Public Domain

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

Consider a farm. You farm every year and sell the produce/live stock. But the farm continues to exist. There isn't a time where we just say "ok, farmer, your land is now in the public domain for anyone to farm and take the proceeds for themselves".

Apart from the taxation argument, in some countries if you don't use the farm, and it becomes used by the public as open space, it could eventually be taken away from you and become public land.

Both actually translate somewhat well to the copyright discussion, either as a requirement to pay taxes (renew copyright) or show usage (keep the work in publication) or risk losing the property.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Apart from the taxation argument, in some countries if you don't use the farm, and it becomes used by the public as open space, it could eventually be taken away from you and become public land.

Both actually translate somewhat well to the copyright discussion, either as a requirement to pay taxes (renew copyright) or show usage (keep the work in publication) or risk losing the property.

This is the case in the US. You have to actively defend your property rights. The Rockefeller Plaza is closed to the public one day a year for this reason. People don't realize it, but if you allow people to use your land as a short cut, eventually the use of that path because a public right and you can't block people from using it.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Apart from the taxation argument, in some countries if you don't use the farm, and it becomes used by the public as open space, it could eventually be taken away from you and become public land.

Both actually translate somewhat well to the copyright discussion, either as a requirement to pay taxes (renew copyright) or show usage (keep the work in publication) or risk losing the property.

I’m ok with neglected works becoming public domain

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

This may seem weird and outre but I am going to make the biological argument for sake of diversity of arguments here and maybe make the discussion not so repetitive.

Ok, so let us take John Paul Sartre's books on philosophy or maybe Albert Camus' books. They are not available on project Gutenberg but Arthur Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein are. Why ? Probably because of what Pwalker8 mentioned.

John Paul Sartre's book "No Exit" was published in 1944. Let us say his relatives own the intellectual property to the book and are making money off it.

A person shares 3.13%, on average, genetically or DNA-wise with their second cousins. So the relatives profiting off the book currently would be like strangers or almost strangers genetically to Sartre so it makes no logical sense scientifically as we share like 99% of our DNA with bonobo chimps or monkeys.

Also, maybe relatives are not profiting but actual complete strangers in a publishing house/company.

I might also add I read all of Schopenhauer's works available on Gutenberg and I noticed that last one I read only had 144 downloads. Do you really think "No Exit" would have a ton of downloads ?

So no one would be making a lot of money off it, anyway.

It seems to me people might be making a mountain out of a molehill here or maybe I am just doing a weird analysis that is also limited myopically in scope.

Everyone doesn’t have the same number of kids. Everyone doesn’t divide their assets up equally. Consider land....it’s not like, you end up with a 1 inch piece of property.

More then likely, the most lucrative copyrights will be sold to a publisher. Somebody would own the Shakespeare copyrights....where 99% of the contemporary works would have fallen into the public domain from neglect.

The only people affected are those wanting to publish or copy actual Macbeth. They would have to pay for the rights. Everyone else just goes to see the play or the movie like they do already.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

The only people affected are those wanting to publish or copy actual Macbeth.

(Or, pertinently to plays, perform Macbeth[1])
Back to the point of copyright in the first place: How does that benefit society?
There is a clear detriment to society, in having to pay more and restricting access, so where is the outweighing improvement?
Is someone really more likely to create a work because their descendants could still profit from it 400 years after their death rather than only 70 years after?

[1] eg for US copyright: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

...owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following...in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

[leebase]

I've already conceded the "we want everything free" point.

From time to time, other things besides art are included in this. "Let's grab all the wealth and redistribute it".

Clearly....that's beneficial....according to some.

I don't think the fruit of my labors belong to society. Why should I think the fruit of an author's labors belong to society?

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by leebase

Premise....copyright is a good thing. Without that premise, nothing else works.

I don't buy that premise.

In itself, it's a bad thing. It is artificial scarcity. It doesn't simply protect the author's ideas and goods, it interferes with what other people can do with their own ideas and their own goods.

Now *not* compensating creators poses its own problems, and other ways to compensate creators pose their own problems. Some argue that copyright for limited terms is better than the alternatives...

It's worth noting that the Illiad and Odessey were spoken into an existing body of legend.

Now a lot of the legends of our time, such as the *Lord of the Rings*, are privately held. New authors are supposed to create new universes, instead of add to existing ones. I doubt this fragmentation is a good thing.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by leebase

Everyone doesn’t have the same number of kids. Everyone doesn’t divide their assets up equally. Consider land....it’s not like, you end up with a 1 inch piece of property.

Woody Allen's Love and Death comes to mind.