More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Korean Sonny Bono law a headache for publishers—and taxpayers
April 4, 2007 | 9:22 pm
|
By David Rothman
Korean taxpayers will subsidize their country’s publishing industry to make up for the losses from copyright-term extension. Under the flag of free trade, America has once again bullied and Bonoized a friendly country. Details from the Korean Times:
Following the signing of the free trade agreement (FTA) between South Korea and the United States, the publishing industry is expected to face a setback due to the extended period for royalty payments.
As a solution to this, the government announced yesterday that it will invest 160 billion won in the development of the publishing industry by 2011.
According to the agreement, the period of royalty payment will extend to 70 years from the current 50 years after an original copyright holder dies forcing local publishing companies to pay royalties 20 years longer than is currently required. This agreement is expected to go into effect after a two-year grace period.
To help the industry, the government also plans to set up a publishing and information center to offer necessary data to the public.
Other plans include the production of television programs about books and tax reductions on book purchases. In an effort to help the industry tap into foreign markets, the government also plans to set up an international publishing development center.
It’ll be interesting to see how much money goes for printing per se as opposed to content development.
Reminder: The TeleBlog welcomes all viewpoints. I’d love to hear from Bono defenders. I continue to maintain that long copyright terms hurt literature—both the appetite for it and the development of new writers: not to mention the possibilities for more money to be made from Finn-style projects. Look, it’s the live writers about whom we ought to worry more than the dead ones. A little balance, please. I believe in posthumous copyright for the sake of the families of the few authors who do score big, but Bono is really just part of a long-term effort toward eternal copyright.
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
The story above is very odd. Is this a late April Fools’ story? Since copyrights are being extended it means that publishers and copyright holders are able to extract monopoly profits for an additional twenty years. This is a boon to publishers because the revenue stream for items under copyright is extended. Consider the alternative situation in which the copyright term is not extended. In this case works would enter the public domain. Publisher profits on public domain titles are often much smaller because there is more competition when anyone can publish a public domain title.
The publisher complaints about royalty payments seem very difficult to substantiate. Publishers have to pay royalties for a longer period but they are really just splitting additional monopoly profits with copyright holders. The monopoly profits would disappear if the works entered the public domain. Publishers are often agitating for longer terms of copyright. This agitation would be unlikely if publishers thought it self-destructive.
The unfortunately misused public is being asked to pay twice. First, they have to pay higher prices for twenty more years. Second, they have to pay higher taxes to subsidize the demanding publishers.
Septimus raises a valid point. I suspect that in monopoly-happy Korea, few publishers would grab an out-of-copyright book being offered by another publisher, so publishers could simply cash in on all of the revenue for older books rather than being required to share with authors.
Clearly the solution is not to subsidize publishers (although if there is a form to fill out, I could certainly use some subsidies), but to create a Korean Gutenberg.
Rob Preece
Publisher, BooksForABuck.com
One factor to consider is that in Korea, the percentage of books imported from elsewhere, especially from the U.S., might be higher than here in the States. Result? The Korean Bono could be more of a hardship on local publishers than you’d suspect. In any event, I wholeheartedly agree about the stupidity of both the Korean Bono and the above use of subsidies. Thanks. David
David Rothman’s comment is highly-creative. Thanks for the response. Yet, it is hard to visualize printers in the U.S. or Europe churning out large quantities of Korean language books for export. Isn’t it more likely that Korean books are manufactured in Korea or nearby? Yes, some books may have active copyright holders in the U.S., Europe or elsewhere around the world. In this situation Korean publishers would split the monopoly profits on those works with copyright holders. However, if the term of copyright is reduced then the items would enter the public domain and the monopoly profits would, in principle, disappear.
Rob Preece’s analysis is intriguing. Thanks for the response. If the publishers do refuse to “grab an out-of-copyright book” then the market is sadly dysfunctional. Further, the public would be punished by paying artificially higher prices. It appears difficult to come up with a serious rationale for rewarding these publishers with tax money extracted from the public.
No need for creativity here, Septimus. No matter what the language involved, we’re still taking in this case about paying for rights to translate nonKorean works. If the Korean Bono didn’t exist, the Korean publishers would not have to bear such costs.
Anyway, welcome to the TeleBlog. It’s fun to be exchanging thoughts with a real emperor.
No to associate you with Bono, etc., but current U.S. copyright law is imperial Washington at its finest
- David
I think that unfortunately my argument is not being understood. Consider two situations: First, suppose that the copyright for a work is held by a person or group outside a nation such as Korea. The local publisher can acquire the rights to the work for translation and publication. The publisher must pay for the rights. But the situation is still advantageous because the publisher shares extractive monopoly profits. The monopoly profits are typically larger and thus the publisher benefits.
Second suppose that the copyright term is shorter, and so a work enters the public domain. This means that multiple competing publishers can commission translations and publish the work. At first glance it may appear desirable that a publisher does not have to send money to a copyright holder. But this ignores a major drawback. There are no monopoly profits; hence the publishing profits are considerably smaller. Competing publishers must scramble to obtain any profit on public domain works.
In conclusion, overall local publisher profits are probably bigger in the first case than the second; however, an economic study might be needed to prove it. Certainly engaging in a naïve analysis that simply invokes the money paid to copyright holders is natural but it is probably misleading.
Regarding Bono (or its precursor the EU copyright harmonization act), I think that copyright terms should be radically reduced or restructured. Thanks for the welcome!
Thanks for the clarification, Sept–I know your heart’s in the right place. I can appreciate your argument about a monopoly on a particular title, but there are still the factors of (1) having to share with the original publisher and (2) the fact that if the price is too unreasonable, people may move on to other titles, reducing the advantage of the monopoly. Furthermore, you need to consider (3) the economic well-being of publishers as a whole, not just the local franchisee, so to speak. The other publishers can neither make profits nor create derivative literature. OK, Sept. Your turn. No infallibility claimed on my part.
By the way, why don’t you introduce yourself at least a little? Are you speaking perhaps as a lawyer or from within the publishing industry. Whatever the case, welcome! I’m really glad you’re here.
David
Simple fact is that Korea is a net copyright importer. Therefore, having longer copyright terms is disadvantageous. What I don’t understand is why Korean publishers have to be compensated, when it is the Korean people that on the whole suffer.