4 ms·

The author could be dead and his family could be impoverished, or maybe his best novels were his earlier ones. Should publishers make tons of money off his earl

The author could be dead and his family could be impoverished, or maybe his best novels were his earlier ones. Should publishers make tons of money off his earlier, better works while his family starves? Also, copyright isn’t just the original work, it’s also derivatives like sequels, translations, and movie adaptations. Should all of them make money while the author and his family get nothing? In the real world, limiting copyright like you suggest is a non-starter.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
the author could be alive, and write new works, and that seems more likely any member of the family could also contribute to society by writing new works remember the goal: to promote new works; not to make the author money, or their family money, or their family's descendants money; and not to enrich or prevent the enriching of any given publisher allowing the author and family to milk old work in perpetuity, whether independently or through a publisher, would seem to incentivize the opposite of that
- bdowling 3y ago
  In some ways, writing a novel (or producing certain types of works) is like buying a lottery ticket. Most of the time it will be worth nothing. But if it is a winner, then the buyer would like to be able to cash it in. If, on the other hand, you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers, then people would stop buying lottery tickets. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to write or produce creative works, even when the reality is that most works will not be successful in any way. If you take away the possibility of reward for the few works that are successful, then that will result in fewer works being produced.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    nobody is proposing "taking away the possibility of reward", or making anything such that "you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers", so it sounds like there're no issues with the proposal if there was data that shows copyrighted works usually earn nothing the first 5 years, and earn significant value after that, or even that annual earnings from copyrighted works usually increase after 5 years, the argument against the proposed reform would be more convincing, but in any case, the purpose of copyright is to encourage new works, not allow authors to perpetually cash in on old ones like a lottery ticket instead
ncallaway 3y ago
> The author could be dead In that scenario it doesn't sound like there's a lot we can do to encourage the author to create new works. Which is, again, the explicit and primary goal of copyright law and jurisprudence.
- bdowling 3y ago
  I think you're missing the point. None of the works would have been produced in the first place if there wasn't the possibility of making a return on the investment in time, energy, etc.
mitchdoogle 3y ago
This situation just doesn't seem that likely. How often has an author with absolutely no sales whatsoever on their first few books then gone on to release a best seller? If their early works are profitable at all, they would renew the copyright for the relatively low rate and still be holding it when their new bestseller comes along.
mitchdoogle 3y ago
If the author is dead, then what are you even arguing about? Of course copyright should not be extended past death. Do you think Charles Dickens descendants should still be getting paid for his work? It's ridiculous

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

the author could be alive, and write new works, and that seems more likely any member of the family could also contribute to society by writing new works remember the goal: to promote new works; not to make the author money, or their family money, or their family's descendants money; and not to enrich or prevent the enriching of any given publisher allowing the author and family to milk old work in perpetuity, whether independently or through a publisher, would seem to incentivize the opposite of that

bdowling 3y ago
In some ways, writing a novel (or producing certain types of works) is like buying a lottery ticket. Most of the time it will be worth nothing. But if it is a winner, then the buyer would like to be able to cash it in. If, on the other hand, you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers, then people would stop buying lottery tickets. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to write or produce creative works, even when the reality is that most works will not be successful in any way. If you take away the possibility of reward for the few works that are successful, then that will result in fewer works being produced.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  nobody is proposing "taking away the possibility of reward", or making anything such that "you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers", so it sounds like there're no issues with the proposal if there was data that shows copyrighted works usually earn nothing the first 5 years, and earn significant value after that, or even that annual earnings from copyrighted works usually increase after 5 years, the argument against the proposed reform would be more convincing, but in any case, the purpose of copyright is to encourage new works, not allow authors to perpetually cash in on old ones like a lottery ticket instead

ncallaway 3y ago

> The author could be dead In that scenario it doesn't sound like there's a lot we can do to encourage the author to create new works. Which is, again, the explicit and primary goal of copyright law and jurisprudence.

bdowling 3y ago
I think you're missing the point. None of the works would have been produced in the first place if there wasn't the possibility of making a return on the investment in time, energy, etc.

mitchdoogle 3y ago

This situation just doesn't seem that likely. How often has an author with absolutely no sales whatsoever on their first few books then gone on to release a best seller? If their early works are profitable at all, they would renew the copyright for the relatively low rate and still be holding it when their new bestseller comes along.

mitchdoogle 3y ago

If the author is dead, then what are you even arguing about? Of course copyright should not be extended past death. Do you think Charles Dickens descendants should still be getting paid for his work? It's ridiculous