Re: The Eric Eldred ActLinda,
I'm sorry you believe creating is such an arduous effort that it must be rewarded with copyrights that extend well beyond the lifetime of the creator and probably beyond the lifetime of any direct descendents (those who may have suffered during the period of creation). Perhaps you, and other creators, should take a different view of this process. The copyright industry is the only one in the world that reaps a reward based on time rather than on the principle of supply and demand. Right now, there are more creative works published and available than any other time in history. Books, TV, Movies, Radio, all are so filled with, not only the works that are published, but also those who are trying to get into the business. And above that, there is a proliferation of free content on the web. It isn't edited so you get a lot of poor quality works, but many of them are simply what publishers refer to as 'unmarketable'.
With all these possibilities, the value of any single work should - by rules of supply and demand - be very nearly valueless. Most of these copyrights you want to so ardently protect for the life of the creator +70 years have a realistic lifespan of a few months to a few years. Those timeless works that have longer commercial spans could just as easily be protected by Eric Eldred's idea of a tax to maintain the copyright - and this would free up the other works, those with only a limited commercial lifespan, to be re-used in a work that may very well surpass the original. Someone on the list suggested that Disney's Beauty and the Beast was the best version of the story - and it never would have been created it the story were still under copyright.
You treat copyrights as if they were some sort of real property that the author has a natural right to maintain. If anything is that sort of property, it would be the work itself - which is something that numerous U.S. judges have insisted does NOT belong to the writer. They own only the copyright (see the decision on The Wind Done Gone.) And copyright is a government granted monopoly that is supposed to exist only for a limited time. Limitations for Presidential terms is 4 years, renewable once. Limitations on the prosecution of robbery is generally seven years (some variation from state to state.) There is even a true limitation on the prosecution of murder - which never has a legal limitation, and that is the realistic limitation of human lifespan. Descendents do not need to be worried that they will be prosecuted for a crime their ancestor committed. Copyrights, once they have extended beyond the lifespan of the creator, beyond the lifespan of the possible reader, have NO realistic limitation, but are, for all practical purposes of the currently living, perpetual. I am shocked and dismayed that the Supreme Court chose to support this extention that took copyrights another 20 years something that was already, for practical purposes of the living, unlimited.
Susan Aker
Hello Eric
Having seen the effect of rampant copying and distribution on the music industry and the effect of competition from too much royalty free stock art and works of old masters on the illustration industry, I don't think introducing more works into public domain promotes progress enough to offset the depressing effect that releasing a flood of republished works has on original creations and emerging markets in the digital age. However, since you asked for opinions, I'd like to suggest a carrot instead of a stick.
If your goal is to nudge languishing copyrighted works into the public domain sooner, why not petition Congress to offer a tax incentive for donating works that copyright holders don't plan to exploit themselves rather than thinking of ways to unfairly push creators into giving up copyrights. Creators' heirs already give more than other citizens. Who else in our capitalistic society is forced to give up valuable holdings to the public domain without any compensation for the loss of income their unique property can potentially produce?
If your goal is to make works more available and accessible to the public, why not petition Congress to be more proactive in supporting the exclusive rights of creators during their limited terms? Laws only help IF creators can afford to register the works, and IF they can take the time and effort to track down infringements, and IF they can afford the money and time spent to pursue infringement cases. Congress could do much more. They could set up a licensing system for copyrighted works so creators could update it online with info about available licenses and fees. Then the public would have easy access and the ability to do price comparisons. Congress could also authorize public information broadcasts telling people about the harm copyright infringement does and how to avoid doing it. Public domain works could carry a distinctive mark allowing the public to KNOW when they are using works legally. Congress could entitle original creators to participate in copyright infringement insurance so the insurance company could pursue infringement cases thus allowing creators to keep creating more new works. Then creators could actually earn the income to which they are suppose to be exclusively entitled.
Instead, Congress keeps putting a fresh bandage on a gushing wound. The struggle to exercise the creators' supposedly exclusive rights has become incredibly difficult due to rampant infringement, ease of copying, instant access to worldwide distribution, and increasing competition from republished public domain works. Extending the time creators and their heirs have to earn from their creations every time technology makes earning from those works more difficult is the least Congress can do. The very least.
Regarding reasonable term limits in today's environment, the ability to earn from their creative efforts is so difficult, that children and spouses of creators often have to sacrifice for the sake of the "art." Maybe even more than the creator does. The creator may be blissfully happy creating while the rest of the family struggles to make ends meet on scant income. Being a creator is often a cottage industry with the entire family invested in the business. They all deserve to be rewarded for the duration of their lives for their contribution, sacrifice, and continued marketing efforts. In addition, other publishers may alter the works in ways that embarrass the heirs. The heirs have a stake in both the creators reputation and the work. They have insight about how and where the creator would want the work to appear. The public does not deserve to step in and benefit ahead of those who helped bring the work to the world. So the authors life plus 70 years or the lifetime of the children, whichever is longer, is reasonable in my view. (If you made it dependent only on the lifetime of the children, it might endanger their lives.)
Just wanted to let you see what the opposite end of the spectrum looks like. :) You may see red about term limit extensions, but things looks pretty blue on my end.
Linda Gruber
Novel Art
http://www.novelart.com
on 1/27/03 9:03 PM, cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org at cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
Eric Eldred wrote:
In response to the stunning decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, we have come up with an idea that we would like discussed here.
It is for a tiny tax on works in the 50th year of copyright. If the tax is not paid, the work would enter the public domain. Thus works with no commercial value would enter the public domain much as they would earlier when the term expired. Works with commercial value would be paid for and would enjoy the current copyright term. The tax could go to support the registration process.
Maybe 50 years of copyright is too long. The Economist has spoken out for a 14 year renewable term. But we recognize we have to make significant compromises with the strong copyright interests in Hollywood in order to persuade Congress about the benefits of this proposed act.
For more information, please see
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
What do you think?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:48 GMT