Copyright should last 5 years or until the death of the creator, whichever comes first. And that’s generous. After that, it should go into the public domain and stay there permanently. Copyright is a contract with society bestowed by the government, not an innate human right to have a permanent monopoly on your creations.
The interesting irony is, the longer copyright terms are, the less the arts and sciences benefit. CR’s last longer now than ever before. Look at the quality of the music/movies/books out there. Sure there is some good stuff, but compared to when CR terms were much shorter, the works made now are of objectively (yes, objective, not subjective) worse quality. Why? Because since the monopoly lasts (for all effective purposes) perpetually, there’s no incentive to keep creating new things, and less competition among creative people (sit back and make royalties off your work for the rest of your life, and let your kids and grandkids do the same). Just re-package the existing works and market them vividly and you’ll make plenty of money. Especially with the lowered expectations of the consumers as a result of this cycle.
Should you be able to wait 70 years to see how popular it is?
100?
Your entire life?
Your descendents?
There was an interesting essay by several economists about the value of extended copyrights in economic terms. It was shown that since the vast majority of the profits for things covered by copyright are no longer making any money after the first few years they’ve been out. Extending the copyright to the lengths we have been will do absolutly nothing for 99.99 percent of the populace. In fact, if we JUST focused on maximizing profit for the authors, extending copyright to be infinite would have virtually no impact on almost anyone.
Disney may love it though.
Right now, I lost the link to the article. At this point, I’m searching for it again, and will post it once I’ve found it.
Another issue to keep in mind is the international market. Even if the USA lowers copyright terms to more sensical levels, Europe, Australia, Asia (yes I know that many parts of Asia aren’t known for paying attension to copyright in any case) may continue to have longer levels. How would we compensate for that? Would people be able to go to the US (or a US web site, more likely) and be able to pick something that fell into the public domain here, but would still have awhile to go in Britian?
My personal suggestion is start clattering for regime change in countries that don’t follow suit, but I rather don’t think that idea would be popular.
If the work is not appreciated immediately, that means you didn’t try your best to exploit it. Too bad. If it’s one of those works that ya just have to die first in order for it to be appreciated, well, that’s really too bad.
Netbrian: The Berne convention has pretty much made standardized international copyrights, at least for the most part. Sure there are still differences between individual countries, but moreso in procedure, rather than length of terms.
I am aware of this. My worries related to the fact that if we were to attempt to lower the copyright terms, we’d somehow have to convince EVERY country to lower theirs as well. That alone makes it very, very difficult politically.
I agree. However, I don’t think it is particularly moral to profit from that which neither you nor your spouse created. Therefore, I think copyrights should expire in, oh, say, 15 years or on the death of the principal creator, whichever comes last. I guess that this would need some adjustment in the case of software, since it would lead to making the youngest programmer head of the team, but that’s the general principle I favor.
Although I consider myself conservative, folks can see I didn’t much like the repeal of the inheritance tax.
I totally disagree. If I write a letter to my old aunt, I’ve every right to refuse it to be published, even if this letter is actually the greatest piece of litterature ever written. I can’t be forced to print, record or sell anything I create. If I’m a musician are you going to send the police to force me to sing or dance on stage, for instance? You can like a painting of mine, but it doesn’t give you any right to take it away from me, reproduce it, and sell it. if I want it to stay in my bedroom. Even if I publically displayed it in an art gallery previously.
And despite not being familiar with the US constitution, I strongly doubt it would allow you to do such a thing…(actually I think there isn’t a chance in hell that it could be interpreted that way). Plus, being private citizens, I strongly doubt that Neil Young or me could do anything unconstitutionnal. Illegal, sure. Unconstitutionnal, nope.
I somewhat agree, but my post was in response to someone stating that copyright shouldn’t last more than 10-15 years, whether the author is still alive or not.
As for the inheritors, I think it’s still an issue. If say, an author dies young, it’s quite fair that his spouse/children could somewhat benefit from his work. Compare it with someone creating a business. You’re not going to take away the business (and the income it provides) from the inheritors. An author should have some expectation that the income generated from his work could benefit his family after his death.
Just thought about it, what about posthumous works?
By the way, does anybody know why exactly the copyrights have been extended to 70 years after the author’s death? Or who exactly pushed this extension? The publishers? The artist’s associations? There were probably some reasonnings behind this choice (I vaguely remember it has been strongly debated), and some sound arguments made. Does anybody know them?
In a nutshell, it was really the publishers. One of the nicknames given to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension act was the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, as it was spearheaded by Disney in an attempt to keep Steamboat Willy from entering the public domain.
Some of the bigger arguments were to keep the USs’ copyright terms the same length as Europe’s, the idea that artists are living longer, etc. Oh, and the fact that the people that want the copyright terms extended have much more money than the group of people that wants them pushed back.
Assuming it isn’t private, you don’t have to publish it, but if it gets leaked out and you decide not to publish it, then you waive copyright ownership of it and it goes into the public domain. At least, that’s how it should work.
Uh no, that would be slavery. But if you’ve made an album and sold it in the past, you don’t have the right to decide that you don’t want people to have it any longer. If you want to forfeit your right to sell it, then that’s just fine - into the public domain with it. The choice is yours. You can either sell it and make money, or give it up to the public domain and not make money. In my opinion, the choice is pretty easy, but I guess there are some people who think there’s a third choice. There isn’t.
It’s not “taking it away from you.” Paintings are by their very nature original works of art. There’s only one. Sure you can photocopy them, but it’s not the same thing as a song, which can be copied infinitely and always be exactly the same as the original. That’s why copyright law distinguished between copies and phonorecords. Paintings create their value by having either one copy or a very limited number of copies (under 200 for certain copyright protections to apply). Songs do not have value based on limited printings. Maybe there are some limited pressings of CD’s, but the copyright is in the music, not the plastic CD. Now, if you used to sell copies/lithographs of your wonderful picture in the past… and did for years… and then one day decided you don’t want to sell anymore, then too bad, it should go into the public domain. The question is how many prints were made - was it a limited number or did you, for a period of time, make as many as necessary to fulfill the demand?
The bottom line: if you’re not going to exploit your work, you don’t deserve a copyright on it. Copyright is the right to make copies (i.e. copy right). Not the right to withhold your work from society. Copyright exists on the presumption that by giving creators limited time (i can’t stress that enough) monopolies on exploiting their work for value, that society will benefit from more creativity. If you’re going to make things and then use copyright to deny society the benefit of your creations, then copyright should not apply to you.
I firmly believe that copyrights should last the length of the author’s life (I speak in terms of books and written works, since that’s what I hope to produce in this life).
Let’s say I’m an author, and I have an idea for a series of books, which could run up to fifteen volumes. If copyrights were only twenty years, then it would be absurd for me to author the novels, because by the time I got around to finishing all of them, I’d have lost my copyright on the characters, etc, from the first book.
Or lets say I write a novel, and fourty years later wish to return to those characters… but in the intervening time, they’ve gone public domain and a bunch of hacks have taken them and ruined them… thus destroying the value of my “forty years hence” story.
If I create characters (or, in terms of science fiction, an entire universe), they are mine. They belong to me. They are, in truth, an extension of me. You’re more than welcome to meet them, but only I control them.
Now, having copyrights expire either ten years after the death of the author or upon the death of the author’s spouse, or whatever, that’s fine by me. I don’t think things like the Mickey Mouse Act are beneficial.
When I was at DisneyWorld last month my friends and I, instead of saying “Cheese” when we had our pictures taken with Mikey said “Public Domain!” No one else got the joke, but we thought it was funny…
I disagree. As I mentioned in my first post, you aren’t Eternal Boss of an idea simply because you were the first to record it. You wrote a book because of the potential to profit from it, then you profited from it, and society was enriched by the chance to read your book. Copyright has served its purpose; now it’s time to let someone else build on your ideas.
If I build a car, I don’t have any right to decide what can be done with it. Someone who buys the car can paint graffiti on it, chop it into bits, or set it on fire. I don’t gain any “moral ownership” of the car just by putting it together. Why should a book be different?
Look on the bright side. You would be able to write a story about most any characters, whether you invented them or not. Someone else can build on your novel, for better or worse, and you can build on his, for better or worse.
We already see this online… ever read a fan fiction newsgroup? Dirty stories about Riker and Troi don’t devalue the Star Trek franchise.
Hell, look at Cinderella, Snow White, Beauty & The Beast, and The Little Mermaid. Disney didn’t invent those, they used characters and stories from the public domain. But because of changes in copyright law, no one else can do with Disney’s works what Disney has done with those others.
I explained in a previous post why I thought there was a major difference between a technical innovation and an artistic creation…(and if you were refering to a car without any innovation, then you aren’t creating anything new, so it has nothing to do with patents or copyrights).
Assume that you had written ten volumes of the series in the time it took for the copyright on the first volume to run out. Now your characters from the first novel, which you’re still using, are in the public domain.
Furthur assume that Joe Nobody decides to write a story with your characters. You think anyone is going to read it? You think he has a chance of building the fan base that you had twenty years to do on your own? How is he going to ruin your story? Your fans would probably not read his books out of loyalty to you. Even new readers who had never heard of you, but discovered the imitator’s books first, would find out about you the first time they went online and searched for reviews of the imitator’s books.
Also, as I noted in a response to someone else’s post, it seems to me that there are some people who are too much bent about the monetary aspect of the issue. The author didn’t necessarily wrote a book mainly for “profit”, and won’t necessarily be satisfied because he made enough money with it. Money could be an added benefit but not his main concern.
Taking again my previous example, if I base my movie on a novel written by say, His4ever who put all her effort during several years to write an edifying book with the intent to convert many people to her brand of christiannity, and that I make a gay pornographic satanistic movie based on it 10 years later, she could be legitimately pissed off. And the “profit” aspect will have nothing to do with it.
Also, about this comment :
As I mentionned in a previous post, in the case of an artistic creation, contrarily to the a technical innovation, you’re not merely “the first to record it”. Without you , this idea (book, painting, etc…) would have never existed at all. So, contrarily to you, I actually think you’re the “Eternal Boss” of this idea.
It’s interesting that a broad spectum of political views oppose the recent U.S. copyright extension. Even the conservative National Review recently ran a column opposing it – Right and Wrong by John Bloom. I’ve already predicted the Supreme Court will somewhat grudgingly uphold most of the extensions, although it will also rule than established common law principles define “limited” as “no more than 99 years”, so you can’t go on extending the copyrights forever. It will also be interesting to see if there will eventually be a move to try to get Congress to roll back some of the recent extensions.
