3 ms·

Copyright schemes are almost always for the distributors, not the creators. Let creators enjoy the full benefits of copyright by returning the ownership back t

by Joakal 9y ago

Copyright schemes are almost always for the distributors, not the creators. Let creators enjoy the full benefits of copyright by returning the ownership back to creator after 10 years. After a decade, it is expected that creators will be able to command bigger cut as compensation for popular works and thus, inspire more creators to publicly deliver works due to the expectation of more appropriate and fair level of compensation from interested distributors. Otherwise, creators are discouraged from independent creation of works if it's believed that they will suffer perpetual loss of copyright ownership in exchange for a minuscule payment. Similar scheme exists in Europe: http://evolver.fm/2012/02/29/why-mastered-for-itunes-wont-defuse-a-copyright-time-bomb/ http://evolver.fm/2012/02/29/why-mastered-for-itunes-wont-de... As it stands, distributors can say "well, sell us the copyright for a dollar and we might give you a cut. No, not a licence, the copyright! At least you'll get a lot of exposure? Hehehe" The current scheme has a lot of economic encouragement for indy creators to aim for live music, book signings, etc. Where creators need can be present and needed.

BeetleB 9y ago
Hmm... Not sure what to think about this. The real question is: What role should publishers/distributors have, and be allowed to have? From a writer's standpoint, I think it was common not to grant the publisher a perpetual license. The publisher would offer the author an advance and get exclusivity. If the book made enough money to cover that advance, the copyright would revert to the author (publisher may still have license to keep publishing, but not exclusivity). In today's world, people can and do make big money self publishing on Amazon, so the hold publishers had has reduced. The argument makes less sense now than 20 years ago. If you want to argue that self publishing is still a crap shoot compared to traditional publishers, then we have to recognize the great value publishers can bring to the author, and discuss why government intervention (i.e. law) is necessary in this case.

by Joakal 9y ago

BeetleB 9y ago

Hmm... Not sure what to think about this. The real question is: What role should publishers/distributors have, and be allowed to have? From a writer's standpoint, I think it was common not to grant the publisher a perpetual license. The publisher would offer the author an advance and get exclusivity. If the book made enough money to cover that advance, the copyright would revert to the author (publisher may still have license to keep publishing, but not exclusivity). In today's world, people can and do make big money self publishing on Amazon, so the hold publishers had has reduced. The argument makes less sense now than 20 years ago. If you want to argue that self publishing is still a crap shoot compared to traditional publishers, then we have to recognize the great value publishers can bring to the author, and discuss why government intervention (i.e. law) is necessary in this case.