6 ms·

> You would get the copyright for the first year for free. Then it would cost more each year to maintain the copyright for one more year. I have a major proble

by clort 8y ago

> You would get the copyright for the first year for free. Then it would cost more each year to maintain the copyright for one more year. I have a major problem with this. The problem is that if I purchase an item and it says 'Copyright (c) 1990' for instance, I would have no way of knowing when or if the copyright had expired. A fixed term would mean that I would know the date I could reproduce that work based on the work itself, which I held in my hand. A fixed term seems to me the best of worlds. Probably something like 10 years would be enough. My reasoning is that the vast majority of works would have exhausted their cashflow potential at that point. That a vanishing minority which had made lots of money would lose the opportunity to make vastly more is uninteresting to me. The work would still be fresh enough in the mind of society that a derivative work would be useful. If the work was successful then the creators name would still be fresh in the mind of society that they would have an inherent advantage when they created more. I personally don't see any reason why we should care that the grandchildren of a successful artist would not have a guaranteed income stream. My father is a civil engineer and has worked on infrastructure projects all over the world that will be used by millions for a hundred years or more and I will inherit what he leaves me in his will (yeah, he was paid for his time). I don't see any reason that the users of his bridge would be beholden to my descendants in 50 years time. My mother was a teacher and the thousands of children who passed through her classroom will grow up and live their lives and some will be successful and some will die in poverty and I don't have a single claim on any of their future income streams and thats the way it should be. I myself have created many works and I don't see that my claim on the future is in any way greater than my parents. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

simonh 8y ago
I concur the fact that grandchildren or the wife's second husband, or corporate executives living off copyright long after a person died in old age is obscene. However 10 years is equally absurd in the opposite direction. A book can take 10 years to write, or 10 years to get published and more than 10 years to get popular. George R R Martin has been writing GoT books for 22 years and I'd hate to see him lose ownership of the characters and stories when he is still writing more in the series. That would be horrible. Asimov was writing Foundation novels for 50 years. Transitioning a book to film or TV can easily take 10 years or more and I think is a reasonable source of income for an author. It would seem obscene to me that an author could write a book and then 10 years later see major motion pictures released for the same material earning studios hundreds of millions and they get nothing. Most authors earn a small stipend from their work and rely on that income through retirement, so I think a term until death, or commensurate with a single lifetime to support immediate family such as a spouse is reasonable, but that's it.
- clort 8y ago
  So maybe the fixed term is 15 years, or 20. I don't see the benefit (to society) of having uncertain terms though. That a book takes a number years to write is irrelevant. The copyright will be dated the year it is published, not when you thought of the idea. Guess what, if you publish a new edition? You can put a new date on that.. the fixed term copyright applies to the copy that you are reproducing, not anything else. Anyway, GoT books started getting popular well before 10 years was up. George R R Martin got rich from the first few. If copyright on them had expired, well guess what.. he is still George R R Martin and he is still creating books which would be wildly popular and make him plenty of money he could invest for his retirement. That also means that he could have trademarked the characters and situations and retain exclusivity for the stories he created. He could licence those trademarks for huge amounts of money to film studios and get films made. George R R Martin would still be incredibly wealthy with a fixed-term copyright of 10 years. J K Rowling would be incredibly wealthy as Harry Potter and all the sequels were incredibly popular pretty much as soon as they were written. As you say though, most authors earn a small stipend from their work. I don't believe that they actually rely on that income through their retirement though. The vast majority of their small stipends dry up in short order. I used to work in the UK book publishing industry, 25 years ago. There were approx 30,000 publishers in the UK at that time, the vast majority of which had one or two titles to their name. That suggests to me that most of the books published were effectively self-published. The authors will have had to pay for the print run, and work another job anyway.
  - simonh 8y ago
    You can't build a copyright system covering tens or hundreds of thousands of authors based principally on the situation of the most successful two or three of them in a generation. Society has an interest in appropriately rewarding and incentivising creators of content. It's fair that creators should have ownership rights over their creations, within socially acceptable limits. Society has little interest in enabling freeloaders to profit off the creativity of others, whether those freeloaders are distant descendants and relatives, or contemporaries eager to appropriate other people's work.
  - schiffern 8y ago
testvox 8y ago
I think the idea is any extension beyond the fixed term would require registration (as it does in existing copyright law). So you would always be able to determine if something is in copyright or not if you had the copyright date.

by clort 8y ago

simonh 8y ago

I concur the fact that grandchildren or the wife's second husband, or corporate executives living off copyright long after a person died in old age is obscene. However 10 years is equally absurd in the opposite direction. A book can take 10 years to write, or 10 years to get published and more than 10 years to get popular. George R R Martin has been writing GoT books for 22 years and I'd hate to see him lose ownership of the characters and stories when he is still writing more in the series. That would be horrible. Asimov was writing Foundation novels for 50 years. Transitioning a book to film or TV can easily take 10 years or more and I think is a reasonable source of income for an author. It would seem obscene to me that an author could write a book and then 10 years later see major motion pictures released for the same material earning studios hundreds of millions and they get nothing. Most authors earn a small stipend from their work and rely on that income through retirement, so I think a term until death, or commensurate with a single lifetime to support immediate family such as a spouse is reasonable, but that's it.

clort 8y ago
So maybe the fixed term is 15 years, or 20. I don't see the benefit (to society) of having uncertain terms though. That a book takes a number years to write is irrelevant. The copyright will be dated the year it is published, not when you thought of the idea. Guess what, if you publish a new edition? You can put a new date on that.. the fixed term copyright applies to the copy that you are reproducing, not anything else. Anyway, GoT books started getting popular well before 10 years was up. George R R Martin got rich from the first few. If copyright on them had expired, well guess what.. he is still George R R Martin and he is still creating books which would be wildly popular and make him plenty of money he could invest for his retirement. That also means that he could have trademarked the characters and situations and retain exclusivity for the stories he created. He could licence those trademarks for huge amounts of money to film studios and get films made. George R R Martin would still be incredibly wealthy with a fixed-term copyright of 10 years. J K Rowling would be incredibly wealthy as Harry Potter and all the sequels were incredibly popular pretty much as soon as they were written. As you say though, most authors earn a small stipend from their work. I don't believe that they actually rely on that income through their retirement though. The vast majority of their small stipends dry up in short order. I used to work in the UK book publishing industry, 25 years ago. There were approx 30,000 publishers in the UK at that time, the vast majority of which had one or two titles to their name. That suggests to me that most of the books published were effectively self-published. The authors will have had to pay for the print run, and work another job anyway.
- simonh 8y ago
  You can't build a copyright system covering tens or hundreds of thousands of authors based principally on the situation of the most successful two or three of them in a generation. Society has an interest in appropriately rewarding and incentivising creators of content. It's fair that creators should have ownership rights over their creations, within socially acceptable limits. Society has little interest in enabling freeloaders to profit off the creativity of others, whether those freeloaders are distant descendants and relatives, or contemporaries eager to appropriate other people's work.
- schiffern 8y ago

testvox 8y ago

I think the idea is any extension beyond the fixed term would require registration (as it does in existing copyright law). So you would always be able to determine if something is in copyright or not if you had the copyright date.