First let me point out that my above arguments, and my rebuttals are based on the following line of the Constitution:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Hi Bill,
I’ve heard these before.
- Yeah, so what? It appears the only real desire here is to get the work into a something for nothing “public domain.” Most businesses fail in their first few years and thousands of new books are published every year, plus lots of independent records get made every year. Given unlimited, free access, no one could physically read or listen to all the creative work produced in one year.
The public domain is not a something for nothing approach. The whole concept of the public domain is based on the fact that authors and other artists are granted exclusive rights to their works for a “limited” time.
In any case, the whole point here is to promote the general welfare. Perpetual exclusive rights run contrary to that perpetual welfare.
Further, I have never seen any justification that current copyright terms serve as an incentive to creative works. I doubt very few people were motivated to create more works when copyright was extended from death + 50 years to death + 70 years… and none of the works already written were created because of such an extension.
- Rights can be sold. Happens all the time. You want to use my software? Pay me a reasonable fee.
But what is a reasonable fee? What if you decide you don’t want to sell the rights? By its very nature copyright ensures that ultimately, a work becomes available to the general public without any limitation so that it can be built upon. With software (and mind you I am not talking about new software, but 25 year old software), the current law keeps things bottled up for such a long period of time that copyright fails in its basic goal of benefiting society when it comes to copyright.
- The Edgar Rice Burroughs Estate still exists, the same with Tolkien. If I want to pass my Intellectual Properties on to my children, I sure can. Sony recently picked up the rights to Buck Rogers.
And? Why should the simple act of being genetically related to an author who has been dead nearly 60 years (in Burroughs case) give a person the right to continue to have control over a book that was written before they were born?
- Derivative works? It takes years to be recognized as a skilled artist, writer, singer, or football player, not including the years it takes to develop the talent into a professional skill. Based on my experience, a lot of people seeking to get their hands on certain properties are a little less interested in promoting human knowledge and more on riding on the coattails of giants in the medium they want to contribute to. Now I’m not saying everyone thinks like this, but it is my impression that a lot do.
What is wrong with riding the coattails of giants? To some extent, almost every giant has themselves built on what was done before them. Stephen King would not have been possible without Brahm Stoker and Mary Shelly.
Speaking as a writer and editor, I don’t think I could handle writing a new Sherlock Holmes novel.
And? Your point? Others have (Generally not that good) or have taken advantage of Doyle’s work being in the Public Domain to make movie and television versions of the stories (The Grenada TV series was generally excellent).
I encourage people to develop their own talent. I’m not waiting for anything to go into the public domain. I have plenty of ideas for books. And that, I think, is where the problem comes in. I’m skeptical that ‘adding to human knowledge’ or insight is the real goal. Talented people are first and foremost, interested in sharing their talent with as many as they can, but waiting for something to enter the public domain and not having the skill of a company like Disney, what are you really going to contribute?
You never know until you try do you? Shakespeare did not write the first Hamlet. How pooerer would the world be today if he had been prevented from writing a Hamlet because someone else already had?
And just because 99.9% of the derivative works will be utter ****, that doesn’t justify preventing the .1% that might be brilliant by setting a standard of copyright that has become an encumberence on society.
I don’t want to discourage young creatives but the fact that you can go to a publisher like lulu and get your book published does not turn you into a professional. I’ve gone there and read some sample pages from a book. It read exactly like the stuff we reject at my company all the time. Then, on the message board, the author asks, “Why isn’t my book selling?” He does not yet have the refined, professional skill and expertise to produce a book. Not yet. Just because we live in the 21st Century, it doesn’t mean you can go to college for one year instead four and walk out with a diploma. The learning curve does not go away.
Of course most of the work on sites like Lulu is ****… but then again most of the books that publishers publish are **** as well. There has been more than one book that was self published that was picked up by a publisher because it started to gain traction.
–
Bill
)