New Paper Argues for Reasonable Reduction in Copyright

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Ninjalawyer, what's in our constitution has little to do with how our laws are actually writen and enforced.

Our constitution states clearly that lawful money should be Gold and Silver. Courtesy of executive orders from FDR, LBJ, and Richard Nixon, it is only paper. There are all sorts of other pieces ignored, but why bother to list them...

My gold 1/2 ounce is still standing against a zinc cent, betting that US copyright will at least be attempted to be extended again by 2022.

It's not so clear. What it says is "No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...." It forbids states from making their own money and forbids them for deciding for themselves what is legal tender and what isn't.

But I agree that there will be a campaign to extend copyright further, and I think it will probably succeed. I think any attempts to reduce copyright terms are pointless, and the best that can be accomplished is to keep them from being extended. Just give Disney a perpetual copyright in Mickey Mouse, maybe that will slow down the extensions.

[petrucci]

Given that we have an economy based on capitalism, it is critically important that the creators of works are allowed to profit from their creations. The length of the copyright term is the debatable point. The arguments in the cited paper argue for the reduction in the duration of copyright. I believe that different industries may need different lengths of copyright. Some of these industries may need longer copyright. In the linked paper, the author argues that certain works, such as Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev, are performed less often than they used to be, because they went back into copyright. I would argue that the availability of free works has damaged the economy of music making. The orchestras simply cannot afford to perform a work that costs money. You can imagine that this stifles new composition, one of the activities that copyright is supposed to protect.

In this era where digital works can be produced at essentially no cost (only the cost to run the computer), it is important to protect the value intellectual property. I will give another example from the music industry. Recordings changed the musical economy irrevocably. In the past, actual musicians needed to be present for someone to hear music. With the advent of recordings, this was no longer the case. A reduction in copyright could cause a similar shift in the economy. If we were to decrease the duration of the copyright, certain industries would be greatly negatively impacted. Imagine bands trying to complete against free albums by everyone up to the year 2000. Everything from the Beetles through Nirvana would be free. It would be really hard to sell new stuff.

Given the current system, it makes sense that copyrights are continually increasing. Current authors are competing with the best works of the past. They need to produce better works. As one might imagine it takes that much more time and care to produce such works. Thus, the continual increase in copyright terms in this economy makes sense, as the author needs to be incentivised to produce great new works.

None of this is to say that I believe our economy is working properly. I happen to be working on a computer program to help disabled children. The project has been passed over by the big companies, as it is not profitable enough for them. What a sad economy we have.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Thus, the continual increase in copyright terms in this economy makes sense, as the author needs to be incentivised to produce great new works.

Here is the book I am now reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Histo.../dp/0395081866

It won the 1935 National Book Award in the biography category.

The author died in 1975.

Please explain how this being under copyright is encouraging living authors to produce great works.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Here is the book I am now reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Histo.../dp/0395081866

It won the 1935 National Book Award in the biography category.

The author died in 1975.

Please explain how this being under copyright is encouraging living authors to produce great works.

It encourages living (sic) corporations to keep making money off of great works....

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Some of these industries may need longer copyright. In the linked paper, the author argues that certain works, such as Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev, are performed less often than they used to be, because they went back into copyright. I would argue that the availability of free works has damaged the economy of music making. The orchestras simply cannot afford to perform a work that costs money. You can imagine that this stifles new composition, one of the activities that copyright is supposed to protect.

If they can't afford to pay for new works, putting everything under copyright would not enable them to afford to pay for the works. It would simply mean they would shut down.

Imagine bands trying to complete against free albums by everyone up to the year 2000. Everything from the Beetles through Nirvana would be free. It would be really hard to sell new stuff.

Only if copyright were reduced from life+70 to 14 years. And would people really become aficionados of oldies?

Given the current system, it makes sense that copyrights are continually increasing. Current authors are competing with the best works of the past. They need to produce better works. As one might imagine it takes that much more time and care to produce such works. Thus, the continual increase in copyright terms in this economy makes sense, as the author needs to be incentivised to produce great new works.

Copyright is already life+70 years. Further extensions cannot provide additional incentive to authors. Life+90 would not provide incentive to authors to create new works. Most works will be long forgotten before the copyright expires. If copyright were reduced to Life+50 would authors really be saying "screw this" and not creating new works?

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Here is the book I am now reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Histo.../dp/0395081866

It won the 1935 National Book Award in the biography category.

The author died in 1975.

Please explain how this being under copyright is encouraging living authors to produce great works.

Clearly these older works have value. This is corroborated by Ralph Sir Edward's comment that corporations are making money off of the works. There are existing laws pertaining to selling commodities for less than their value. The function of these laws is to protect the value of products. Unfortuantely, they do not extend to intellectual property. If many works that are currently copyright became freely available, then it would reduce the value of all of the works, including new ones and ones that have not yet been created. The Personal History of Vincent Sheean being copyright encourages living authors to produce great works, as they do not have to compete with it being available at no cost.

@Quantum Iguana. With regards to the symphony orchestras, their economy has changed based on works being freely available. They cannot justify spending money on a work, when other works cost nothing.

Extending copyright well beyond the authors lifetime offers incentives based on their heirs and based on their philosophy. I am not the beneficiary of any such copyrights. I do feel that it is important that works that are of value are not freely available in a capitalist economy.

[pwalker8]

I would say that reducing copyright to 14 years would have a positive impact on the vast majority of active musicians. Most musicians make their money from concerts rather than from royalties. Remember it's the recording/performance that's copyrighted in addition to the original song. For every musician, such as the Lennon or McCarthy, who is famous, there are thousands who make a living playing live music, usually covering popular songs.

When I look at the Billboard top 10, I only recognize one artist. Each generation has their own favorites. Do you really think that people are going to stop buying Justin Timberlake music just because they can get the Beatles and the Rolling Stones for free? While free copies of the Beatles and Rolling Stones music, may introduce a whole new generation to their music and keep their music alive, it's not going to take away from the current generation of musicians.

The important thing to remember is that copyright, as mentioned in the article, is a government granted monopoly for the copying of specific works of art. In general, works of art or the expression of an idea is not property in the normal sense of the word. Intellectual property is simply a phrase coined by a lawyer who was trying to convince a jury that his client's idea should be protected. While a specific book may be property, if I make a copy of that book, then the copy is not the same piece of property. That is why an original painting tends to be worth a lot more that the copies made of that painting.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If copyright were reduced to Life+50 would authors really be saying "screw this" and not creating new works?

Clearly not. And given long-standing international agreements, in particular the Berne convention, a reduction back to life+50 is the very best we can hope for.

But I don't expect to see it.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Clearly these older works have value.

Then why are the vast majority of titles from the 1930's through 1950's, including National Book Award winners like Personal History, out of print?

The Personal History of Vincent Sheean being copyright encourages living authors to produce great works, as they do not have to compete with it being available at no cost.

In the United States, it is available for free from most public libraries, at least on interlibrary loan. And if you don't mind misscans, it is at openlibrary.org.*

Originally Posted by petrucci

With regards to the symphony orchestras, their economy has changed based on works being freely available. They cannot justify spending money on a work, when other works cost nothing.

If you compare the health of classical music in Canada (shortest copyright allowed under Berne Convention) and the United States (among the longest copyright terms in the world), are they really different, and, if so, is it because of copyright?

Having said that, I don't think the music situation is really all that much similar to that of books.
_________________________
* May not be free and legal for everyone, but the home page reads for me: "The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is participating in our eBook lending program. Browse the growing lending library of over 200,000 eBooks!"

[tubemonkey]

God bless those extensions

[arjaybe]

When copyright lapses on old music, we don't get the old recordings for free. We pay for new recordings of it, because the new recording gets a fresh copyright. The actual music would be free and available to anyone who wants to print up sheet music and sell it. Or anyone who wants to use it in performance or recording. Lots of opportunities for creativity and commerce, and the old copyright holder is free to compete for them.

The only thing that changes when copyright lapses is that a temporary monopoly ends.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

When copyright lapses on old music, we don't get the old recordings for free. We pay for new recordings of it, because the new recording gets a fresh copyright. The actual music would be free and available to anyone who wants to print up sheet music and sell it. Or anyone who wants to use it in performance or recording. Lots of opportunities for creativity and commerce, and the old copyright holder is free to compete for them.

The only thing that changes when copyright lapses is that a temporary monopoly ends.

In the US performance copyright lasts until 2076...(And yes, Edison's first 'Mary had a little lamb' is still under performance copyright, even though the device it was demoing went PD over a century ago...)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Clearly these older works have value. This is corroborated by Ralph Sir Edward's comment that corporations are making money off of the works. There are existing laws pertaining to selling commodities for less than their value. The function of these laws is to protect the value of products. Unfortuantely, they do not extend to intellectual property. If many works that are currently copyright became freely available, then it would reduce the value of all of the works, including new ones and ones that have not yet been created. The Personal History of Vincent Sheean being copyright encourages living authors to produce great works, as they do not have to compete with it being available at no cost.

@Quantum Iguana. With regards to the symphony orchestras, their economy has changed based on works being freely available. They cannot justify spending money on a work, when other works cost nothing.

Extending copyright well beyond the authors lifetime offers incentives based on their heirs and based on their philosophy. I am not the beneficiary of any such copyrights. I do feel that it is important that works that are of value are not freely available in a capitalist economy.

Not necessarily. SAy a corporation holds 10,000 copyright. One is a perennial seller. The other 9,999 are out of print. In order to maintain the copyright on the one, hey also hold the copyright on the other 9,999. It's a free option...And I don't think that it is fair...

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My gold 1/2 ounce is still standing against a zinc cent, betting that US copyright will at least be attempted to be extended again by 2022.

I think you mean 2018, the current law will let works from 1923 fall into the public domain on January 1, 2019.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Ninjalawyer, what's in our constitution has little to do with how our laws are actually writen and enforced.

Our constitution states clearly that lawful money should be Gold and Silver. Courtesy of executive orders from FDR, LBJ, and Richard Nixon, it is only paper. There are all sorts of other pieces ignored, but why bother to list them...

My gold 1/2 ounce is still standing against a zinc cent, betting that US copyright will at least be attempted to be extended again by 2022.

Bet recorded here. But I think it was for one cent at evens.