3 ms·

I would want to have data regarding the profit made by books within the first year after publishing, and the profit made in all years afterward. Unfortunately,

I would want to have data regarding the profit made by books within the first year after publishing, and the profit made in all years afterward. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find such data from a quick google search. I would expect that the vast majority of books make the majority of their profits immediately, with relatively few sleeper hits, as you describe. I would rather not have copyrights tied to an individuals lifespan, but rather be sufficient that they catch the majority of the sleeper hits. I could conceive of an author, knowing that they have a terminal disease, writing one last book, the proceeds of which are intended as an inheritance. If copyright only lasts until the death of the author, this would be impossible. This also has the benefit of ease of use, for people writing derivative works. Comparing the current date with the date of first publication would be enough to know whether the book can be legally used as a backdrop setting.

anigbrowl 12y ago
You could end up with all sorts of confirmation bias by taking that approach - for example, works of abstract philosophy are going to be swamped by the number of publications on current events, fashionable ephemera and so forth. Likewise, the visibility of artistic work is typically a function of the amount of money spent on marketing, so the longer it takes to build an audience the less time there is to reap any commercial rewards of authorship. Artistic works are not fungible; if I want to listen to some relatively obscure artist like Arovane then I'm not going to be satisfied by listening to Justin Bieber instead. Why should the commercial lifetime of the less popular work be judged by the sales behavior of the more popular? The extremely popular work, which is usually designed to pull in as much income as possible as fast as possible, already earns a great deal more than the less popular work. Predicating the allowable timeframe for earning revenue on the best performers would be a double whammy. You wouldn't reduce Olympic running competitions only to the 100 meter dash and dismiss marathon runners on the grounds of their inability to compete in the short track event.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  There's no reason copyright has to be the same for every medium, genre, or type of originating entity.

anigbrowl 12y ago

You could end up with all sorts of confirmation bias by taking that approach - for example, works of abstract philosophy are going to be swamped by the number of publications on current events, fashionable ephemera and so forth. Likewise, the visibility of artistic work is typically a function of the amount of money spent on marketing, so the longer it takes to build an audience the less time there is to reap any commercial rewards of authorship. Artistic works are not fungible; if I want to listen to some relatively obscure artist like Arovane then I'm not going to be satisfied by listening to Justin Bieber instead. Why should the commercial lifetime of the less popular work be judged by the sales behavior of the more popular? The extremely popular work, which is usually designed to pull in as much income as possible as fast as possible, already earns a great deal more than the less popular work. Predicating the allowable timeframe for earning revenue on the best performers would be a double whammy. You wouldn't reduce Olympic running competitions only to the 100 meter dash and dismiss marathon runners on the grounds of their inability to compete in the short track event.

nitrogen 12y ago
There's no reason copyright has to be the same for every medium, genre, or type of originating entity.