Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday April 24 2015, @02:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the useful-progress dept.

It's election season in the UK, and the Green Party's policy document has been coming under scrutiny recently. In it is a desire to reduce copyright term to 14 years (not life + 14 years, but 14 years from publication).

Unsurprisingly, this has received a bit of a backlash from various parties.

There's no chance the Green Party will form the next government, so this is all academic, but is this a sensible idea? Are people overreacting?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday April 25 2015, @09:39PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday April 25 2015, @09:39PM (#175172) Homepage Journal

    I see you're both young and you've never written anything worth holding a copyright. Isaac Asimov didn't get a dime for his Hugo-winning Foundation trilogy for ten years after it was first published -- his publisher had no decent merchandising. After Doubleday bought the rights, he finally started getting royalties.

    Five years may seem like a long time to you, kid, but it ain't. Had your incredibly ignorant idea been implemented, the only ones to profit from Asimov's work would have been Doubleday and all other publishers.

    Having read that, you may be surprised by a snippet of my next book:

    One might think I would be all for ever-increasing copyright lengths, having registered copyrights as early as 1984 and still registering them. One would be incorrect.
            Art and literature, like science and technology, are built on what has come before. “If I see farther than ordinary men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants.”
            Art and literature are both suffering very badly because of the ridiculously long copyrights, and we, as a society, stand to lose much if not most of it. Imagine how technology would suffer if patents lasted for ninety five years! That’s how art and literature are suffering.

    Far more reasonable is a twenty year term, extendable for another fifteen. Also, any work "out of print" for over five years should enter the public domain.

    Kids... sheesh. BTW, electronic versions of my books are free on my website.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:22PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:22PM (#176237)

    I see you're both young

    No, there's nothing to indicate that that person is young. You're just illogical. You seem to think that if a person believes something that you disagree with, and you don't know who they are, you are justified in simply in assuming they are young. You haven't even provided any scientific evidence that that sort of thinking is far more likely to be common amongst young people, and yet you simply assert this as a fact. Not only is this illogical, but it is also irrelevant to whether or not their arguments are correct; it's just needless filler likely used for poisoning the well.

    Other possibilities:
    1) People have different experiences and knowledge than you do. What if they believe it's a viable idea because of their own knowledge and experiences? That does not make them young.
    2) People have different priorities than you do. What if they prioritize culture over edge cases of someone personally profiting from extremely long copyrights.

    And there could be more, but you'll never know if you shut your brain off.

    you've never written anything worth holding a copyright.

    Same thing here. Value is subjective, so you cannot assert that they've never written anything worth holding a copyright as a fact. That is just your opinion, and your unsubstantiated opinion, at that. I think it is very arrogant of you to assume that everyone who has written something "worth holding a copyright" must agree with your opinions.

    Isaac Asimov didn't get a dime for his Hugo-winning Foundation trilogy for ten years after it was first published -- his publisher had no decent merchandising. After Doubleday bought the rights, he finally started getting royalties.

    Pointing to a particular example, or even quite a few, does not prove that the idea the AC proposed is flawed in general.

    Far more reasonable is a twenty year term, extendable for another fifteen. Also, any work "out of print" for over five years should enter the public domain.

    I've seen people say that it is unreasonable for copyright to expire in the author's lifetime *at all*. The mere idea of it is simply insane to them, and they would make the same assumptions you have made (that you are a child and/or have not made anything of value). Funny how that works. Everyone you disagree with is young until proven otherwise.

    Well, for me, the only reasonable solution is to get rid of copyright entirely, though I will settle for making it weaker in the meantime.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:02PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:02PM (#177131) Homepage Journal

      No, there's nothing to indicate that that person is young.

      Yes, there is. When you're 25, 14 years is a damned long time. Get much past 40 and you'll see it isn't.

      What if they prioritize culture over edge cases of someone personally profiting from extremely long copyrights.

      I'm one who prioritizes culture over what you term "edge cases." Copyright is ridiculously long, but 14 years with a six year extension is ridiculously short.

      I've seen people say that it is unreasonable for copyright to expire in the author's lifetime *at all*.

      So have I, an example is JRR Tolkien. Now, some copyrights should be longer than others; five years isn't too short for software because it's obsolete so quickly. Music maybe ten or fifteen because it's too easy for a songwriter to infringe by accident.

      But again, without copyright, only people like me who don't have to work could write much. Were it not for Britain's generous welfare, you would most likely never seen Harry Potter. Neil R. Jones is often criticized for not being very prolific, but he had a day job as a New York State bureaucrat. John Campbell stopped writing when he became editor of Amazing. Had he continued writing the "golden age of SF" might not have happened.

      If the world gets to the point where half the population doesn't need to work, we'll no longer need copyright because folks can concentrate on their music or writing and not have to chase money. But if you get rid of copyright now, you're going to see far fewer books and far less music.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 01 2015, @12:08AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 01 2015, @12:08AM (#177327)

        Yes, there is. When you're 25, 14 years is a damned long time.

        Whether something qualifies as a "long time" for someone is subjective. Present your scientific evidence that people "much past 40" all agree with you. I'll present a single counterexample: I don't agree with you. You seem to think that this is an objective matter, but it really isn't.

        Furthermore, the person did not say "14 years is a damned long time", or anything such as that; they probably just felt as if that is enough time for most authors to make money.

        I'm one who prioritizes culture over what you term "edge cases."

        By "prioritizes culture", I was referring to the public domain. But there is also your point of view. The point is, not everyone has the exact same priorities and can see things differently.