A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[QuantumIguana]

Yes, because without eternal copyright, no author can make any money at all. And it is perfectly OK for people of today to mine the public domain, but it is utterly unacceptable that anyone else would ever be able to do the same with their work someday.

[Ninjalawyer]

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 earning money from their creative endeavours is one author we can all do without!

Let there be no more of this gibberish about copyright.

You see, it's posts like this that are the reason we can't have nice things.

Threads usually start out well enough, but then suddenly someone pops in, wails out some massively reductive gibberish and then before you know it the participants in the thread are all rocking in the corners and covered in their own faeces.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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

It seemed to me to be what bill_mchale suggested, strictly unspoken though it was.

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.

Once again, that appeared to me to be the suggestion.

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.

Why is it that his family would have made no money? They would likely have made less money, but less does not actually equal nothing.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Why is it that his family would have made no money? They would likely have made less money, but less does not actually equal nothing.

Because if they copyright expired at his death, anyone could publish the books without paying a cent.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Because if they copyright expired at his death, anyone could publish the books without paying a cent.

Or add a few key passages and copyright it as a biography written by a surviving family member.

[anamardoll]

However, I think a lot of these cases are edging into the "hard cases make bad laws" territory. Probably less than 1% of works are created with the sole expectation of providing for a destitute family.

[QuantumIguana]

I'm not arguing for eternal copyright, I'd roll back the latest copyright extension if I could. I just don't think the death of the author is a good ending point for copyright. It reduces incentive for someone to continue writing toward the end of their life.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Because if they copyright expired at his death, anyone could publish the books without paying a cent.

No they couldn't, because presumably his family and no-one else would have the manuscript.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

No they couldn't, because presumably his family and no-one else would have the manuscript.

They could lock the manuscript in a trunk, I suppose. But they can't make any money until it is published. And once it is published, if there was no copyright, any publisher could obtain a copy and start publishing their own version.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I'm not arguing for eternal copyright, I'd roll back the latest copyright extension if I could. I just don't think the death of the author is a good ending point for copyright. It reduces incentive for someone to continue writing toward the end of their life.

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.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You see, it's posts like this that are the reason we can't have nice things.

Threads usually start out well enough, but then suddenly someone pops in, wails out some massively reductive gibberish and then before you know it the participants in the thread are all rocking in the corners and covered in their own faeces.

I guess your ability to spot irony and facetiousness only extends to editorials and not thread replies.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

They could lock the manuscript in a trunk, I suppose. But they can't make any money until it is published. And once it is published, if there was no copyright, any publisher could obtain a copy and start publishing their own version.

Which means they would make money. Less money, but money. Which is what I said to begin with. All this palaver just to establish that simple thing.

It would also be out for some time before the copies and a competent publisher (not that I know the first thing about US publishers of the era) ought to be able to see to it that it was made available in various parts of the country on the day of release. By being first, the memoirs of a revered figure like Grant ought to sell rather well in the time window available before the appearance of copies begun to diminish sales of the bona fide article.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

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?

No, they are not. You haven't already been paid for it. A contract for a book doesn't mean that you have been paid. You might get an advance, or you might not.

If you think that an author has been paid for the work once they have signed the contract, then why have royalties at all? If you shouldn't be paid for work you've already paid for, then authors shouldn't be paid royalties.

i just don't think their heirs are entitled to profit in perpetuity from their writing.

I clearly said that I was NOT in favor of perpetual copyright, and that I would prefer the copyright period to be shorter.

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.

Yes, an author who wants to keep a roof over their kid's heads is must be an awful writer.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I guess your ability to spot irony and facetiousness only extends to editorials and not thread replies.

Oh, I think he spotted the sarcasm easily enough.

[poker467]

Copyrights don't actually exist. You can't actually "own" an idea or even a physical object. Focusing on the false dichotomy of rightful ownership and theft will strengthen both sides.

If you truly cared about the information in your book, why not share that with the rest of the world? Why are you focusing on hording instead of collaboration?