Comments on: Net-ignorant pols and corporations reducing U.S. Internet clout: Bad news for Hollywood, Americans publishers, the AP and Yank culture in general http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:28:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ficbot http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/comment-page-1/#comment-890495 ficbot Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:17:21 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/08/31/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/#comment-890495 I would say life of the author plus maybe ten years? That way, we can make sure their stuff does not go on the internet, ambulance-chaser style, the day after they die. And in cases like Douglas Adams, where he died fairly young and left a young child behind, it can ensure that his creative works can leave a bit more of a financial legacy for this family. But I absolutely do not think it needs to last forever and ever because the problem with that is, it only benefits a few people (i.e. the mega-popular ones) and leaves many other works which could find new audience in the public domain sort of languishing in limbo. And as you said, that was not the original purpose of copyright :) If you are Disney and I tell you that you cant have exclusive use over Micky Mouse anymore (you can have use of him, but so can everyone else) then it forces you to come up with something new. It stimulates creativity. The current terms are much too long (and I say this as someone who writes, and has been paid for it!) I would say life of the author plus maybe ten years? That way, we can make sure their stuff does not go on the internet, ambulance-chaser style, the day after they die. And in cases like Douglas Adams, where he died fairly young and left a young child behind, it can ensure that his creative works can leave a bit more of a financial legacy for this family. But I absolutely do not think it needs to last forever and ever because the problem with that is, it only benefits a few people (i.e. the mega-popular ones) and leaves many other works which could find new audience in the public domain sort of languishing in limbo. And as you said, that was not the original purpose of copyright :) If you are Disney and I tell you that you cant have exclusive use over Micky Mouse anymore (you can have use of him, but so can everyone else) then it forces you to come up with something new. It stimulates creativity. The current terms are much too long (and I say this as someone who writes, and has been paid for it!)

]]> By: Septimus Severus http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/comment-page-1/#comment-890010 Septimus Severus Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:20:55 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/08/31/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/#comment-890010 David Rothman said the following regarding the term of copyright: "I’m against 14 years terms." The first federal copyright act specified protection for 28 years. The term was 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive (says Wikipedia). What do you think the term should be? I will state my admittedly inflammatory opinion below. I think that we must return to the 28 year limit. Copyright holders have woefully abused the general public with their relentless and grotesque lobbying for the expansion of the length of the copyright term. Blaming “Hollywood” is simple-minded and misguided. Was Sonny Bono primarily motivated by money from Hollywood? Bono was a song writer and music performer, and like many creators he wanted his copyrights to last as long as possible. Orrin Hatch, another supporter of long copyrights, was also a song writer. Mark Twain said the following about limits on the length of copyright “I am quite unable to guess why there should be a limit at all to the possession of the product of a man's labor. There is no limit to real estate.” Twain supported longer copyrights and embraced the proposal to substantially extend it to fifty years after the death of an author. Too many authors, publishers, and other “creators” insist on enacting the role of a greedy egotistical villain in a plot of self-serving corruption. The U.S. constitution provides insight into one legitimate rationale for copyrights when it lists this goal, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyrights were never designed to ensure that authors or other creators become mega-wealthy. Copyrights were never supposed to provide a guaranteed life of leisure to the great-great-grandchild of a popular author. Almost all books generate their entire stream of compensation within a fraction of 28 years. If a book is still generating substantial revenue after 28 years then the author and publisher have already been adequately enriched. Unbridled avarice should not be allowed to impoverish the public storehouse of knowledge. A copyright should provide a reasonable incentive. It should not furnish an authorization for extortion and barratry. The copying of works older than 28 years is fully justifiable in the current deplorable legal situation as a noble form of civil disobedience. David Rothman said the following regarding the term of copyright: “I’m against 14 years terms.”

The first federal copyright act specified protection for 28 years. The term was 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive (says Wikipedia).

What do you think the term should be? I will state my admittedly inflammatory opinion below.

I think that we must return to the 28 year limit. Copyright holders have woefully abused the general public with their relentless and grotesque lobbying for the expansion of the length of the copyright term. Blaming “Hollywood” is simple-minded and misguided. Was Sonny Bono primarily motivated by money from Hollywood? Bono was a song writer and music performer, and like many creators he wanted his copyrights to last as long as possible. Orrin Hatch, another supporter of long copyrights, was also a song writer.

Mark Twain said the following about limits on the length of copyright “I am quite unable to guess why there should be a limit at all to the possession of the product of a man’s labor. There is no limit to real estate.” Twain supported longer copyrights and embraced the proposal to substantially extend it to fifty years after the death of an author. Too many authors, publishers, and other “creators” insist on enacting the role of a greedy egotistical villain in a plot of self-serving corruption.

The U.S. constitution provides insight into one legitimate rationale for copyrights when it lists this goal, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyrights were never designed to ensure that authors or other creators become mega-wealthy. Copyrights were never supposed to provide a guaranteed life of leisure to the great-great-grandchild of a popular author.

Almost all books generate their entire stream of compensation within a fraction of 28 years. If a book is still generating substantial revenue after 28 years then the author and publisher have already been adequately enriched. Unbridled avarice should not be allowed to impoverish the public storehouse of knowledge. A copyright should provide a reasonable incentive. It should not furnish an authorization for extortion and barratry.

The copying of works older than 28 years is fully justifiable in the current deplorable legal situation as a noble form of civil disobedience.

]]> By: ficbot http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/comment-page-1/#comment-889291 ficbot Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:46:32 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/08/31/net-ignorant-pols-and-corporations-reducing-us-internet-clout-bad-news-for-hollywood-americans-publishers-the-ap-and-yank-culture-in-general/#comment-889291 A good example of just what this commentator refers to: First, there was Project Gutenberg. Then America jacked up the copyright terms so high that Project Gutenberg Australia started, and hosted all sorts of works that were not yet 'legit' in America. And THEN Australia responded to American peer pressure and increased THEIR terms from life-plus-50 to life-plus-75. And so we got Project Gutenberg Canada, which hosts life-plus-50 works, among others. I am waiting for Project Gutenberg Russia, myself :) They have hardly any copyright laws there. A good example of just what this commentator refers to:

First, there was Project Gutenberg. Then America jacked up the copyright terms so high that Project Gutenberg Australia started, and hosted all sorts of works that were not yet ‘legit’ in America. And THEN Australia responded to American peer pressure and increased THEIR terms from life-plus-50 to life-plus-75. And so we got Project Gutenberg Canada, which hosts life-plus-50 works, among others. I am waiting for Project Gutenberg Russia, myself :) They have hardly any copyright laws there.

]]>