so let's say I wrote a book that I like it, some people like it but it was far from a success -and I want to prevent from being copied, I have to pay $100k after 15 years? In publishing times that's not much, books published in 2008 would have to pay that to avoid being copied and distributed freely.
The specific amounts were for example only. I could see making it much flatter for the first 20 years, and then escalating rapidly after that.
But, yes, in general, if you want to prevent it from being copied you would have to spend ever larger sums of money to accomplish that.
The entire point of copyright is a deal to encourage author's creating a work *so that it can enter the public domain*. This scheme is designed allow _most_ works to enter the public domain much earlier than they do now, while still allowing the most economically valuable creations to be pushed off for quite a while.
But, you the author wanting to prevent your book from being copied is a _harm_ to society. So, the goal with this scheme is that the extension costs should _roughly mirror_ those harms of continuing to lock a work up. The idea, then, is that when the economic benefit to you the author is _larger_ than those societal harms, then you'll pay for the extension.
But when those economic benefits to you the author is _less_ than those societal harms, then you'll stop paying for the extension.
> But, you the author wanting to prevent your book from being copied is a _harm_ to society.
I take issue with this. You are not harmed just because you don't have free access to something you want. Refusing to buy your kids some candy does not "harm" them.
Using this definition of "harm", you having money in your savings account is a "harm" to "society". Using your logic, the government then ought to force you to donate all your savings and excess possessions to "society" so that harm is reduced.
Sending people with guns just because someone shared sequences of words you claim "ownership" over is a cost and harm. Society does not inherently owe you keeping your ideas exclusively controlled by you. It's a form of a artificial, but pragmatic concession in the hopes it will encourage people to produce more interesting sequences of words. If it wasn't for social consensus you would not be able to control it and wouldn't be able to do anything about it (unlike physical property, which you can physically protect).
> You are not harmed just because you don't have free access to something you want.
Yes I am.
Art is the language of our society. It being locked away is absolutely a harm. Art is our culture, and our heritage. To deny it to people is absolutely harmful. It may be a tolerable harm, and one that we think is necessary to endure. But it is a harm
If I download a movie from the internet, the state can force me (with all the power of the state: courts, judgements, guns, etc) to pay $30,000. That is a harm.
Copyright is a legislative restriction put on me by the Government. That is a harm. Now, it can be a harm that's worth it. We may collectively decide that it is worth the trade-off to threaten me with financial ruin for watching a movie, because if it doesn't happen movies wouldn't be made. So, we might all agree that it's a harm that we need to live with.
But to pretend it's not a harm to deny free access to our culture and our art is just flat out wrong.
If you think it's not harmful, then let me ask: why can't we just abolish copyright law entirely. If there is no harm to consumers, then I would argue that there is similarly no harm to creators.
I think it's possible to sidestep the harm vs suboptimality discussion. It's clear that there is a benefit to the public when works become public domain, and copyright law should balance benefits to creators and consumers (though of course we all fill both roles to some degree). Laws also have to be politically viable, of course.
> Using your logic, the government then ought to force you to donate all your savings and excess possessions to "society" so that harm is reduced.
I would argue that governments do a "soft" version of this with redistributive tax schemes and social programs.
People saving money IS a harm to society and government does various things to discourage it at certain times. OP's copyright solution is similar in that it merely discourages keeping a copyright, it doesn't outright forbid it
I could see some negative patterns cropping up with this. Author writes book, publisher sits on it until the 5 years are up and then they can publish without royalties to the author. Same would happen for a movie script or the like. Publishers just turn into scavenging hyenas waiting for copyrights to expire
1. Author publishes a dozen novels over the first 20 years of his/her career. All of them are good, but none of them sell well.
2. Author does not pay the copyright renewal fees because they are too expensive. Anyone can now copy those books and pay nothing.
3. Author's next book is well-received. The author is hailed as a genius and there is suddenly a ton of interest in the author's earlier works.
4. Everyone but the author makes money on the author's older works.
Edit: The point here is that when a work is successful, which is rare, it is unfair for everyone other than the author, who is most responsible for the work, to profit from it.
For me, the value of the books is the value they provide to their readers, not the money they provide to the author. We want author to be able to get money because it will incentivize them to write. I don't think it's realistic to think any writer will not write because his work may become famous only after he has published some books and therefore won't be as profitable as some other copyright scenario. That is just not how people think.
I know that some people see copyright as some kind of justice system to ensure creators get their due. I think that view in general leads to copyright maximalism, and is not a good place to start from when discussing the value of copyright
> but why should the publishers who pay the author nothing benefit the most?
How do the publishers benefit from a work that enters the public domain? They have no more right to use the work than anyone else. I think the margins for publishers would be very low after a work enters the public domain.
Why are they making derivatives of a work that nobody cared about? If someone else comes along and makes a profitable derivative, seems like they have added something that the original author just didn't have (Better story, Better marketing, etc)
Actually, without copyright the publishers will be getting almost nothing as with everyone being able to publish the price will quickly go down to printing and postage.
I'm sure they could release those things, but how could they hold a monopoly when everyone is allowed to do their own translations, sequels, and movie adaptations? Maybe there would be some big successful publishers with that business model, but that seems like a good thing if they produce good content.
Wouldn't the author then be extremely incentivized to create a new novel after the well-received one?
Since that new novel would be granted an exclusive monopoly period, and the author now has significant notoriety.
So, since the explicit goal of the system is to incentivize _new_ works, and this system incentivizes _new_ works in that scenario, it seems like an explicit success of the system, rather than a problematic example.
In the current scenario, at step 4. the author can simply retire on the success of those previous books. That _fails_ to incentivize new works. So I'd argue my proposal works _better_ at the goals of copyright in this scenario than the current system.
The author could be dead and his family could be impoverished, or maybe his best novels were his earlier ones. Should publishers make tons of money off his earlier, better works while his family starves?
Also, copyright isn’t just the original work, it’s also derivatives like sequels, translations, and movie adaptations. Should all of them make money while the author and his family get nothing?
In the real world, limiting copyright like you suggest is a non-starter.
In that scenario it doesn't sound like there's a lot we can do to encourage the author to create new works. Which is, again, the explicit and primary goal of copyright law and jurisprudence.
I think you're missing the point. None of the works would have been produced in the first place if there wasn't the possibility of making a return on the investment in time, energy, etc.
the author could be alive, and write new works, and that seems more likely
any member of the family could also contribute to society by writing new works
remember the goal: to promote new works; not to make the author money, or their family money, or their family's descendants money; and not to enrich or prevent the enriching of any given publisher
allowing the author and family to milk old work in perpetuity, whether independently or through a publisher, would seem to incentivize the opposite of that
In some ways, writing a novel (or producing certain types of works) is like buying a lottery ticket. Most of the time it will be worth nothing. But if it is a winner, then the buyer would like to be able to cash it in. If, on the other hand, you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers, then people would stop buying lottery tickets.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to write or produce creative works, even when the reality is that most works will not be successful in any way. If you take away the possibility of reward for the few works that are successful, then that will result in fewer works being produced.
nobody is proposing "taking away the possibility of reward", or making anything such that "you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers", so it sounds like there're no issues with the proposal
if there was data that shows copyrighted works usually earn nothing the first 5 years, and earn significant value after that, or even that annual earnings from copyrighted works usually increase after 5 years, the argument against the proposed reform would be more convincing,
but in any case, the purpose of copyright is to encourage new works, not allow authors to perpetually cash in on old ones like a lottery ticket instead
This situation just doesn't seem that likely. How often has an author with absolutely no sales whatsoever on their first few books then gone on to release a best seller? If their early works are profitable at all, they would renew the copyright for the relatively low rate and still be holding it when their new bestseller comes along.
If the author is dead, then what are you even arguing about? Of course copyright should not be extended past death. Do you think Charles Dickens descendants should still be getting paid for his work? It's ridiculous
Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to creating things, with the ultimate benefit of an eventual richer public domain. Yet the author in your scenario didn't lack the motivation.
Under the proposed system, he'd also be more likely to be encouraged to continue creating new works, rather than just retiring because of the one successful book.
Under the proposed system, he probably would never have written anything because the most likely outcome is that he would gain nothing even if his works are successful.
Considering how much effort your hypothetical writer put into writing several books w/o getting any compensation makes me doubt their motivation was money.
The author can sell their own book even after copyright is up. Indeed some people may prefer to buy it from them. I think the system would totally change how people perceive these things
Firstly, why would the author ever hand over their book to such a publisher?
Secondly, why wouldn't the author have a contract with their publisher guaranteeing terms?
Thirdly, surely the publisher is incentivised to make as many sales as possible in the 5 years before the copyright expires, when other publishers can then sell copies (assuming it's been successful enough to make it worthwhile).
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is.
Copyright is a system designed to encourage the creations of work. It was not designed as a system to allow people to main perpetual control of their own art and work.
The original term of copyright was 14 years (with an optional 14 year extension). Why do you think the founder's believed that people "shouldn't be in control of their own art"?
You are "leaching" off thousands of people from history every moment. Using words and concepts they came up with, eating food from fields tamed and conquered by long dead people.
Rights exist as heuristics for making the world a better place, full of fulfilled happy people living meaningful lives. We benefit from the works of others and this is a good thing, it is our main advantage over creatures like the octopus.
25 years. That is generally the luge of a regular book. Sure there are exceptions. I can't find it, but a study was fine a few years ago and there were virtually no books on Amazon older than 25 years and still under copyright
