5 ms·

The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased

by dmm 17y ago

The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.

michael_dorfman 17y ago
...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?
- dmm 17y ago
  > ...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? That is exactly what I want. > How long do you think the copyright terms should be? Personally I think 20 years is a reasonable number. The original Copyright Act of 1790 established a term of 14 years with the option of one renewal. Remember that this was in the age of manual printing presses and horse-drawn wagons. In this age of on-demand printing and digital distribution 20 years is more than enough. The copyright system isn't a right in the sense of speech or assembly, it's a temporary monopoly granted to an author in order to "..promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..". Any aspect of copyright law which fails to promote those goals fails to uphold the constitutional foundation and ultimate purpose of the copyright system. Copyright law exists in order to encourage authors to create by allowing them to benefit from their creation, but how does allowing a person to collect royalties on something they made 50 years ago promote creativity?
  - michael_dorfman 17y ago
    It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. Writing a book may take several years, and it's not always the first book that succeeds. Capping the potential upside is definitely going to discourage writing works that will take a large investment of time and research. And let's not even talk about all of the books that only became popular more than twenty years after initial publication. Imagine Tolkien in retirement on a modest pension while his books are suddenly bestsellers...
    - dmm 17y ago
      > It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. That may be, but remember that this all comes at a cost. Copyright is essentially theft. All art is based upon that past. No one exists in a vacuum and all works are created in a context of deep history and culture that belongs to all of us. When we are denied the right to copy or make derivatives of a work it robs us of part of our culture. People in Afghanistan can legally print and read that Salinger book but we cannot. Is that right? Tolkien is probably a bad example. I'm pretty sure his main motivation in writing was his exploration with language and not fat royalties. Furthermore, both him and his wife are dead. Why the hell isn't LotR in the public domain?
      - michael_dorfman 17y ago
        Copyright is essentially theft? Only in the sense that "property is theft." Copyright is protecting the creator of a work. Let's forget the issue of derivative works for the moment, since that's not what was at stake in the original poster's argument-- we're talking about wholesale copying. And if people in Afghanistan can legally copy a Salinger book without paying him or his publisher, then my beef is with Afghanistan, now with the fact that others can't also rip them off. How does it rob you of a part of "our culture" if I require that I get paid for any re-publication you do of work that I create? I'm not saying that LotR shouldn't enter the public domain someday-- but I don't think that 20 years is the right time frame.
        hugh3 17y ago
        Can I just pop in to say I'm pretty disappointed to see that all the pro-copyright comments in this thread, including many well-written ones and sensibly-argued ones like the parent, have been modded down?
        dmm 17y ago
        > Only in the sense that "property is theft." Copyright and property are fundamentally different things with different histories and different treatments under the law. Almost all human societies have property or at least a system of possession which excludes others. Copyright is a modern invention. If I take your car you're out a car, but if I take a song you're singing you don't even have to know. > How does it rob you of a part of "our culture" if I require that I get paid for any re-publication you do of work that I create? Have you heard of Google books? It's an incredibly ambitious project where google went and scanned a bunch of library books and put them on the web where they can be searched and read. For works in the public domain you can download the full text of the book and do whatever you want with it. It's like the world's biggest library, except the only books with text are the ones from the 1920s and earlier. Everything else is just a dust jacket. I've been reading a lot of early 20th century books. When I find a good one I can email my friend a like to a book by Upton Sinclair or H.L. Mencken. But I won't be able to do that for decades with Salinger, if ever. Creative works don't belong to anyone, but to all of us. We grant artists a temporary monopoly to encourage them. This I can live with, but please lets actually make it temporary. Why shouldn't LotR be in the public domain? The author is dead. Who is collecting royalties?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

by dmm 17y ago

The real problem here is the length of copyright terms, which now stand at pretty much forever. If we had more reasonable laws then anyone who damn well pleased could published it.

michael_dorfman 17y ago

...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? How long do you think the copyright terms should be? In the case discussed here, we're talking about a work from 1965. You think that everything published before then should be up for grabs?

dmm 17y ago
> ...without paying the author of the work. Are you sure that's what you want? That is exactly what I want. > How long do you think the copyright terms should be? Personally I think 20 years is a reasonable number. The original Copyright Act of 1790 established a term of 14 years with the option of one renewal. Remember that this was in the age of manual printing presses and horse-drawn wagons. In this age of on-demand printing and digital distribution 20 years is more than enough. The copyright system isn't a right in the sense of speech or assembly, it's a temporary monopoly granted to an author in order to "..promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..". Any aspect of copyright law which fails to promote those goals fails to uphold the constitutional foundation and ultimate purpose of the copyright system. Copyright law exists in order to encourage authors to create by allowing them to benefit from their creation, but how does allowing a person to collect royalties on something they made 50 years ago promote creativity?
- michael_dorfman 17y ago
  It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. Writing a book may take several years, and it's not always the first book that succeeds. Capping the potential upside is definitely going to discourage writing works that will take a large investment of time and research. And let's not even talk about all of the books that only became popular more than twenty years after initial publication. Imagine Tolkien in retirement on a modest pension while his books are suddenly bestsellers...
  - dmm 17y ago
    > It promotes creativity by enlarging the possible payout one can receive for one's labors. That may be, but remember that this all comes at a cost. Copyright is essentially theft. All art is based upon that past. No one exists in a vacuum and all works are created in a context of deep history and culture that belongs to all of us. When we are denied the right to copy or make derivatives of a work it robs us of part of our culture. People in Afghanistan can legally print and read that Salinger book but we cannot. Is that right? Tolkien is probably a bad example. I'm pretty sure his main motivation in writing was his exploration with language and not fat royalties. Furthermore, both him and his wife are dead. Why the hell isn't LotR in the public domain?
    - michael_dorfman 17y ago
      Copyright is essentially theft? Only in the sense that "property is theft." Copyright is protecting the creator of a work. Let's forget the issue of derivative works for the moment, since that's not what was at stake in the original poster's argument-- we're talking about wholesale copying. And if people in Afghanistan can legally copy a Salinger book without paying him or his publisher, then my beef is with Afghanistan, now with the fact that others can't also rip them off. How does it rob you of a part of "our culture" if I require that I get paid for any re-publication you do of work that I create? I'm not saying that LotR shouldn't enter the public domain someday-- but I don't think that 20 years is the right time frame.
      - hugh3 17y ago
        Can I just pop in to say I'm pretty disappointed to see that all the pro-copyright comments in this thread, including many well-written ones and sensibly-argued ones like the parent, have been modded down?
      - dmm 17y ago
        > Only in the sense that "property is theft." Copyright and property are fundamentally different things with different histories and different treatments under the law. Almost all human societies have property or at least a system of possession which excludes others. Copyright is a modern invention. If I take your car you're out a car, but if I take a song you're singing you don't even have to know. > How does it rob you of a part of "our culture" if I require that I get paid for any re-publication you do of work that I create? Have you heard of Google books? It's an incredibly ambitious project where google went and scanned a bunch of library books and put them on the web where they can be searched and read. For works in the public domain you can download the full text of the book and do whatever you want with it. It's like the world's biggest library, except the only books with text are the ones from the 1920s and earlier. Everything else is just a dust jacket. I've been reading a lot of early 20th century books. When I find a good one I can email my friend a like to a book by Upton Sinclair or H.L. Mencken. But I won't be able to do that for decades with Salinger, if ever. Creative works don't belong to anyone, but to all of us. We grant artists a temporary monopoly to encourage them. This I can live with, but please lets actually make it temporary. Why shouldn't LotR be in the public domain? The author is dead. Who is collecting royalties?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]