Comments on: Copyrighting the Great Pyramids, dissing bloggers, bypassing wimpy publishing types, and other holiday fun

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:52:32 +0000

Steve and Greg: I’m all for the concept of limited terms, and I certainly consider copyrights to be different from, say, real estate. I hate the idea of eternal copyright. But I see nothing evil about the possibility of just one work being able to support the author for life and leaving something for his/her surviving spouse and children. Call it a lottery—the odds are horrible. But, yes, the possibility does play a partial role in motivating authors, including the the literary variety. Keep in mind, too, that lifespans are longer than in, say, the 18th century. The challenge is to avoid creating what’s been called a copyright gentry. On that I’d entirely agree with you. Happy holidays. David

By: Greg Schofield

Greg Schofield — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:10:38 +0000

Copyright as property is a misconception, an over-extension, what it is is a licensed protection for works made public, a license granted for the public good, in order to protect authors and reward them for their efforts mainly so they will continue to contribute.

Traditionally a generation is thought of as 25 years and a life time as 75 or so years. Of course people die earlier and live longer than that.

The orphan problem, really for authors who die early can be easily fixed by a simple extension. 14-15 years after death when it exceeds 75 Years, 75 years from birth plus 14-15 years calculated from the birth of the author.

Copyright of 14-15 years for commissioned works where the author concedes copyright, is fair, and so for a particular edition.

Translators are another matter much neglected. I rank good translators rather highly, and ebooks change a good number of things – one of which is per item sold disbursement to those that in effect create a particular work and the potential to pay copyright holders directly with each purchase.

Percentages, publisher’s price, and a sensible system of copyright recognition (mutual rather than legislative), may do little for established publishers, authors, translators, copyists, illustrators, editors. But ebooks also produce new conditions which allow for many more publishers etc.,.

Here we could quite separately create a voluntary code for sensible copyright, payment etc., that protect the interests of all. The key is the untapped potential of publishing outside the realms of existing paper publishers.

PS very soon now Amazon.com will be launching a true micro payment system (down to 0.0025 of a cent with a 20% transaction tax – caveat 0.0025 is the smallest fee so 0.005 of a cent is really the smallest practical amount).

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:15:51 +0000

Copyright, is not a “natural right” or to use the term from the declaration of independence, it is not a god given right.

Copyright was implemented not for the benefit of the author but for the benefit of the public. It was thought that authors would produce more work if they had exclusive rights to make money off their works for a limited amount of time. Thus enriching the public domain.

Copyright for the life of the author actually does the opposite for certain cases. If an author writes a hit such as Harry Potter, and has rights to it for life, their is no monetary incentive for that author to ever write again. It is not the governments responsibility to ensure that an author has a revenue stream it is instead the government’s job to promote the welfare of the general public by limiting the length of time that authors retain rights.

The original copyright term is probably good enough for most works 14 years with a single extension. Technical works that are non-fiction probably shouldn’t enjoy even that much protection.

By: Brian Carnell

Brian Carnell — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:55:34 +0000

“Doris Lessing’s grumblings against the Net, especially bloggers, go on. I’m actually sympathetic to one complaint. She says that “it is common for young men and women who have had years of education, to know nothing about the world, to have read nothing, knowing only some specialty or other, for instance, computers.””

Now wait a gosh darn minute here. Is it really common for young men and women who have had years of education to read and/or know nothing about the world? Common? Really?

And she’s specifically including bloggers in this?

It sounds like it is common for curmudgeonly Nobel Prizer winners to make sweeping generalizations about people they probably know next to nothing about.

Weird for someone who was roundly criticized by “literary” types for her dip into scifi/fantasy in the 1970s.

I guess *everyone* has some snobbishness they just have to get out.

By: David C

David C — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:53:26 +0000

“More seriously, this is a priceless example of the boomerang effect of Western intellectual property law.”

Exactly. I can’t wait till he sues the US government for putting a pyramid on its currency

By: Joanna

Joanna — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:41:02 +0000

I support copyright for the lifetime of the author, because I know sometimes fame doesn’t come right away But I absolutely do not think JK Rowling’s heirs should plan to earn their keep on Harry Potter a hundred years from now. The whole point of the public domain is to both allow works to pass into the common pool of culture of our society, and to encourage new works to be created (for example, if Micky Mouse was in the public domain, they would have to come up with something new). Of course, if JK Rowling’s heirs want to write their own Harry Potter sequel (just as Gregory Macguire wrote his own Wozard of Oz sequel with ‘Wicked’) that would of course be protected during their lifetime