3 ms·

> There's no obvious moral reason that copyright should be in any way tied to the lifespan of the author. A dead author can't create new works. Their copyright

> There's no obvious moral reason that copyright should be in any way tied to the lifespan of the author. A dead author can't create new works. Their copyright persisting beyond their death prevents derivative works from being created. Copyright after death forestalls the creation of new derivative works. Is that "worth" eliminating the "copyright-after-death" bargain? I don't know. I tend to think opening up a world of potential derivative works after the death of an author is a good gamble if the desired outcome is more works. Curtailing copyright after death would have to be handled in a nuanced process because some people certainly have "banked on" that business model.

tptacek 5y ago
I'm not sure you're following. The limited monopoly on new works incentivizes authorship by providing a market for that content based on the transfer of that monopoly. It doesn't just incentivize the next work; it's the foundation of incentives for all of the work, including the first. Anything you do to make the transfer of those rights less valuable (for instance: terminating them when the original author dies) reduces the incentive for every work of authorship, from the first to the last.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  I don't think fewer works would be created under a less restrictive copyright regime. Some classes of works wouldn't be profitable anymore, but that's not a tragedy to me. (Taking away some of the profit motive sounds like a good move to me culturally but that reflects my preference in more "indie" media and less "mass market" media.) Morally I find the idea copyright flat wrong on the basis that it restricts human expression and culture. Pragmatically I can see a use for it. We're better off with it, even if it (and the class of "workers" who benefit repeatedly from only doing work once) is morally repugnant. The social contract around copyright, as it sits now, has been "negotiated" significantly in favor of the owners of copyrights to the detriment of the good of society (terms that are too long, works becoming orphaned because mandatory registration was eliminated, infringement without profit motive treated the same as "piracy"). I'd like to see it brought back to a more fair arrangement.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Your first two sentences literally contradict each other, unless you think that profitability has no bearing on which works get authored.
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      A less restrictive copyright regime (shorter terms) would enable a larger number of derivative works to be created sooner (likely when these derivative works are more culturally relevant, too). Would fewer "primary" works be created-- maybe? (I tend to believe that almost all human expression is derivative by nature, though. There are few new ideas under the sun.) Would more derivative works be created? Almost assuredly. There are always more "other people" to build on an earlier work that the lone creator of the work upon which derivative works are based. I'd bet less restrictive copyright terms result in a net larger number of works. Fewer works that require fantastic financial investment would be created under a weakened copyright regime. I still believe more works, overall, would be created.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        So we agree: reducing incentives on the creation of new primary works will reduce the number of primary works created, because people respond to incentives. You hope to offset that by enabling the commercialization of fan fiction. I am less hopeful about that proposal, but at least it's a coherent proposal.
        EvanAnderson 5y ago
        I firmly believe, like I said, that nearly all human expression is derivative. It's almost all "fan fiction" when it comes down to it. There aren't very many "primary" works that can't have their influences traced back to prior works. The current copyright regime just gets to choose who is allowed to make the "fan fiction" and when.
        tptacek 5y ago
- anjbe 5y ago
  I agree that tying copyrights to lifetimes doesn’t make sense, because it’s logical for copyrights to be inherited and the law shouldn’t benefit long‐lived authors over short‐lived authors. I’m not fond of the reasoning in your comment though—by my reading there’s nothing stopping it from being used to extend copyright to “forever less one day.” US copyright law at its inception was intended to provide a balance, incentivizing authors to create new works without infringing too far on people’s inherent right to copy and share ideas they haven’t necessarily created. See Madison (who wrote the original Copyright Clause): “But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.”
  - tptacek 5y ago
    I'm not sure what "inheritance" has to do with it. Assume an author destined to die alone. That author might be more highly compensated for a successful work in a system where copyright isn't tied to lifetime, since the work itself has more market value. That value accrues to the author in their own lifetime; immediately, in fact.

tptacek 5y ago

I'm not sure you're following. The limited monopoly on new works incentivizes authorship by providing a market for that content based on the transfer of that monopoly. It doesn't just incentivize the next work; it's the foundation of incentives for all of the work, including the first. Anything you do to make the transfer of those rights less valuable (for instance: terminating them when the original author dies) reduces the incentive for every work of authorship, from the first to the last.

EvanAnderson 5y ago
I don't think fewer works would be created under a less restrictive copyright regime. Some classes of works wouldn't be profitable anymore, but that's not a tragedy to me. (Taking away some of the profit motive sounds like a good move to me culturally but that reflects my preference in more "indie" media and less "mass market" media.) Morally I find the idea copyright flat wrong on the basis that it restricts human expression and culture. Pragmatically I can see a use for it. We're better off with it, even if it (and the class of "workers" who benefit repeatedly from only doing work once) is morally repugnant. The social contract around copyright, as it sits now, has been "negotiated" significantly in favor of the owners of copyrights to the detriment of the good of society (terms that are too long, works becoming orphaned because mandatory registration was eliminated, infringement without profit motive treated the same as "piracy"). I'd like to see it brought back to a more fair arrangement.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Your first two sentences literally contradict each other, unless you think that profitability has no bearing on which works get authored.
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    A less restrictive copyright regime (shorter terms) would enable a larger number of derivative works to be created sooner (likely when these derivative works are more culturally relevant, too). Would fewer "primary" works be created-- maybe? (I tend to believe that almost all human expression is derivative by nature, though. There are few new ideas under the sun.) Would more derivative works be created? Almost assuredly. There are always more "other people" to build on an earlier work that the lone creator of the work upon which derivative works are based. I'd bet less restrictive copyright terms result in a net larger number of works. Fewer works that require fantastic financial investment would be created under a weakened copyright regime. I still believe more works, overall, would be created.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      So we agree: reducing incentives on the creation of new primary works will reduce the number of primary works created, because people respond to incentives. You hope to offset that by enabling the commercialization of fan fiction. I am less hopeful about that proposal, but at least it's a coherent proposal.
      - EvanAnderson 5y ago
        I firmly believe, like I said, that nearly all human expression is derivative. It's almost all "fan fiction" when it comes down to it. There aren't very many "primary" works that can't have their influences traced back to prior works. The current copyright regime just gets to choose who is allowed to make the "fan fiction" and when.
        tptacek 5y ago
anjbe 5y ago
I agree that tying copyrights to lifetimes doesn’t make sense, because it’s logical for copyrights to be inherited and the law shouldn’t benefit long‐lived authors over short‐lived authors. I’m not fond of the reasoning in your comment though—by my reading there’s nothing stopping it from being used to extend copyright to “forever less one day.” US copyright law at its inception was intended to provide a balance, incentivizing authors to create new works without infringing too far on people’s inherent right to copy and share ideas they haven’t necessarily created. See Madison (who wrote the original Copyright Clause): “But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.”
- tptacek 5y ago
  I'm not sure what "inheritance" has to do with it. Assume an author destined to die alone. That author might be more highly compensated for a successful work in a system where copyright isn't tied to lifetime, since the work itself has more market value. That value accrues to the author in their own lifetime; immediately, in fact.