Custodians of the Word?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Providing for children, grandchildren etc. is an incentive for many people to continue working whether it is creative work or not.

This gravy train you speak of is the exception, not the rule and with the proliferation of new published works these days I doubt even the most popular of todays authors will be selling in quantity 50 years from now. The few that write works that will stand the test of time deserve to be encouraged in every way IMO even if it means their heirs will get an extra $100 or so a year in the far future and my heirs might have to contribute a dollar or so towards that.

Helen

It would be a tremendous incentive for me if my employer paid me $5 M a year. Alas, I get paid quite a bit less and somehow still find the will and energy to make it in to work every day. Copyright is a tradeoff. I believe that it was put into the Constitution by Ben Franklin, who was the most popular author of his generation by far. The original copy right law gave authors a 14 year copyright that could be renewed another 14 years (28 years total). In US, 28 years (plus 28 year renewal) was the term of copyright until 1976. For some strange reason, authors still seemed to write, even though their great, great grandchildren would not be able to reap the reward.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It would be a tremendous incentive for me if my employer paid me $5 M a year. Alas, I get paid quite a bit less and somehow still find the will and energy to make it in to work every day. Copyright is a tradeoff. I believe that it was put into the Constitution by Ben Franklin, who was the most popular author of his generation by far. The original copy right law gave authors a 14 year copyright that could be renewed another 14 years (28 years total). In US, 28 years (plus 28 year renewal) was the term of copyright until 1976. For some strange reason, authors still seemed to write, even though their great, great grandchildren would not be able to reap the reward.

True enough. Many don't even try to publish. Still these days many write whether competently or not in the hopes of making the big bucks. Perhaps if copyright were eliminated a lot wouldn't bother and I am not saying that is a bad or a good thing.

I am not saying every author deserves to make a living by writing or even that most even benefit from copyright. I do think that if a book is good enough to stand the test of time and is still selling 50+ years later, I do not begrudge the author or the authors descendants their piddling royalty payments. The author invests time, intelligence and energy in creating intellectual property the same as I invest time, intelligence and energy in acquiring real property. They may not be the same under the law, but the time, intelligence, energy and even luck generally only differ on an individual basis.

Many descendants AFAIK don't bother with royalties hence the orphaned works. I agree orphaned works should be addressed and dealt with, but don't see it as a reason to drastically alter copyright on published works.

My stance is that if a work is still being published and sold it has value that deserves monetary recognition to either the author or their heirs. Perhaps that should define copyright. Of course it would be a big pain in the butt to track down all the possible heirs of Shakespeare and send them each a penny or two a year in royalty checks.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

But does extending copyright lengths far beyond an author's death really cause more people to write? I'd be strongly concerned about providing for a wife and young children. Not so much concerned about providing for adult children. Maybe a college fund for grandchildren. I'd find it very difficult to shoulder any burdens beyond that. At some point copyright length provides no motivation for anybody.

The program briefly mentioned the difficulty of finding many rights holders. What about a work that was unjustly ignored, faded into obscurity, should be resurrected but the current rights holder can't be found.

I am all for a reform of copyright that provides for books that haven't been in print for a fair time being fair game subject to a thorough search for the copyright holders.

Most books that have faded into obscurity have done so because they were ignored, in most cases justly I think.

I am a person who is inclined to worry about my heirs, and I have no children. I know many people who live thriftily when they don't have to for just this reason. Building their savings for their descendants. Other friends spend more than they make and one guy told me it was his ambition to die as far in debt as possible. It is a type of genetic programming. You have the ant and the grasshopper and those who fall somewhere in between.

But as I have said before, worrying about me or my heirs paying a few cents or even dollars a year to rights holders who inherited these rights, is not even on my list of worries. If the book has value for me, they are welcome to it whether the author cared or not. I am thrifty but hopefully not miserly.

Helen

[crossi]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Many descendants AFAIK don't bother with royalties hence the orphaned works. I agree orphaned works should be addressed and dealt with, but don't see it as a reason to drastically alter copyright on published works.


Helen

I agree that copyright should not have been drastically altered. It should have remained what it was origionally, 14 years plus, at most, 14 more if requested.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crossi

I agree that copyright should not have been drastically altered. It should have remained what it was origionally, 14 years plus, at most, 14 more if requested.

Given that the length of copyright has been a "life + x" term (where "x" was originally 7 years) under English law since the Copyright Act of 1842, that's rather a forlorn hope.

[Billi]

Harry, I think crossi is referring to your very first copyright law, the Statute of Anne from 1710, that granted, as he wrote, 14 years plus 14 more if requested and nothing after the death.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Billi

Harry, I think crossi is referring to your very first copyright law, the Statute of Anne from 1710, that granted, as he wrote, 14 years plus 14 more if requested and nothing after the death.

And HarryT is saying that is a forlorn hope.

I agree to both.

[tubemonkey]

I heart the forlorn hope

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Billi

Harry, I think crossi is referring to your very first copyright law, the Statute of Anne from 1710, that granted, as he wrote, 14 years plus 14 more if requested and nothing after the death.

Yes, I realised that was what he meant . Just saying that it changed from a fixed term to a "life+x" term over 170 years ago, so it's unlikely it's going to change back again.

[Billi]

Oh, than I didn't understand your post properly, sorry!

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by crossi

I agree that copyright should not have been drastically altered. It should have remained what it was origionally, 14 years plus, at most, 14 more if requested.

I don't it would have gotten a longer term if the 14 year thing was effective. In 1710 there were relatively few books published in total, and far fewer annually, probably less than 20? Can't remember. So the term was ludicrously small IMO.

Now there are possibly a million a year and over probably 1/3 by trad publishers.

Most of these books will not bring the authors long term benefits via copyright.

My thinking is which you obviously disagree with although you chose to ignore it IIRC is that the very few authors of books that withstand the test of time and are still selling 14 or 50 or 70 years later deserve to get paid a small portion of the sales price whether to themselves or their estates.

The books that you or no one else wants to pay for, well why do you care f they are copyrighted?

Helen

[eschwartz]

In what way is it ludicrously small?

The important thing (from mine and others' perspective) is that copyright exists for no reason other than to incentivize creative work. From the standpoint of copyright, no one deserves a penny!

And 14/28 years IMO provides just as much incentive as life+70.



No one has ever doubted that longer copyrights make more money for authors/publishers. The assumption that we doubt that, is offensive, insomuch as it implies a complete void of intelligence on par with small children and babies.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

...The important thing (from mine and others' perspective) is that copyright exists for no reason other than to incentivize creative work. From the standpoint of copyright, no one deserves a penny!...

Yes this seems to be forgotten by many, copyright (and patents) is nothing at all to do with their holder's, nor their heirs "deserving" an income.

I suspect this misunderstanding is encouraged by authors (and, perhaps to a lesser degree by publishers) to serve the purpose of protecting what they think they deserve.

In that light, anything beyond life and, say, 14 years maximum if still alive then for example, seems excessive to me.

However, if a particular democracy considers authors deserve an income then that needs to be handled in a way other than copyright, however that would place them in some kind of elite income protected sector of the working population (undeserved, in my opinion).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I realised that was what he meant . Just saying that it changed from a fixed term to a "life+x" term over 170 years ago, so it's unlikely it's going to change back again.

Or he could have meant the original USA copyright law.