4 ms·

In the XVII century, copyright in Spain was a period of ten years long, since the first edition, not renewable. I'm talking of a country notorious for its steep

In the XVII century, copyright in Spain was a period of ten years long, since the first edition, not renewable. I'm talking of a country notorious for its steep geography and bad communications, at a period of both dangerous colonisation, wars and abject poverty. That century is now known as the Spanish Golden Age of Literature. History has proven that, past a point, money does not seem to translate into creativeness. Cultures almost always have their most creative periods at times of social and intellectual changes (say, XIX-XX century Germany) and when intellectual work is regarded as prestigious and respected by the public (physics on America post-Einstein/WW2).

hugh3 17y ago
The economics of copyright in 17th-century Spain aren't really translatable to the modern world, though. If you were a publisher, how much would you be willing to pay an author for the rights to publish a book if you knew you'd be able to publish your own edition of it in ten years anyway? Why would you bother buying rights to new publications at all, if there was more money to be made printing up new editions of the earlier Harry Potter books? All that authors have to sell is the right to publish their works for the maximum copyright period. If you drastically reduce the maximum copyright period you'll drastically reduce the value of what they're selling, and the effort-to-reward ratio for most authors (even good ones) is, I think, already quite high enough.
- lolcraft 17y ago
  I read somewhere that most content ceases to be profitable at about 10, 15 years past release. I'm sorry, I'm not able to find it now, but if that's true, it would mean that publishers would indeed have an incentive. The benefits from printing new editions of old books wouldn't be much in comparison, being more competition. I do, indeed, think it's true. I somewhat feel sorry for the authors, but I think they'll manage. Being a writer is already a respected and highly-sought status, even though the pay is poor. Either way, I wouldn't claim copyright durations of ten years. But we can't stay like this eternally.
  - hugh3 17y ago
    So we're agreed that ten years is too short? Personally I have no problem with it lasting for the author's entire life, I think we gain more than we lose by that. And perhaps ten years beyond the death of the author (not to be confused with the Death of the Author) just so there isn't an unseemly orgy of cut-rate new editions every time an author dies. I do agree, though, that the copyright term should be set sensibly and never changed, and not regularly extended at the behest of Disney. That's a real problem.

hugh3 17y ago

The economics of copyright in 17th-century Spain aren't really translatable to the modern world, though. If you were a publisher, how much would you be willing to pay an author for the rights to publish a book if you knew you'd be able to publish your own edition of it in ten years anyway? Why would you bother buying rights to new publications at all, if there was more money to be made printing up new editions of the earlier Harry Potter books? All that authors have to sell is the right to publish their works for the maximum copyright period. If you drastically reduce the maximum copyright period you'll drastically reduce the value of what they're selling, and the effort-to-reward ratio for most authors (even good ones) is, I think, already quite high enough.

lolcraft 17y ago
I read somewhere that most content ceases to be profitable at about 10, 15 years past release. I'm sorry, I'm not able to find it now, but if that's true, it would mean that publishers would indeed have an incentive. The benefits from printing new editions of old books wouldn't be much in comparison, being more competition. I do, indeed, think it's true. I somewhat feel sorry for the authors, but I think they'll manage. Being a writer is already a respected and highly-sought status, even though the pay is poor. Either way, I wouldn't claim copyright durations of ten years. But we can't stay like this eternally.
- hugh3 17y ago
  So we're agreed that ten years is too short? Personally I have no problem with it lasting for the author's entire life, I think we gain more than we lose by that. And perhaps ten years beyond the death of the author (not to be confused with the Death of the Author) just so there isn't an unseemly orgy of cut-rate new editions every time an author dies. I do agree, though, that the copyright term should be set sensibly and never changed, and not regularly extended at the behest of Disney. That's a real problem.