the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 21, 2015 16:43 UTC (Wed) by mips (guest, #105013)
In reply to: the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public by rgmoore
Parent article: Appeals Court Gives Google A Clear And Total Fair Use Win On Book Scanning (Techdirt)

The most obvious case is works by authors who are already dead, where nothing in our power could possibly cause them to create anything new

Arguably, the likelihood of an extension being granted after the author's death would affect the price in any sale of rights to a third party, and thus be of benefit to the author while still alive.

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 24, 2015 10:38 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (8 responses)

Actually, if you look at the evidence, rather than at the rhetoric, no extending copyright does NOT increase the value. Pretty much any real value resides in the first ten years or so.

imho, copyright should be reduced to the Berne minimum of 50 years, and the CREATOR given the option of extending it, ten or twenty years at a time, after that. Such extensions obviously would have to be registered, although I would also add that the legal presumption would be that if the author is alive, they have extended it.

Maybe allow the creators descendants - who were alive when the work was created! - to extend it too.
Cheers,
Wol

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 28, 2015 8:25 UTC (Wed) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (7 responses)

> Maybe allow the creators descendants - who were alive when the work was created! - to extend it too.

And thus reward them for... what?

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 28, 2015 8:32 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (6 responses)

people commonly work hard so that their children can have a better life, giving the artist's children the ability to keep renewing copyright on works that are important enough to care about santisfies that goal, without locking everything up. Works that aren't commercially significant become available faster, and it's still better than "life + 90" continually extended.

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 28, 2015 13:52 UTC (Wed) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (5 responses)

> people commonly work hard so that their children can have a better life...

Well, yes, but I doubt anyone wants their children to become parasites on the society :) At least I wouldn't; all I want for *my* children is a good start, and only that. And I would expect that the society itself would consider it bad as well. This is a balancing act, obviously, but the current situation is quite absurdly advantageous to copyright holders (and their descendants).

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 28, 2015 14:33 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

defining "parasites on the society" is not as clear as you make it out to be.

If a parent makes an investment that pays returns over the next 50 years and passes that to their children, does that make them parasites? what if the parent passes the same money as a lump sum?

There have been many cases where famous people have struggled to finish autobiographies at the end of their life to have something to pass on to their children. Why should it matter if it's a lump sum or royalties paid over many years?

Now, the question becomes what reasonable limits to this are. The proposal of one generation after the author (descendents who were alive while the author was can extend the copyright was the proposal I saw) seems like a reasonable compromise that lets someone support people they know without extending it insanely.

remember that this proposal is coupled with copyright being short but renewable instead of extremely long. If copyrights need to be renewed every decade or two, most works aren't going to get renewed and will fall into the public domain MUCH faster than the life+50 of the Bern Convention, let alone the life+90 we currently have in the US

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 28, 2015 15:09 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] (1 responses)

I think if we're going to change this we need to be more forward-looking. The reality is that life expectancies are always rising, and some people think we're on the cusp of changes in understanding that could increase them significantly. Just saying "lifetime of immediate descendants" is not taking these advances into account: there should be some cap on that as well; something like 20 years after death of the author would be my preference but probably you'd have to bump it higher to get agreement.

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 28, 2015 15:32 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

even with extrememly long lifetimes, having to renew copyright every decade or two (with some noticable but not giant registration fee) will be more of a bother than it's worth for the vast majority of works, even while the author is alive.

In any case where the lifetime of the 'next generation' is a problem, the lifetime of the author will be a problem shortly afterwords (with the next generation of authors). So it's not a problem I think we have to specifically address now.

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 29, 2015 14:31 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Berne is actually 50 years, and NOT life+50.

We have a bunch of rather annoyed artists who are alive and well, and who are miffed that their creative works from the 50's and 60's are falling out of copyright ... :-)

(Musicians, not composers or authors ...)

Cheers,
Wol

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 30, 2015 17:49 UTC (Fri) by Jonno (subscriber, #49613) [Link]

> Berne is actually 50 years, and NOT life+50
Actually the Berne convention requires "Life + 50 years" for most works (if the identity of the author is known, otherwise "Publication + 50 years"), though for photographic works the minimum is "Creation + 25 years", and for cinematographic works the minimum is "Publication + 50 years" (if published within 50 years of creation, otherwise "Creation + 50 years").

However the Berne convention does not give any rights whatsoever to the performers of a work, only to it's authors (in case of music the composer and lyrics writer). The Rome convention added similar rights to performers (technically this isn't copyright, though it is often called that), but only requires "Creation + 20 years".

That said, TRIPS raises all minimums to 50 years, and while not all Berne signatories have signed TRIPS, all WTO members have, so that probably covers every reader here...

the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public

Posted Oct 25, 2015 19:57 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Arguably, the likelihood of an extension being granted after the author's death would affect the price in any sale of rights to a third party, and thus be of benefit to the author while still alive.

That's a good argument that a law is constitutional if it extends copyright to well after the author's death for anything people create after the law is passed. But Lessig was arguing about the aspect of the law that operates retroactively. It's really hard to spin that as something that benefits the public. Maybe you have to look at it as a package deal and say you can't have just one aspect of a law be unconstitutional and that the future incentives help the public more than the retroactive giveaway in the same law hurts the public.