4 ms·

Has anyone done a study on when copyrighted works make their money? I'm guessing that the vast majority of the income is made in the first decade after creation

Has anyone done a study on when copyrighted works make their money? I'm guessing that the vast majority of the income is made in the first decade after creation. Timeless classics are by far the exception. And for those, does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? The creation that copyright was supposed to incentivize already happened. At that point society benefits when works go into the public domain so derivatives can flourish.

ronsor 2y ago
> does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? In my opinion, it doesn't. In creative and entertainment industries, the idea of practically indefinite royalties has been normalized, but no other industries has this*. For example, it would be strange to continue paying a construction company after your home has been built. *As far as I can remember. I'm open to correction here.
- lionkor 2y ago
  any subscription service that doesn't deliver new value each day or month, like the Adobe suite(s)
  - ronsor 2y ago
    In the case of Adobe, you're paying for continuous updates and their added cloud services (or other functionality which requires their servers). Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. Meanwhile one does not pay for continuous updates to a particular novel or a movie. Even if they do pay for new installments in a series, they do so separately.
    - drdeca 2y ago
      > Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. And the per-second pricing is even less!
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Adobe presumably also fixes bugs, so hopefully you are getting something better over time. I've in the past wore out a favorite book and since it was in print bought a new copy - and found the same typos that were in the previous copy.
    - benj111 2y ago
      I'm sure thats what they say you're paying for. I suspect you're just paying a monopoly tax.
- radlad 2y ago
  I don't understand the analogy. We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. Probably floorplans would be a closer comparison - and I believe they are licensed IP?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. You might pay the construction company again for the identical 2nd house, but you're not going to pay the architect again.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      Dépends. If the 2nd house location requires review by an architect because of ground issues or regulation. If contractual provisions require an architect fee. If small adjustments that may have structural impacts are needed. You won’t pay the same amount, but still something.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        You're quibbling. That's really not at all the same as paying an architect to design an all-new building.
        Juliate 2y ago
        Not quibbling. That’s not the same order of magnitude but it’s real life. It happens and can be a significant part of revenue for the architect.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      Why not? The US, for example, recognizes a copyright in architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t...
  - 2y ago
- benj111 2y ago
  I'd go slightly further. A rich author can retire, and not write any more books. From an encouraging creativity POV, copyright length should be set at about the amount of time it takes to create a followup. But, as open source software, and most authors and musicians demonstrate. People will create without any financial incentive. So ultimately copyright is there to allow an industry that can actually find and distribute these works. For the record, I'm not suggesting that creators should be decently rewarded for their works.
- paxys 2y ago
  That isn't the right analogy. To start, royalties have nothing to do with copyright. They are simply an agreement between an author and a publisher. I give you the exclusive right to publish my book, and I get a cut of every sale. Royalties extend far beyond creative fields. Any deal where someone gets a percentage share of the sale of a product or service on an ongoing basis is a "royalty". E.g. in manufacturing or even software.
fwip 2y ago
Some people would say that the fortunate authors have already benefitted society, and that the potential of winning this lottery ticket was part of their incentive to do so. We could equally ask "does it benefit society to enrich tech founders with billion-dollar acquisitions?" That said, I believe the security of UBI to be a stronger enabler for creativity than gambling you'll write the next great American novel in-between shifts at the fish cannery.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
My guess is that authors have relatively long-term returns on their books, while movies are known to generally make almost all their money in the first year.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Generally yes, significant revenue (for books but also movies and music) may happen several years after the first release/publication. Because… reasons you don’t always control.
  - account42 2y ago
    Ok, but the goal is not to make sure that artists can derive every possible revenue but only to make sure that they get enough to for the creation to be worth it.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      Given the nature of the cultural market (authors/original creation often gets a very small share of what the end consumer pays, unless they are also their own editors, producers and distributors), it’s hard to make it worth it without extending in time (and part of the idea is that some of the value you didn’t get while you’re living will get to your legacy, which is a deep motivation too).
- Mindwipe 2y ago
  > while movies are known to generally make almost all their money in the first year. That hasn't been true for fifteen years.
  - mcosta 2y ago
    After the DVD and TV licenses, what are the sources of income? Toys?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
benj111 2y ago
I'd say less than 5 years. I'm not sure its even the relevant question. What length of time does a film studio, or book publisher look at for payback? If everyones calculating their return on the first 12 months, setting copyright to 12 months obviously isn't going to impact any industry investment decisions.
tpmoney 2y ago
I would bet it’s a bathtub curve for a lot of things. You make a chunk initially, then your cultural relevance / popularity wanes. Then roughly 20-30 years later you see a revival as all the younger generation that were fans of your work become old enough to both spend disposable income on more of it and have their nostalgia kick in. I there’s a number of older 80’s and early 90’s properties that are getting / have gotten renewed interest because the original fans are old enough to renew that interest. Think things like Cyberpunk (1980s TTRPG -> 2020s CRPG). I wonder if you could have a system that captures that sort of thing. Something like 10 years exclusive + if you register the copyright you can get 10 more years of a standard royalty + limited right of refusal and another 10 years of just standard royalties. That way you could benefit from the nostalgia bump but also society can benefit from easier access to build on your IP.

ronsor 2y ago

> does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? In my opinion, it doesn't. In creative and entertainment industries, the idea of practically indefinite royalties has been normalized, but no other industries has this*. For example, it would be strange to continue paying a construction company after your home has been built. *As far as I can remember. I'm open to correction here.

lionkor 2y ago
any subscription service that doesn't deliver new value each day or month, like the Adobe suite(s)
- ronsor 2y ago
  In the case of Adobe, you're paying for continuous updates and their added cloud services (or other functionality which requires their servers). Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. Meanwhile one does not pay for continuous updates to a particular novel or a movie. Even if they do pay for new installments in a series, they do so separately.
  - drdeca 2y ago
    > Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. And the per-second pricing is even less!
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Adobe presumably also fixes bugs, so hopefully you are getting something better over time. I've in the past wore out a favorite book and since it was in print bought a new copy - and found the same typos that were in the previous copy.
  - benj111 2y ago
    I'm sure thats what they say you're paying for. I suspect you're just paying a monopoly tax.
radlad 2y ago
I don't understand the analogy. We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. Probably floorplans would be a closer comparison - and I believe they are licensed IP?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. You might pay the construction company again for the identical 2nd house, but you're not going to pay the architect again.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Dépends. If the 2nd house location requires review by an architect because of ground issues or regulation. If contractual provisions require an architect fee. If small adjustments that may have structural impacts are needed. You won’t pay the same amount, but still something.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      You're quibbling. That's really not at all the same as paying an architect to design an all-new building.
      - Juliate 2y ago
        Not quibbling. That’s not the same order of magnitude but it’s real life. It happens and can be a significant part of revenue for the architect.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Why not? The US, for example, recognizes a copyright in architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t...
- 2y ago
benj111 2y ago
I'd go slightly further. A rich author can retire, and not write any more books. From an encouraging creativity POV, copyright length should be set at about the amount of time it takes to create a followup. But, as open source software, and most authors and musicians demonstrate. People will create without any financial incentive. So ultimately copyright is there to allow an industry that can actually find and distribute these works. For the record, I'm not suggesting that creators should be decently rewarded for their works.
paxys 2y ago
That isn't the right analogy. To start, royalties have nothing to do with copyright. They are simply an agreement between an author and a publisher. I give you the exclusive right to publish my book, and I get a cut of every sale. Royalties extend far beyond creative fields. Any deal where someone gets a percentage share of the sale of a product or service on an ongoing basis is a "royalty". E.g. in manufacturing or even software.

fwip 2y ago

Some people would say that the fortunate authors have already benefitted society, and that the potential of winning this lottery ticket was part of their incentive to do so. We could equally ask "does it benefit society to enrich tech founders with billion-dollar acquisitions?" That said, I believe the security of UBI to be a stronger enabler for creativity than gambling you'll write the next great American novel in-between shifts at the fish cannery.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

My guess is that authors have relatively long-term returns on their books, while movies are known to generally make almost all their money in the first year.

Juliate 2y ago
Generally yes, significant revenue (for books but also movies and music) may happen several years after the first release/publication. Because… reasons you don’t always control.
- account42 2y ago
  Ok, but the goal is not to make sure that artists can derive every possible revenue but only to make sure that they get enough to for the creation to be worth it.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Given the nature of the cultural market (authors/original creation often gets a very small share of what the end consumer pays, unless they are also their own editors, producers and distributors), it’s hard to make it worth it without extending in time (and part of the idea is that some of the value you didn’t get while you’re living will get to your legacy, which is a deep motivation too).
Mindwipe 2y ago
> while movies are known to generally make almost all their money in the first year. That hasn't been true for fifteen years.
- mcosta 2y ago
  After the DVD and TV licenses, what are the sources of income? Toys?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago

benj111 2y ago

I'd say less than 5 years. I'm not sure its even the relevant question. What length of time does a film studio, or book publisher look at for payback? If everyones calculating their return on the first 12 months, setting copyright to 12 months obviously isn't going to impact any industry investment decisions.

tpmoney 2y ago

I would bet it’s a bathtub curve for a lot of things. You make a chunk initially, then your cultural relevance / popularity wanes. Then roughly 20-30 years later you see a revival as all the younger generation that were fans of your work become old enough to both spend disposable income on more of it and have their nostalgia kick in. I there’s a number of older 80’s and early 90’s properties that are getting / have gotten renewed interest because the original fans are old enough to renew that interest. Think things like Cyberpunk (1980s TTRPG -> 2020s CRPG). I wonder if you could have a system that captures that sort of thing. Something like 10 years exclusive + if you register the copyright you can get 10 more years of a standard royalty + limited right of refusal and another 10 years of just standard royalties. That way you could benefit from the nostalgia bump but also society can benefit from easier access to build on your IP.