Do copyrights last too long?

Great Debates
1

Currently, a book can remain copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author (U.S Code Title 17, Chapter 3, Section 302).

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S Constitution gives Congress the power:

So that would cover the concept of Copyright. It’s a good idea to allow authors to profit from their work. If you write a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times Best Seller, you deserve to make money from it. Obviously, if people are going around photocopying your novel and giving it away for free, that makes it hard to make an honest buck from the book you’ve poured your heart and soul into writing.

But notice the key phrase in the constitution “securing for limited Times”. I have problems with granting these exclusive rights for a very prolonged period after the death of the author (70 years being unreasonably prolonged to me). After a reasonable amount of time has passed after the author has shuffled off this mortal coil (enough to prevent against losses by the book publishers), it should be in the Public Domain. Maybe 5 or 10 years.

The right of the Public to have free access to great works of literature outweigh the right of the Great-Grand children of the Authors to collect royalty payments.

2

I agree with everything but your proposed time limit. Patents only last for 20 years; why should copyrights last until the author’s death?

If a construction worker wants to keep making money, he has to keep working. He can’t just build one house and retire–he isn’t Eternal Boss of that house just because he created it.

There’s no reason that authors should be Eternal Boss of their ideas just because they were the first to record them. They should have a monopoly on profiting from their ideas for a decade or two: long enough that it provides an incentive to keep coming up with new ideas, but short enough that hoarding old content is less profitable than inventing new content.

3

I with you baby. I want to put the Public back in Public Domain.

4

IIRC, the first US copyright law granted a term of 14 years with one renewal. That sounds like plenty to me.

I’d also like to see a ‘use it or lose it’ clause - if a work is not available from the publisher for too long (five years? three?), the copyright would lapse. Think of Disney’s release schedule for their movies.

5

Well…In your post, you seem to perceive this issue only from the monetary point of view : the author made enough money with his work, so, now, everybody should be able to publish, play, etc…it and if he wants more money he should write another book, piece of music, etc…

But there’s also the issue of the moral property. For instance, you could write a book, and 20 years later i could make, say a pornographic movie loosely based on it but expecting to cash on its famous title. And there’s nothing you could say or do about it. I think that’s a significant issue.

Also, technical improvments are somewhat needed. If you sit on you patent your idea and sit on it for 70+ years, or even if you only strongly restrict its use, it’s impairing technical progress. Especially since, most probably, someone else would have come up sooner or later with the same idea. If yiou didn’t invent the phone, 2 years, 5 years or 10 years later someone would have invented it. The possibility to make a phone was preexisting. You just was the first to figure out how to make it work. But I don’t think you have an absolute right on the concept of telephone. Nor the right to, for instance, prevent everybody from using a telephone during 70 years, or massively restricting its use because you’re the only one selling telephones, and only at an incredible price.

On the other hand, an artistic work is completely original. If you write a symphony, nobody else would have written the same symphony, ever. You didn’t merely figured out something preexisting, you fully created it. So, it’s fully yours. And preventing people from playing your symphony won’t be an impairment for other musicians. They’ll write other symphonies, and even if you sit on yours for 70+ years, nobody will be annoyed.
To sum up (I’m not sure i was really clear), there are two main differences between an artistic creation and a technical innovation :
1)The artistic creation totally belongs to you since without you it would have never existed. The technical invention is only something you were the first to figure out. But it already potentially existed, and without you it would have been eventually created. So your rights on this idea are IMO more limited.

2)The artistic creation isn’t necessary. The world will goes on even if nobody ever read your book. The technical innovation is much more needed. By limiting access to it, you’re limiting further progress. So, it would be very inconveniencing to have 70+ years patents, while having 70+ years copyrights isn’t an issue at all.

6

I totally agree that copyrights last too long. 70 years from the author’s death is ridiculous. My understanding is that the latest extenstion (it used to be 50 years from the author’s death) is due in part to aggressive lobbying by some big holders of copyrights.

IMHO, 20 years (from inception, not from the author’s death) is plenty for books, films, etc. Computer software should get even less protection.

7

Why should computer programs get even less protection?

8

Sure it is, but what’s the rationale for protecting authors for 90+ years, while the creators of patented drugs or CD players only get to rest on their laurels for 17 years ? There doesn’t seem to be any basis for the disparity other than the “piratical” desire of the public to glom onto new inventions as soon as possible.

9

The reason for the different protection periods for patents versus copyrights is that technology moves incredibly quickly. It is reasoned that, by the time 20 years have passed, something newer and better will have come along, and the old stuff will be practically useless. And, that’s usually the way it works out.

Sure, the first copyright terms in America were short, but so were lifespans. By the time 28 years passed, you were more than likely in your 50s and about to kick the bucket anyway. The reasoning behind the kick-up to “life”, as I understand it, was the belief that no one should see his own creation fall into the public domain during his lifetime, such that it could be used and abused by anyone who pleases while the author looks on. Personally, I don’t have a big problem with that position.

However, the term of copyright currently, in my opinion, extends far too long beyond death. I reckon life plus 20 years would be plenty; that would mean that the author’s heirs have a reasonable time to continue to profit from the work, until, say, young children would have reached adulthood. Or, if the heirs don’t want to hang on to the rights, a 20 year term seems to me to be reasonably capable of sale to someone else. I doubt they’d be able to sell if the buyer could only profit for 5 years. Twenty years would give them plenty of time to find a buyer and make a sale or to hang on to the rights and raise the kids.

10

But that isn’t true.

All art is derivitive. The art that one person makes would not be possible without the full history of art to back it up. For example, I make movies. The first movies that was publically exhibited was of a train coming into the station. Thats it. Then someone got the idea to try to tell a story with movies. Then the Russians realized that if you show ostentaciously unrelated images in sequence, people will connect them up in their heads. Then Hollywood created seemless editing. Then the French said “enough of that” and made editing that calls attention to itself. Then MTV started making music videos and it all went to hell.

The point is, when I make a movie, I use every single one of those concepts. Without the work of the Russians, and the French, and Hollywood, and MTV, I would not be able to make my movie. No one would have a framework for understanding it. It’d just be a confuseing jumble of pictures.

And the same goes for all art. You symphony relies on patterns and tonal scales and stuff worked out through other people’s art. You are simply building on your huge artistic heritage. All artists are.

And that is the use of the public domain. Art progresses and enriches us just like technology does. And art ultimately belongs to the culture from which it sprang. For example, the song “Happy Birthday” is still protected by copywright. If I want to have people sing it in one of my movies, I have to send a check to a couple of old ladies. But how can “Happy Birthday” belong to an indivdual? It is part of our world, part of our culture. It’s become a part of all of us. And by now it should belong to all of us. By all rights it is part of the public domain, and it’s time that it (and other works) became legally a part of it.

11

even sven,

As an artist, you can use and be influenced by art that is not in the public domain. Heck, I guess if the copyright laws say life plus 70, then just about every piece of art in America from the last century is still under copyright. That hasn’t kept art from developing though.

I agree with the fact that art depends on the art that came before, but I don’t see how copyright law impedes that.

12

At this point, I’d agree that copyrights are far too long. My personal preference is twenty years, but I’d go up to fifty years, as it’d be more politically feasible (if taking away the copyright extensions if politically feasible, period.)

In terms of software, I’d be willing to give them maybe ten years if the source was held by some trusted third party to be eventually released if the copyright was up, and five or so years otherwise.

13

The short lifetime of patents is part of what makes that happen. If patents last 90 years, we’d all still be taking prolosec for our stomach problems. Instead we take the newer, more expensive, nexium, which is simply prilosec with an extra hydroxyl group tacked on in order to allow re-patenting. There’s nothing special about the creative powers of authors vs. inventors that should allow them a special dispensation from having to produce new things in order to make a living. The world would, arguably, be a better place if Disney et. al. were forced to come up with a new form of Mickey Mouse every twenty years, or fall by the wayside and let those with fresh creative ideas take over the helm of the great ship of American culture.

14

of course they do. that’s what the whole eldred v. ashcroft case was about. http://eldred.cc/ Just do a google search for Lawrence Lessig (or just “lessig”) and you’ll learn more than you could possibly imagine on this subject. Also check out a flash presentation of one of Lessig’s speeches: http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/

15

Some books, like works of art, are not appreciated immediately. If my book about my 18 years on earth isn’t popular until I turn 50, I would want to see the money for it, instead of seeing someone else make money off my literary genius.

16

Are you saying you think that if a book is out of print for 5 years, it should go into the public domain? ::shudders visibly::

A fairly standard contract clause is for the rights to revert to the author if the publisher has not reprinted in two years. This means that the author can remarket the work with another publisher if they have requested the rights back at the end of the two years.

17

I havent read any of the references suggested, but I have recently heard that the government is actually considering lengthening copyright protection, (or maybe it was patents).

There are all sorts of things wrong with intellectual property rights, but I rest assured that by the time the implications of the internet really begin to sink in, these “rights” will begin to look quite different.

18

Neil Young won’t release his “On the Beach” album (by far his best) on CD. It is out of print, has been for decades, and was only available on vinyl. Sorry Neil, but i’m going to download those mp3’s. If Neil ever releases “On the Beach” on CD, I’ll be the first in line to buy it, but to even suggest he has the droit moral to use copyright law to withhold a work of art from the public is nonsense and in the very least unconstitutional (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…”). Sure that kinda crap works in france, but not here.

19

Just to complete my thought… if after a certain time Neil still won’t release “On the Beach” it should revert to the public domain. Use it or lose it.

20

There are many works that are such an integral part of our culture that it is insane that they are still copyrighted.

The Zapruder Film, for instance. The Public should have full freedom to distribute and use copies of it. The Zapruder family has shut down many a website that had downloadable versions of this.

The Kennedy Assasination was, without a doubt, a very notable event in our nation’s history, and the Zapruder Film was the best known recording of this event. The interest of the Public to view this moment in history by far outweighs the Zapruder family’s right to hold the copyright, however well intentioned they may be in keeping it from being “misused” for any morbid purpose. This goes for the other two known films of the assasination that (IIRC) have been withheld from the general public.

And don’t even get my started on this “Happy Birthday” business. It is without a doubt something that belongs in the public domain. Those two old ladies who wrote the song (I believe they are dead by now) , and their descendents have milked enough royalty payments by now.