New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[Bohandas]

Except that the moment that the Smith family published it, it would be "free on the internet." That was the whole point that I wanted someone to get around to, when I posted that.

Their profit of zero still beats the company that goes millions of dollars in the hole to make a movie that everyone's gonna watch on the internet, therefore. my point still stands. Their profit is higher because they've lost nothing. They've literally lost nothing.

 

[Bohandas]

The nature of owning a creative work is very different. You may own a physical copy of his notes or a specific copy of a book he wrote, but owning the copyright to a work isn't like owning something physical that cannot be infinitely duplicated, is at risk of being destroyed/stolen or otherwise taken from your possession, and doesn't not degrade in condition if you fail to physically maintain it. As long as the work is in demand, a copyright holder can distribute the work (in some form) again, and again, and again, and never reduce his capacity to continue to do so.
So, yeah, why should they work the same?

Exactly.

It's not like there's any other place in society where you can do your job once and then get paid for it over and over again.

EDIT:
Actually strike that. If you're a relative of a corrupt politician or CEO you can get a no-show job. But other than THAT there's no other place where you can do your job once and get paid for it over and over again.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then there is precisely zero reason for anyone to want to create anything new.

And yet people have made new things throughout history, even though IP exclusivity is a very modern invention.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also, as I have previously said here, without the ability to survive as a creative, there is no incentive to be one.

But this has never been true, in any era or locality, in all of history. Copyright is not required for artists to profit from their work.

You know artists made art for a living before copyright, right?

No one cared that Shakespeare was retelling stories others had already told, or using characters thought up by past generations. No one cared. No one said, “why would I pay to see this play if it isn’t wholly novel and unique and original!?”

And yet, Shakespeare made both novel and derivative plays, and both are considered amongst the best plays ever written in the West.

 

[Lanefan]

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, copyright prevents/limits copying something too closely, but not actual creativity. Let’s be honest here: what is more creative, copying someone’s work exactly and making a few changes to tell a story or doing an identifiable homage that tells the same tale?

The branch of creativity it really limits (or limits the potential returns on) is - I guess a term for it would be "additive" creativity, where someone takes existing material and uses it as a basis on which to add new material; material which may or may not be better than what the copyright holders could or did ever produce.

For example, were I to hypothetically come up with a half-decent script for a James Bond movie I wouldn't be able to just make the movie and release it. Instead, my only option would be to try to sell the script to whoever owns the Bond franchise these days, and if they declined it all I'd be able to do with that piece of creative work is bin it. Doesn't exactly encourage me to sit down and start writing.

Most of the ways in which copyrighted material generates income are directly related to the copyright itself. The big bucks for musicians come from songwriting royalties, concerts and merchandise, nor record sales. Of those, only concerts don’t require control of a copyright to be an income stream for the IP creator. And musicians like Jason Becker (ALS rendered him a paraplegic) cannot perform.

There are no retirement plans, etc.

Which is why I've been saying copyright should always last at least as long as the creator is alive provided the creator still holds the copyright. It's the after-the-creator-dies piece where the arguments arise.

Any sold or forcibly-transferred* copyright should have a hard expiry date of x-years after the date of sale or transfer from the original creator regardless of anything else.

* - by this I mean for example copyrights that transfer to corporations due to those awful employment contracts that stipulate that anything you create related to the company's business while employed becomes the property of the company even if you do it on your own time.

Is your work worth 1000x or more than when it was created?

Yes.

A thousand times zero, however, does not amount to much.

 

[Ryujin]

But this has never been true, in any era or locality, in all of history. Copyright is not required for artists to profit from their work.

You know artists made art for a living before copyright, right?

No one cared that Shakespeare was retelling stories others had already told, or using characters thought up by past generations. No one cared. No one said, “why would I pay to see this play if it isn’t wholly novel and unique and original!?”

And yet, Shakespeare made both novel and derivative plays, and both are considered amongst the best plays ever written in the West.

"A living" is a relative term. Shakespeare made a living by putting on those plays, not from their writing, and those stories that he told about actual historical figures would effectively have been in the public domain by the time he wrote them anyway, by today's standards. Without wealthy patrons he'd have been nowhere. That doesn't really work for authors, in an age where a quick scan and internet post can take away their ability to sell the books (that they would still need seed capital to print).

Painters typically made a living by working on commission to the powerful and wealthy. Or they traded a painting for a loaf of bread and a wedge of cheese, when the innkeeper thought it was worth that much. Van Gogh didn't do that well at making a living. Now those paintings sell for literally millions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"A living" is a relative term. Shakespeare made a living by putting on those plays, not from their writing, and those stories that he told about actual historical figures would effectively have been in the public domain by the time he wrote them anyway, by today's standards. Without wealthy patrons he'd have been nowhere. That doesn't really work for authors, in an age where a quick scan and internet post can take away their ability to sell the books (that they would still need seed capital to print).

And yet, he and a ton of others made a living as playwrights. Without copyright.

Painters typically made a living by working on commission to the powerful and wealthy. Or they traded a painting for a loaf of bread and a wedge of cheese, when the innkeeper thought it was worth that much. Van Gogh didn't do that well at making a living. Now those paintings sell for literally millions.

And plenty of artists can’t make a living now, I’m spite of incredible talent and creativity.

 

[billd91]

For example, were I to hypothetically come up with a half-decent script for a James Bond movie I wouldn't be able to just make the movie and release it. Instead, my only option would be to try to sell the script to whoever owns the Bond franchise these days, and if they declined it all I'd be able to do with that piece of creative work is bin it. Doesn't exactly encourage me to sit down and start writing.

If it has to be James Bond and not some other highly skilled spy working for MI6, sure. But it's not like there aren't plenty of other spy characters out there. Gadget-using spy is a big enough pool for a lot of people to play in.

 

[Ryujin]

And yet, he and a ton of others made a living as playwrights. Without copyright.

And plenty of artists can’t make a living now, I’m spite of incredible talent and creativity.

I would argue that they made a living as directors. They just had to write their own material. And what happened then doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to today.

 

[Ryujin]

If it has to be James Bond and not some other highly skilled spy working for MI6, sure. But it's not like there aren't plenty of other spy characters out there. Gadget-using spy is a big enough pool for a lot of people to play in.

But MI-6 is under copyright! Oh.... wait....