Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily. Seeing the potential for money encourages people to create. Seeing creatives eat ramen while others profit from their work does not encourage them to create. How many of us hear the stereotype of "starving artist"? There's enough discouragement already to create, we don't need more.
But that's all changing. Authors can self-publish and put their work on Amazon Kindle and musicians can record at home and sell straight to iTunes. Big publishing companies and record labels don't have the strangelhold that they once did.... (plus some more words on the changes of technology)....
Jumping out of the worlds of patents and other IP issues (trust me, the rules are grossly abused by the powerful), and focusing on book rights and mechanical royalties for music, if anything the stranglehold has increased. There are new opportunities for self publishing, but it's a tiny part of the market.
Between the internet and just the maturity of the business generally, what has occurred is a collapse down to far fewer and far bigger publishers, just (as an example) look at the number of publishing houses that have collapsed down to Bertelsmann (Penguin Random House). The countervailing force against large scale music and book publishing is, frankly, piracy. As these companies grow, their ability to push a lawmaker into extending rights holding time limits into perpetuity goes up. Simply put, no one represents the public in these systems....and the artists themselves take a second place at best.
What appears to be a new found freedom in the delivery of the arts (Kindles and the web generally) will end up being a straightjacket. The web tends towards gigantism and monopoly and rights holders will end up with the upper hand in both extending the terms and controlling access to works. Generally, I'm against government intervention in markets, but this is a case where monopoly implies regulation, and currently the regulators ain't in the pocket of the public. You can count on the ability of large companies to surveil your use of their works to go up and for the hammer to come down on anyone caught cheating. This will grow to include works at a far lower level than a book or 3 minute tune, people like Linda Ellis will cause a legal meltdown online.
You can argue that, in the case of books, it really doesn't matter. By the time the fix is totally in, the last generation of long form readers will have mostly disappeared.
You seem to think that indefinitely extending copyright production will result in the production and authorship of more works. I don't think anyone should accept this notion blindly without some statistical proof. If you have that, than present it.
I've never claimed I want to "indefinitely" extend copyright, I've clearly stated that it should be at least the life of the artist, and then a number of years after (to cover the time for the author/artist's kids to grow up, and perhaps the life of the surviving spouse).
Your argument seems to be that keeping the rights to ones' own intellectual property is "greedy." Care to show me proof that limiting the copyright will increase creativity, rather than, for example, causing artists to just quit or lower production and get some other type of job?
Quote:
I can just easily and logically argue that limited copyrights may result in more movies, books, and music. My argument would be that if an artist is looking at "time-limited" profits from his work, he will decide to become more prolific to guarantee that money will keep rolling in.
And my argument will be that if they fail to get any money from the early works, and knowing that those works will "expire," they'll think that they are wasting their time and stop creating (or decide that they can't afford to spend time creating). They're already doing this, what makes you think they'll become more productive (less likely to give up) if the deck is stacked against them even more?
Quote:
My argument is that the life of the artist plus 75 years is simply too long. The balance has shifted in favor of the artist and away from society's best interest.
Oh, you mean so that you can have free things quicker?
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-07-2015 at 08:11 PM..
Reason: removed icon
There are new opportunities for self publishing, but it's a tiny part of the market.
But it's a growing part of the market.
Quote:
As these companies grow, their ability to push a lawmaker into extending rights holding time limits into perpetuity goes up.
But these companies and their wishes are not what I'm talking about. I don't want them to keep pushing for copyrights to be extended. I just don't want copyrights to be shortened.
Quote:
What appears to be a new found freedom in the delivery of the arts (Kindles and the web generally) will end up being a straightjacket. The web tends towards gigantism and monopoly and rights holders will end up with the upper hand in both extending the terms and controlling access to works.
And the rights holders should be the actual creators themselves. Not some big publisher.
I'm not in favor of rights holders controlling the resale of works (this is something I know some copyright holders want) as I think that is too restrictive. You should be able to resell the book you bought, the CD you bought, or the artwork you bought, without paying a fee, or being restricted from doing so outright. That there might be other restrictions added to the current ones is not what I'm talking about, nor am I supporting that. I'm talking about not taking away protection (in years) that already exists.
I'm not in favor of rights holders controlling the resale of works (this is something I know some copyright holders want) as I think that is too restrictive. You should be able to resell the book you bought, the CD you bought, or the artwork you bought, without paying a fee, or being restricted from doing so outright. That there might be other restrictions added to the current ones is not what I'm talking about, nor am I supporting that. I'm talking about not taking away protection (in years) that already exists.
What you are talking about here is not the same as copyright infringement. Doctorine of first sale is ok. One can resell what ever they have purchased. They are not reproducing the work and taking profit from it.
If they want to sell their collection of CDs - they can without having to give someone a cut.
What you are talking about here is not the same as copyright infringement. Doctorine of first sale is ok. One can resell what ever they have purchased. They are not reproducing the work and taking profit from it.
If they want to sell their collection of CDs - they can without having to give someone a cut.
Kindle books and mp3s are going to be an ugly battleground here. It's an opportunity for publishers to nail down a few profits, especially in any era where buying/selling of used media got a lot easier.
Copyright terms are way too long, and there are many reasons that the current terms are unreasonable. I would probably return to the general standard common before the 1990's of 50 years. This was the copyright term on music and other publications in Canada and many European nations until fairly recently, and it did quite well.
Copyrights, of course, are artificial. They are "creatures" of the government, and they don't exist on their own. In earlier days of copyright, the government was not even involved in an active enforcement capacity - there were no agencies going out and looking for copyright violations. The copyright laws merely allowed holders of copywritten works to bring suit against alleged pirates, with the government agreeing to arbitrate via its courts.
As media became more corporatized, the government was recruited by large financial interests into assuming more of an enforcement role.
Going beyond 50 years creates a lot of problems, including that of outright loss/despoilation of material. There are a good number of works published from the 1920's through the 60's that are simply gone; they were too minor to have been submitted to libraries (or kept by those libraries which may have once had a copy), and the chain of rights are impossibly muddled by deaths and time. They are unrepublishable, because no one knows if someone could pop up years later asserting a copyright.
For that reason - even if we don't reform the length of copyright - I'd definitely institute a "use it or lose it" provision where the work has to be republished every 5 or 10 years by an active rights-holder, or else it automatically reverts to the public domain.
It's worth everyone's time to spend a few minutes researching copyright on music and all the little pathways you can go down, sheet music reproduction, the industry around ownership (Happy Birthday to You or the Gershwin clan might make good examples), licensing for live performance, etc. What a swamp.
The OOP issues on sheet music are far more extreme than for most books.
One thing I would add to the republish concept is that the rights owners actually would have to pay a fee on a periodic basis. This would serve to sort out the wheat from the chaff in terms of business, and would help pay for making the .gov the enforcement arm for this industry.
I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for intellectual property.
A tremendous amount of effort goes into a book or a film. And I can pick up a brand new copy of most books or DVDs new for $20 or less. Just scanning Amazon, I see The Criterion Collections's The Seventh Seal for $19, including a second disc full of extras. The 75th Anniversary Edition of The Wizard Of Oz also includes a second disc of goodies and goes for $12. Those prices are for new products; with a little digging for used copies I could save even more. The same goes for books.
If you get a DVD or book from your local library, it's essentially free (minus your tax cut to support the library, would might lessen by a cent or two by shortening copyrights). If you subscribe to something like Netflix with a DVD option, your cost drops significantly over the purchase price.
The cost is next to nothing. Anyone who can afford a television and/or a DVD player can afford the pittance it costs to watch a copyrighted movie at home.
And beyond all that, these are luxuries. These aren't life-saving medicines being locked down by some corporation. No one needs to watch The Wizard Of Oz or read The Old Man And The Sea. The notion that it's unjust that you can't enjoy these non-essential pleasures without compensating the creator is, frankly, rather self-absorbed.
Right now I am working my way through the 1990s television series Northern Exposure. I'm reading books by Cormac McCarthy and Bill Bryson. Fellini's 8½ waits next to my television to be watched. They all give me pleasure. Copyright duration promotes the creation and distribution of works such as these, and to lessen it would diminish the incentive to create them, and ultimately would result in a lesser body of such creations.
I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for intellectual property.
A tremendous amount of effort goes into a book or a film. And I can pick up a brand new copy of most books or DVDs new for $20 or less. Just scanning Amazon, I see The Criterion Collections's The Seventh Seal for $19, including a second disc full of extras. The 75th Anniversary Edition of The Wizard Of Oz also includes a second disc of goodies and goes for $12. Those prices are for new products; with a little digging for used copies I could save even more. The same goes for books.
If you get a DVD or book from your local library, it's essentially free (minus your tax cut to support the library, would might lessen by a cent or two by shortening copyrights). If you subscribe to something like Netflix with a DVD option, your cost drops significantly over the purchase price.
The cost is next to nothing. Anyone who can afford a television and/or a DVD player can afford the pittance it costs to watch a copyrighted movie at home.
And beyond all that, these are luxuries. These aren't life-saving medicines being locked down by some corporation. No one needs to watch The Wizard Of Oz or read The Old Man And The Sea. The notion that it's unjust that you can't enjoy these non-essential pleasures without compensating the creator is, frankly, rather self-absorbed.
Right now I am working my way through the 1990s television series Northern Exposure. I'm reading books by Cormac McCarthy and Bill Bryson. Fellini's 8½ waits next to my television to be watched. They all give me pleasure. Copyright duration promotes the creation and distribution of works such as these, and to lessen it would diminish the incentive to create them, and ultimately would result in a lesser body of such creations.
I understand this is a widely held belief. Its an assumption that probably every writer and artist in this country makes and wants everyone else to believe. The problem is there is little to no evidence to support it. I'm linking to an article in the Vanderbilt Law Review in which the effect of copyright laws on creativity was studied.
The conclusion of the study? There is really no evidence to support the idea that tough copyright laws (that benefit writers and artists) lead to more and better books or art works. I call, again, on the people who support these long-duration, copyright laws to come up with some proof that they benefit someone other than the heirs of the people who write a book. So far, I've seen nothing other than angry people who believe the legal system ought to totally take their side and ignore what maybe good for the masses living in this country. Its the old issue about using Congress and the legal system to benefit a small group at the expense of the whole country.
Instead, the study seemed to show that the larger the population is in a country, the more creative people you will find and the more good literature and works of art are likely to be produced.
Anyway, for anyone who wants to approach this issue with something other than emotion, review the link below.
One thing I would add to the republish concept is that the rights owners actually would have to pay a fee on a periodic basis. This would serve to sort out the wheat from the chaff in terms of business, and would help pay for making the .gov the enforcement arm for this industry.
While the republish idea is good for getting orphaned works into the publidc domain it could also be a burden for the "small guy". A fee would also be a burden for the small guy. Both of these ideas would benefit large corporations the most.
Government enforcement only goes after criminal activitiy and since the works being copied are popular ones they are going to be registered, they will have already paid a fee. Besides I'm not so sure we should be charging anyone to enforce laws, IP theft affects a lot of people besides the copyright owner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
