4 ms·

I'd say copyright terms should probably be shorter today than in 1790, since the speed of publishing and distribution has increased significantly. Five years sh

I'd say copyright terms should probably be shorter today than in 1790, since the speed of publishing and distribution has increased significantly. Five years should be more than enough time to profit from a work.

anigbrowl 12y ago
If I'm a publisher, that gives me every incentive to string you as an author along for 5 years and then publish without paying you anything. Lots of projects take longer than 5 years to reach the market - think of novels rejected by multiple publishers, film scripts trapped in development hell and so on. Copyright terms begin on creation, ie when the work is fixed in some medium - not when it's first published. try considering cases other than big commercial success stories that make a lot of money in a short time.
- dkuntz2 12y ago
  But doesn't each subsequent edit constitute a separate copyright? The publisher might be able to publish the first draft, but they wouldn't have the rights to subsequent drafts and revisions. Of course, my understanding could be completely wrong, and revisions might not constitute a separate work.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    You're assuming the author is constantly revising and improving the work. If I massage your ego enough while running out the clock I could probably save myself a lot. Of course, the market would change and authors would offer shorter options and so on; I'm just pointing one perverse incentive that would become available.
    - dkuntz2 12y ago
      It just seems like a stretch to me that they'd be able to string an author along for five years after being given the final draft. After a year without progress I feel like most authors would try another publisher.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Publishing deals often revolve around exclusive options. Also, publishers often wants to bring in a third person as an editor, market a book or a film at a particular time during the annual release cycle and so on - often for entirely legitimate reasons. It's not that publishers are inherently morally worse tha autheros, just that their interests aren't perfectly aligned, and short copyright terms shift the incentives strongly in favor of the publishers because they have more economic resources than the typical author and can better afford to play a waiting game.
- incompatible 12y ago
  Copyright terms begin on publication as far as I know. In any case, an author should probably look at the contract details before assigning a copyright to somebody else.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Copyright (in the US) begins when a work is fixed in a tangible means of expression. For example this comment is copyrighted as of 4:28PM PST on 23 December 2014, even if it appears in book form at a later date.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  They're good points, ones I've made in the past. But, I think the issues are surmountable. For example the case of presenting drafts to publishers could be considered to be a certain class of limited disclosure and the works could be treated as still private and non-public. Then a similar system to patents could be used whereby the publication, the [licensed and purposive] presentation of matter to the public domain, would be the key date. Such a copyright system would focus on the protection of business interests of producers (i.e. authors, etc.). In parallel I would maintain moral rights on a similar basis to the current copyright terms. They would start at production, last for life + some-years, and cover at least the right to be named as author of your own works and other similar rights that prevent libellous edits being issued and such. To pay for the system one could use the Statute of Anne's model of requiring payment for a second equal term. I like the 14+14 model; it still favours the author strongly IMO but allows works to enter the public domain when they are still culturally significant (to allow their effect on cultural development to be maximised). A 28 year term isn't quite a full career and so there is less sense that we're dissuading 'artists' from continued production. Under my formulation the statute would not protect works that could not fully enter the public domain, those with DRM say. To allow companies to use DRM they would need to submit a free-libre copy of their work which could then be released when the term expires (or put keys on deposit that could decrypt the works, or what have you). Copyright is a bargain with the people, rights holders need to uphold their end of that bargain too. There's much more that I could flesh out, but I doubt anyone would read it here ...

anigbrowl 12y ago

If I'm a publisher, that gives me every incentive to string you as an author along for 5 years and then publish without paying you anything. Lots of projects take longer than 5 years to reach the market - think of novels rejected by multiple publishers, film scripts trapped in development hell and so on. Copyright terms begin on creation, ie when the work is fixed in some medium - not when it's first published. try considering cases other than big commercial success stories that make a lot of money in a short time.

dkuntz2 12y ago
But doesn't each subsequent edit constitute a separate copyright? The publisher might be able to publish the first draft, but they wouldn't have the rights to subsequent drafts and revisions. Of course, my understanding could be completely wrong, and revisions might not constitute a separate work.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You're assuming the author is constantly revising and improving the work. If I massage your ego enough while running out the clock I could probably save myself a lot. Of course, the market would change and authors would offer shorter options and so on; I'm just pointing one perverse incentive that would become available.
  - dkuntz2 12y ago
    It just seems like a stretch to me that they'd be able to string an author along for five years after being given the final draft. After a year without progress I feel like most authors would try another publisher.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Publishing deals often revolve around exclusive options. Also, publishers often wants to bring in a third person as an editor, market a book or a film at a particular time during the annual release cycle and so on - often for entirely legitimate reasons. It's not that publishers are inherently morally worse tha autheros, just that their interests aren't perfectly aligned, and short copyright terms shift the incentives strongly in favor of the publishers because they have more economic resources than the typical author and can better afford to play a waiting game.
incompatible 12y ago
Copyright terms begin on publication as far as I know. In any case, an author should probably look at the contract details before assigning a copyright to somebody else.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Copyright (in the US) begins when a work is fixed in a tangible means of expression. For example this comment is copyrighted as of 4:28PM PST on 23 December 2014, even if it appears in book form at a later date.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
They're good points, ones I've made in the past. But, I think the issues are surmountable. For example the case of presenting drafts to publishers could be considered to be a certain class of limited disclosure and the works could be treated as still private and non-public. Then a similar system to patents could be used whereby the publication, the [licensed and purposive] presentation of matter to the public domain, would be the key date. Such a copyright system would focus on the protection of business interests of producers (i.e. authors, etc.). In parallel I would maintain moral rights on a similar basis to the current copyright terms. They would start at production, last for life + some-years, and cover at least the right to be named as author of your own works and other similar rights that prevent libellous edits being issued and such. To pay for the system one could use the Statute of Anne's model of requiring payment for a second equal term. I like the 14+14 model; it still favours the author strongly IMO but allows works to enter the public domain when they are still culturally significant (to allow their effect on cultural development to be maximised). A 28 year term isn't quite a full career and so there is less sense that we're dissuading 'artists' from continued production. Under my formulation the statute would not protect works that could not fully enter the public domain, those with DRM say. To allow companies to use DRM they would need to submit a free-libre copy of their work which could then be released when the term expires (or put keys on deposit that could decrypt the works, or what have you). Copyright is a bargain with the people, rights holders need to uphold their end of that bargain too. There's much more that I could flesh out, but I doubt anyone would read it here ...