+. Does that make it more "shaky"?

I can live with life + 25, but I consider it excessive. Let me ask another question. What about patent? If you believe in perpertual intellectual monopoly, shouldn't patent be treated equally? Until the early 1900's, it was. why does the world have no problem cutting off the "property" of an inventor after 20 years or so, but let's you keep your copyright for life + 70? If you think getting a patent is easier that a copyright, I strongly beg to differ.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but you're just not "getting" the fundamental point - that writing a book is just as much "work" as doing any other job, and to try to use 300 year old ideas of "limited monopolies" to pretend that it isn't is a completely outdated concept. The law needs to be changed to grant the creators of intellectual property the same rights as the creators of "physical" property.

So are you suggesting the elimination of automatic reversion to public domain requiring that the owner of the copyright (of course it doesn't have to be the original author since property can be legally transferred) can only place the work into public domain? Public domain is thought to benefit society as a whole.

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I can live with life + 25, but I consider it excessive. Let me ask another question. What about patent? If you believe in perpertual intellectual monopoly,

Sorry - I most certainly do not believe in "perpetual monopolies". I've stated early that I'd be perfectly happy with a "life + 25" copyright term.

shouldn't patent be treated equally? Until the early 1900's, it was.

You are absolutely correct - it should be treated equally. Thank you for pointing out this shocking injustice.

[pdurrant]

Life+25 would give only 30 years of copyright for any work created in the last five years of your life. I think it's better to increase the fixed length and decrease the variable length.

So my preferred option is "the greater of fifty years from publication or the lifetime of the author, whichever is longer".

As for being able to leave the fruits of your labours to your heirs, you can - just like anyone else. The assets you have left over from the total you've earned in your lifetime are yours to leave to anyone you like when you die. (Well, apart from any that the taxman takes.) This includes any residual length of monopoly. Hmm... I wonder if, when the copyright length got extended, the taxman counted that in estate caculations?

Anyone supporting dependents should have life insurance.

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with you that life + 70 is excessive. I'd be happy with, say, life + 25. I think the point about it being "more" than life is important; if I'm an author with a wife and young children, they should be able to continue to receive income from my books in the event of my death.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

So are you suggesting the elimination of automatic reversion to public domain requiring that the owner of the copyright (of course it doesn't have to be the original author since property can be legally transferred) can only place the work into public domain? Public domain is thought to benefit society as a whole.

BOb

No, I'm suggesting equal treatment of physical and intellectual property, and that neither should be able to be handed down "in perpetuity". I believe that all property ownership should be restricted in term.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but you're just not "getting" the fundamental point - that writing a book is just as much "work" as doing any other job, and to try to use 300 year old ideas of "limited monopolies" to pretend that it isn't is a completely outdated concept. The law needs to be changed to grant the creators of intellectual property the same rights as the creators of "physical" property.

I'm "getting it" alright, but you're still incorrect. The only reason your "intellectual property" exists in the first place is those 300 year old ideas. Otherwise, you would have nothing, because there was no legal right ascribed to writing before then.

You have the money the royalites provide, just like I have wages. I don't have to right to wages 100 years after I stop working, why should you? Don't tell me how special your work is.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but you're just not "getting" the fundamental point - that writing a book is just as much "work" as doing any other job, and to try to use 300 year old ideas of "limited monopolies" to pretend that it isn't is a completely outdated concept. The law needs to be changed to grant the creators of intellectual property the same rights as the creators of "physical" property.

I agree. A writer should get a paycheck at the end of the week (while writing), and nothing more.