2 ms·

I think that's backwards. The vast majority of all creative works make no significant profit past the first couple years of release. Publishers pay out base

I think that's backwards. The vast majority of all creative works make no significant profit past the first couple years of release. Publishers pay out based on what they estimate the work is going to make in the first couple of years, and discount the rest to 0. The publisher might know that the work of a 75 year old might actually have some back catalog value, so might be willing to pay for it. For a 20 year old, they don't know that and aren't going to pay for it, even if the copyright they're buying likely has a much longer time frame. If you used a 30 or 40 year old as your young example, I might buy the argument. Taylor Swift's back catalog as a 30 year old is worth hundreds of millions. Taylor Swift's back catalog as a 20 year old likely had an expected value close to zero, and there are very few 20 year olds as successful as Taylor Swift was at that age.

tptacek 2y ago
It can't be "backwards". You can believe the effect is muted by the new-release window, such that for the majority of all titles --- let's say, for books, the midlist titles --- a drastic reduction in the length of copyright wouldn't impact the comp authors would get from publishers. But you can't logically argue about the sign of the effect. Meanwhile, virtually all of the copyright-driven industries are portfolio-based hit-seeking businesses. The comp for creators prices in some low (1-10%?) probability that a title will be a breakout success. Those returns would in fact be impacted by a drastic reduction in copyright terms. Either way though: none of this matters. The point is that there isn't a logical argument for tying compensation to the lifespan of the author. Authors reap rewards today for returns on their IP that occur posthumously.
- reitzensteinm 2y ago
  I agree with you, and think copyright should be for a short period disconnected from the lifetime of the author, but _no logical argument_ is taking it way too far. Here's one: Copyright expiration during an author's lifetime directly impacts their incentive to make derivative works, because everyone else can do it too. In a world where Lustbader is churning out The Bourne Pontification, would Ludlum's own sequel be nearly as commercially successful? If the author is dead, no derivative works can be made, so we may no longer want this protection. Does this argument sway me personally? No. Are there workarounds like trademarks? Yes. Does (life + 20) make more sense than max(life,20)? No. But you're being needlessly black and white here.

tptacek 2y ago

It can't be "backwards". You can believe the effect is muted by the new-release window, such that for the majority of all titles --- let's say, for books, the midlist titles --- a drastic reduction in the length of copyright wouldn't impact the comp authors would get from publishers. But you can't logically argue about the sign of the effect. Meanwhile, virtually all of the copyright-driven industries are portfolio-based hit-seeking businesses. The comp for creators prices in some low (1-10%?) probability that a title will be a breakout success. Those returns would in fact be impacted by a drastic reduction in copyright terms. Either way though: none of this matters. The point is that there isn't a logical argument for tying compensation to the lifespan of the author. Authors reap rewards today for returns on their IP that occur posthumously.

reitzensteinm 2y ago
I agree with you, and think copyright should be for a short period disconnected from the lifetime of the author, but _no logical argument_ is taking it way too far. Here's one: Copyright expiration during an author's lifetime directly impacts their incentive to make derivative works, because everyone else can do it too. In a world where Lustbader is churning out The Bourne Pontification, would Ludlum's own sequel be nearly as commercially successful? If the author is dead, no derivative works can be made, so we may no longer want this protection. Does this argument sway me personally? No. Are there workarounds like trademarks? Yes. Does (life + 20) make more sense than max(life,20)? No. But you're being needlessly black and white here.