Why public domain

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Nothing you've stated is a compelling reason for society to steal the works of authors. If authors didn't have public domain works to incorporate into their stories, they'd draw inspiration from elsewhere. There's no reason why stories have to incorporate characters the public is already familiar with.

The human imagination is not limited.

What you don't seem to get is that incorporating the work of others can enhance a work by giving it an extra dimension, one that I, as a reader, cherish. So you want to deprive me of something that means a lot to me. Am I glad that you are not in a position to do that!

You also unwittingly support a point I made in the post you found so ridiculous: The eternal copyright you want would kill literature as a form of communication, and thus, in a way, literature itself.

Since it seems you have never heard of intertextuality, perhaps you should start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

What you don't seem to get is that incorporating the work of others can enhance a work by giving it an extra dimension, one that I, as a reader, cherish. So you want to deprive me of something that means a lot to me. Am I glad that you are not in a position to do that!

Since it seems you have never heard of intertextuality, perhaps you should start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality

I get that previous works can enhance new ones. What I'm saying is that this type of enhancement is not required for society to progress and if it's desired to progress in this way, then pay the copyright holders for using their works. It's not unreasonable to do so.

You also unwittingly support a point I made in the post you found so ridiculous: The eternal copyright you want would kill literature as a form of communication, and thus, in a way, literature itself.

No it won't. Literature will go on and new books will be written.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I get that previous works can enhance new ones. What I'm saying is that this type of enhancement is not required for society to progress and if it's desired to progress in this way, then pay the copyright holders for using their works. It's not unreasonable to do so.

No it won't. Literature will go on and new books will be written.

I'm out. You haven't got a clue, and you're proud of it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I'm out. You haven't got a clue, and you're proud of it.

Thanks for playing anyway

[shalym]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright as now written is flawed. The only reason there's such a huge distinction over ownership between intellectual and physical property is because a bunch of people got together and passed laws saying it was so. There's nothing inherently correct about such a distinction. It can just as easily be undone.

Wrong. You've had 70 years since his death to enjoy it. Now it's society's turn. You can always get a copy of the watch if you want something to look at. Of course, the copy no longer has any value since it's not the original. But then, it was never your watch to begin with. It belonged to granddad and society allowed you 70 years to exclusively enjoy its fine craftsmanship. Now it's society's turn.

Sure I do. Since I no longer control the original, I can't sell it and make a profit. It no longer has any intrinsic value. What fool is gonna pay me $9.99 for the ebook when Amazon is selling it for free?

...Why do people pay from $7 - $10 for Frankenstein or Dracula, or other Penguin classics? Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean the estate of the author can't still sell it and make money, it just means that others can, if they want to. It may mean that the ones who want to make money on the book need to add something extra, like maybe a foreword, or an afterword, or new illustrations, or better formatting.

Shari

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Do you happen to have the names of some of those writers?



What are those? I've come across the argument by publishers that without the rights to their "modern classics" they couldn't fund publishing fresh talent. Are there more?

I want to say that Harlan Ellison was one, since he was so relentless in suing for copyright infringement (one example is that he claims that the novel "The Road" infringes on his copyright for "A Boy and His Dog". He also sued because he said The Terminator movies infringed on his copyright for "Soldier from Tomorrow", but I can't really point to anything where he actually claimed eternal copyright.

The best argument for longer copyrights that I've seen was from Jerry Pournelle who referred to his backlist as his 401K, i.e. he depended on his backlist books to generate revenue after he slowed down. I've noticed that quite a few authors seem to have a a limited period when they are most active and then slow down as they grow older. I have no issue with authors continuing to generate royalties from their works as long as the works are available to the public. I'm less persuaded by life+ arguments.

I tend to think that derivative protection should not extend nearly as long. Ellison's behavior is exhibit A of why I think that way.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Trying to clarify - not least for myself - why I find the idea of eternal copyright so utterly offensive

I'll go a couple of steps past this: copyright is offensive, period! But there are certain benefits that come with it so we've decided as a society to have a copyright system. That doesn't make it nice. Collectively we've agreed to copyright because we think it might be useful. Let's at least keep it short.

There are a lot of abuses of the copyright system that illustrate just how bad it can be for us all. For example, scientific papers, which used to be available to all scientists for review, now have their copyrights turned over to the publisher and can only be shared with subscribers.

A book by Michael Abrash, "The Zen of Assembly Language" quickly became the premier book on the topic and, not long after, it's publisher was bought by a larger publisher who decided to stop publishing computer books. Abrash tried to get the copyright back but they refused so what was generally thought of as the best book ever written at that time on that topic was no longer available.

A favorite author of mine had the same thing happen. Lee Gruenfeld published a number of really good novels in the days just before ebooks became popular. All sold moderately well but Gruenfeld decided to move on to non-fiction. His books have never become available as ebooks. I emailed him at one time and asked him to make them available and he explained that he has no control over that and that his publisher isn't interested. He no longer has the rights so there's nothing he can do.

In short, copyright is nasty stuff. Yes, I agree that it's also useful and that it's benefits outweigh it's ills. Probably. I don't think I'd want to see copyright go away. But let's realize that it's a vile thing that we have to do for a while and let's let it stop as soon as we can.

Barry

[leebase]

Such edge cases. Causes to modify copyright. I’ve already advocated the “economic life” be a consideration. Any book NOT remaining economically alive would fall into the public domain so we won’t LOSE works just because the rights holder loses interest.

I would put science in the same class as patents. Unlike fiction, there is real scarcity to scientific knowledge. Society need to build upon science. There is no societal need to build upon fictional characters.

Of course research isn’t in the public domain at first. Scientists working for companies are no more going to share their work than software developers are going to share their code.

Unless science is funded by society (government grants and the like), then it doesn’t belong to society. But if you wait too long to apply for patents ... someone else may discover what you did and patent it first. That’s the compact. You tell is how you did what you did, and you get a time boxed monopoly.

But there is no time box for work you keep to yourself

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I want to say that Harlan Ellison was one, since he was so relentless in suing for copyright infringement (one example is that he claims that the novel "The Road" infringes on his copyright for "A Boy and His Dog". He also sued because he said The Terminator movies infringed on his copyright for "Soldier from Tomorrow", but I can't really point to anything where he actually claimed eternal copyright.

The best argument for longer copyrights that I've seen was from Jerry Pournelle who referred to his backlist as his 401K, i.e. he depended on his backlist books to generate revenue after he slowed down. I've noticed that quite a few authors seem to have a a limited period when they are most active and then slow down as they grow older. I have no issue with authors continuing to generate royalties from their works as long as the works are available to the public. I'm less persuaded by life+ arguments.

I tend to think that derivative protection should not extend nearly as long. Ellison's behavior is exhibit A of why I think that way.

Thanks a lot. Pournelle's argument works for me as one for lifetime copyright, but not really for life+.

Ellison's cases sound interesting. Did he win them? *heads off to duckduckgo* *comes back* Interesting. He won settlements, but to me Ellison's claim regarding Terminator seems unconvincing. (It seems he never sued about The Road, but just expressed his claim in an interview). His case seems to be a strong argument against eternal copyright - if a corporation started playing copyright troll, things could get nasty.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'll go a couple of steps past this: copyright is offensive, period! But there are certain benefits that come with it so we've decided as a society to have a copyright system. That doesn't make it nice. Collectively we've agreed to copyright because we think it might be useful. Let's at least keep it short.

There are a lot of abuses of the copyright system that illustrate just how bad it can be for us all. For example, scientific papers, which used to be available to all scientists for review, now have their copyrights turned over to the publisher and can only be shared with subscribers.

A book by Michael Abrash, "The Zen of Assembly Language" quickly became the premier book on the topic and, not long after, it's publisher was bought by a larger publisher who decided to stop publishing computer books. Abrash tried to get the copyright back but they refused so what was generally thought of as the best book ever written at that time on that topic was no longer available.

A favorite author of mine had the same thing happen. Lee Gruenfeld published a number of really good novels in the days just before ebooks became popular. All sold moderately well but Gruenfeld decided to move on to non-fiction. His books have never become available as ebooks. I emailed him at one time and asked him to make them available and he explained that he has no control over that and that his publisher isn't interested. He no longer has the rights so there's nothing he can do.

In short, copyright is nasty stuff. Yes, I agree that it's also useful and that it's benefits outweigh it's ills. Probably. I don't think I'd want to see copyright go away. But let's realize that it's a vile thing that we have to do for a while and let's let it stop as soon as we can.

Barry

I think we will be able to dispense with copyright when we have a society in which people don't have to sell their labour for a living. When that will be, only God knows.

But I totally agree that it is a necessary evil. And the evil gets bigger as soon as not the author but the publisher holds the copyright, as in your example.

And yet, I have come up with an argument for extending copyright for a few years after the author's death. Say an author dies, having just finished a book for which they were paid a large advance; perhaps the publisher has already spent money to advertise the book as well - it's only fair if the publisher has exclusive rights to the book for a while, isn't it?

[Logseman]

Say an author dies, having just finished a book for which they were paid a large advance; perhaps the publisher has already spent money to advertise the book as well - it's only fair if the publisher has exclusive rights to the book for a while, isn't it?

Heaven forbid that the publisher has to face any risk. Are authors who are paid large advances dying immediately after that payment very often?

We already have someone who had eternal copyright in mind, strongly based on his conception of property according to which he should be paid for every reproduction of his work: the name is Andrew Galambos. In the unwittingly and brutally ironic words of the amous libertarian Harry Browne:

"He was an Astrophysicist exclusivly, but I refer to him as 'the unknown libertarian' because he never wrote a book or appeared on national radio or TV. His renown will be limited mostly to those who came in personal contact with him. But he had a profound effect on thousands of individuals who took his courses—who in turn affected others. Undoubtedly the ripples from the stones he dropped eventually touched some of today's leading libertarians."

Fortunately, Browne's prophecy didn't materialize and perpetual copyright is rightly seen even by mainstream libertarianism as the intellectual equivalent of a rubber room. Galambos only has a Wikipedia entry because he made friends with prominent people.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'll go a couple of steps past this: copyright is offensive, period! But there are certain benefits that come with it so we've decided as a society to have a copyright system. That doesn't make it nice. Collectively we've agreed to copyright because we think it might be useful. Let's at least keep it short.

There are a lot of abuses of the copyright system that illustrate just how bad it can be for us all. For example, scientific papers, which used to be available to all scientists for review, now have their copyrights turned over to the publisher and can only be shared with subscribers.

A book by Michael Abrash, "The Zen of Assembly Language" quickly became the premier book on the topic and, not long after, it's publisher was bought by a larger publisher who decided to stop publishing computer books. Abrash tried to get the copyright back but they refused so what was generally thought of as the best book ever written at that time on that topic was no longer available.

A favorite author of mine had the same thing happen. Lee Gruenfeld published a number of really good novels in the days just before ebooks became popular. All sold moderately well but Gruenfeld decided to move on to non-fiction. His books have never become available as ebooks. I emailed him at one time and asked him to make them available and he explained that he has no control over that and that his publisher isn't interested. He no longer has the rights so there's nothing he can do.

In short, copyright is nasty stuff. Yes, I agree that it's also useful and that it's benefits outweigh it's ills. Probably. I don't think I'd want to see copyright go away. But let's realize that it's a vile thing that we have to do for a while and let's let it stop as soon as we can.

Barry

I've still got a copy of the Abrash book. It was a classic of it's time, but like most computer books it had a very limited shelf life. His book on computer graphics was very good as well.

I would point out that in both cases, the issue isn't copyright, it is the contract that the writer signed with the publisher. Standard advice is to make sure that there is a clause in the contract that the rights revert back to you, the author, under certain circumstances, such as the yearly sales drop below a certain figure.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leebase

Such edge cases. Causes to modify copyright. I’ve already advocated the “economic life” be a consideration. Any book NOT remaining economically alive would fall into the public domain so we won’t LOSE works just because the rights holder loses interest.

I would put science in the same class as patents. Unlike fiction, there is real scarcity to scientific knowledge. Society need to build upon science. There is no societal need to build upon fictional characters.

Of course research isn’t in the public domain at first. Scientists working for companies are no more going to share their work than software developers are going to share their code.

Unless science is funded by society (government grants and the like), then it doesn’t belong to society. But if you wait too long to apply for patents ... someone else may discover what you did and patent it first. That’s the compact. You tell is how you did what you did, and you get a time boxed monopoly.

But there is no time box for work you keep to yourself

Ok...so how do you define "economic life"? How do we (as regular consumers) know whether or not a book is in the public domain? Should the government create a database of books that are in the public domain? How does the government know? These days, copyright doesn't have to be "registered" anywhere in order for anything to be covered by copyright, so again...who keeps track of what books are or aren't in the public domain?

I think that we really need to go back to the days when copyright had to be registered, and renewed for a nominal fee every 10-20 years or so. If it's not renewed, then it goes into the public domain. Any work could be renewed forever, which would satisfy those who want to keep control of popular works, and it would solve the problem of orphan works.

Shari

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ok...so how do you define "economic life"? How do we (as regular consumers) know whether or not a book is in the public domain? Should the government create a database of books that are in the public domain? How does the government know? These days, copyright doesn't have to be "registered" anywhere in order for anything to be covered by copyright, so again...who keeps track of what books are or aren't in the public domain?

I think that we really need to go back to the days when copyright had to be registered, and renewed for a nominal fee every 10-20 years or so. If it's not renewed, then it goes into the public domain. Any work could be renewed forever, which would satisfy those who want to keep control of popular works, and it would solve the problem of orphan works.

Shari

I agree with you. Go back to the days were copyright had to be registered and the copyright office had to be give a couple of copies of the book, I would even go so far as to say an electronic copy of the book in a commonly accepted format. Renew the copyright every X years.

I will say that when this particular scheme was mentioned, the push back was that after an author has more than a few books, it can be very difficult to keep track of when copyrights should be renewed, so I would allow an author to renew all his or her copyrights at the same time. I would also create a searchable database of copyrighted works.

The push back is that it would likely violate the copyright treaty and there really isn't a big push to change things.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think it's too soon to know if ebooks are the answer to books disappearing. That does seem to be the case at present but commercial ebooks haven't been around very long yet and at some point that may change. I would be surprised if, at some point, ebook sellers didn't decide to reduce their inventory. Storage isn't expensive but it's not nothing and there are the costs associated with tracking and indexing and maintenance. When Amazon or Kobo has 100 million books, most of who's pages haven't even been viewed for a decade or more, they might decide to cut back. In fact they probably will at some point.

We have a very badly flawed copyright system. I think we can all agree that authors should have a chance to be paid for their work but when that work becomes part of our culture we have some rights as well. I don't know the answer but what we have now isn't working very well.

I don't think we'll have an answer until we can have open discussions on this topic among lawmakers without being pressured by publishers.

Barry

The USA copyright system is not driven by books. It's driven by Mickey Mouse and the bribes the mouse can pay to lawmakers.