New (and calmer) Copyright discussion thread (split out from "Publishing a Sequel")

Memnon624 said:

So, I've been thinking this over and I have a question: why is it in the best interest of me or my descendants (or whomever I designate as heir to my "literary estate" after I'm gone) for my work to enter public domain? Why should their right to profit from it NOT be protected in perpetuity?

The more I think about it, the more I kind of agree with Disney . . .

Click to expand...

Copyright does not exist so that your great-great-great-great grandchildren can get checks in the mail without having done any work. Copyrights and patents exist--and here I am quoting directly from Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. 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[.]"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

In other words, copyrights (and patents) exist because the founders of this nation decided that a continual flow of new artworks (and new inventions) would be good for the country as a whole, and the best way of ensuring that there would be a flow of new artworks/inventions was giving authors/inventors a financial incentive for creating new artworks/inventions.

And why is it for a limited time, instead of in perpetuity? Because the founders of the nation decided that (1) it was better for the country for such monopolies to be only temporary, because that way authors/inventors got a financial incentive (which was fair to them) but couldn't lock up the market forever (which was fair to the public); and (2) it provided authors/inventors with incentives to continually come up with new artworks/inventions, instead of just resting on their laurels. (Copyright used to only last for fourteen years, remember.)

And not to mention, there comes a point where your descendants are either so numerous (dozens of great-great-grandchildren) or so remote (e.g. if you never had kids, or your kids didn't have kids, etc., so your only remaining relatives are fourth cousins once removed or whatever) that it would be a MAJOR hassle--very complicated and expensive--to get everyone's approval to publish a new edition. For example, what if 150 years from now you had six third cousins twice removed, two great-great-grandchildren-in-law, etc. etc. etc., and someone wanted to publish a new edition of your book? They couldn't even do it without tracking down and getting the permission of all those relatives. And if the relatives disagreed with each other about anything--whether it could be published, how to split the royalties, etc.--the publisher would either just give up and not publish it, or would get dragged into a complicated, expensive court case.

So, in a word, that's why. Because Congress is obligated by the Constitution to make copyrights NOT perpetual and to balance the interests of authors/inventors with the interests of the public.

M.R.J. Le Blanc said:

Perhaps so, but this isn't patents we're talking about. It's art, sources of enjoyment. Unless you're writing an NF book you're not out to change the world, so I don't understand how the patent example you cite is similar to copyrights.

Click to expand...

It's similar because patents and copyrights are covered by the same provision in the US Constitution (Art. I, section 8). Both patents and copyrights only exist in this country because the Constitution made them exist, and they exist for the same reason--to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In other words, that motivation (promoting the progress etc.) has to underlie both copyright laws and patent laws, and the restriction to "a limited time" has to exist in both laws.

MacAllister said:

Just for fun, Google "Monsanto Farmer lawsuits" -- which should shed some light on the good of the commonweal argument, and is very much covered under part of the same pieces of IP law.

Click to expand...

MacAllister said:

Because far and away what happens most often isn't that your heirs heirs profit. What happens is the work simply vanishes forever, and everyone forgets about it.

But there's an understanding in the Constitution that we're all responsible to and for the commonweal - the public good. That part of being a society is that we all have obligations TO that society.

I suggested people Google Monsanto Farmer Lawsuits for a reason. No one apparently bothered, but had they done so, they'd have discovered that the seed company is going around and testing fields for occurrences of their patented genetically modified seed. When they find it (and they pretty much always "find" it) they sue the farmer for licensing fees. This isn't precisely copyright law, but it's very, very closely related -- and some of the laws involved ARE the same laws that define copyright.

Click to expand...

Ethics and legality aside (love the language on both sides of the issue), I can understand why Monsanto would want to uphold their patent. It's just as easy for somebody to get a hold of the seed as it is for somebody to go to a bookstore and buy a copy of something.

It's the same reason that new drugs do not have generic counterparts right away. Why should Pfizer, for example, spend all the time (20 years) and money (millions) developing a new drug if someone else is going to be able to swoop right in and profit from their hard work immediately? So they get a certain number of years of protection where they alone may produce that medicine, to try and recoup some of the cost of development. If it wasn't worth it, without that protection, the medicine might never come into being at all.

Granted, alot of times it makes new, name brand drugs expensive (which shouldn't have to be the case), but otherwise we might not have the medicines at all, many of which save lives.

Literature might not save lives, but it's the same reason - why should a writer/artist work very hard to produce something that will immediately be able to be copied or used by others, giving THEM profit? If enough writers - who need to eat - start to feel it's just not worth publishing only to lose their creation to writer hacks, then we have NO new stories.

Writing, while an art, is also a business. But many have this attitude that writers work for the benefit of society and out of the goodness of their hearts. It's much the same attitude I see from some about teachers who want to be paid more money - that teachers teach from the goodness of their hearts. Um, they also need to live.

Thanks for the answers! It makes better sense, now . . . and it also makes me see that lifetime + 70 is just about perfect. After that, it becomes a morass.

Scott

Christine N. said:

I But many have this attitude that writers work for the benefit of society and out of the goodness of their hearts.

Click to expand...

Okay, Me 2 cents. (and more specifically to omega)

Copyrighting does benefit society more than it hurts it.

And here is my reasoning. Remember the Atari? Do you remember how it died? I was born well after the atari and I still have heard of the awful E.T. Copyright says that you go out and just write a work off of anybody's world and publish books in it by any means. If it didn't exist or expired within it lifetime of the lime light then it would get swarmed with bad fanfiction. Every series would become an atari waiting for it E.T. to come along and just wipe it out.

Now As for the length of the copyrighting. I think it should stay in the family. I don't think it should go to third party corporations or any of that stuff. And I also think that family members shouldn't have to renew it like crazy.
I'm going to use the example of tolkien. His work is very likely to keep selling well for a long time. I think that his family and such keep the title, Like a lordship. If something happens and the holder dies without heir then it should jump right to public domain.

But this isn't where I think it should just end, that clean cut. I also think that if the family can't sell the book/don't do anything with it for long enough then the part of the copyright that says that noone else can just go and write a book bassed off of it without permision expires but they keep the royalties on the four books.

Oops bell ring, I'll hold this thought.

BenPanced said:

Ethics and legality aside (love the language on both sides of the issue), I can understand why Monsanto would want to uphold their patent. It's just as easy for somebody to get a hold of the seed as it is for somebody to go to a bookstore and buy a copy of something.

Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the thread here, but I wanted to clarify this point. Many farmers save seed to plant in the following years. If a field next door (or even miles away in the case of wind pollinated crops like corn) is planted with Monsanto patented crops, the next generation will be contaminated. This means that a percentage of the seeds planted next year will contain patented genes. When Monsanto tests fields, many of the patented crops they find aren't the result of a theft, they're the product of an invasion.

It'd be as if someone hacked into your computer and inserted their words into your book and then sued you for it later.

In terms of the OP, I have no problem with life + 70 years. It doesn't seem excessive to me at all.

jessicaorr said:

I don't want to derail the thread here, but I wanted to clarify this point. Many farmers save seed to plant in the following years. If a field next door (or even miles away in the case of wind pollinated crops like corn) is planted with Monsanto patented crops, the next generation will be contaminated. This means that a percentage of the seeds planted next year will contain patented genes. When Monsanto tests fields, many of the patented crops they find aren't the result of a theft, they're the product of an invasion.

It'd be as if someone hacked into your computer and inserted their words into your book and then sued you for it later.

In terms of the OP, I have no problem with life + 70 years. It doesn't seem excessive to me at all.

Click to expand...

That's what really bothers me about it. If they don't want their seeds in other fields, they need to make their seeds infertile so they can't contaminate other people's fields.

icerose said:

That's what really bothers me about it. If they don't want their seeds in other fields, they need to make their seeds infertile so they can't contaminate other people's fields.

Click to expand...

If seeds are infertile, they don't work. Monsanto is not in the business of making infertile seeds. Farmers aren't much interested in buying them.

But the seeds aren't the problem. It's the pollen, which blows from plant to plant and thereby generates seeds.

But I don't want to be perceived of as in the camp of Monsanto (or any other organization that does this kind of stuff). They should not be allowed to do this, period.

caw

blacbird said:

If seeds are infertile, they don't work. Monsanto is not in the business of making infertile seeds. Farmers aren't much interested in buying them.

But the seeds aren't the problem. It's the pollen, which blows from plant to plant and thereby generates seeds.

But I don't want to be perceived of as in the camp of Monsanto (or any other organization that does this kind of stuff). They should not be allowed to do this, period.

caw

Click to expand...

I was talking about second generation seeds being infertile. Companies already do it.

icerose said:

I was talking about second generation seeds being infertile. Companies already do it.

Click to expand...

Sure. Seeds produced by most "hybrid" varieties are infertile. But that most certainly wasn't clear from your post.

Regardless of that, what Monsanto is doing is simply evil greedy crap of the most egregious nature. And they're by no means alone. Another seed outfit (I don't have info on whom) has patented the seeds from a particular wild pepper found in Mexico, thereby prohibiting any gardener from growing that plant. This is utter crap, as far as I am concerned.

caw

blacbird said:

Sure. Seeds produced by most "hybrid" varieties are infertile. But that most certainly wasn't clear from your post.

Regardless of that, what Monsanto is doing is simply evil greedy crap of the most egregious nature. And they're by no means alone. Another seed outfit (I don't have info on whom) has patented the seeds from a particular wild pepper found in Mexico, thereby prohibiting any gardener from growing that plant. This is utter crap, as far as I am concerned.

caw

Click to expand...

icerose said:

I was talking about second generation seeds being infertile. Companies already do it.

Click to expand...

blacbird said:

If seeds are infertile, they don't work. Monsanto is not in the business of making infertile seeds. Farmers aren't much interested in buying them.

But the seeds aren't the problem. It's the pollen, which blows from plant to plant and thereby generates seeds.

But I don't want to be perceived of as in the camp of Monsanto (or any other organization that does this kind of stuff). They should not be allowed to do this, period.

caw

Click to expand...

God damn me. You would think that for a guy that lived on a farm for some years that i would have seen this. I was looking at that and thinking. "So where is the problem, It was obvious that they were breaking contract."

Gosh me so dumb.

But also thinking about it. All the time we would have seed fall off of something and it would come up next year. I've seen corn coming up out of our wheat, (which is alwas funny) where a corn cob got knocked off durring harvest and grew. and wheat coming up all over the place after a year when we grew that. So, yea they need to make the plants infertile, so that only first generatation seeds grow. But they are probably growing them themselves to sell the seed.

hmm.

Or to win lawsuits.

MacAllister said:

Right...but holding seed back from your own harvest for the next planting is a farming practice that's thousands of years old. Does the farmer not own that second or third or fourth generation of seed? And if not, then that's a pretty dramatic change. It means you don't OWN the seeds you're growing, but rather you have a license to do certain things with them, but not other things.

Extrapolate from there, and companies are indeed building a suicide clause into seed to make the second generation infertile. You can't buy a watermelon, an avodado, a pepper, or a tomato that's been modified this way, and plant the seeds in your own garden, either. Those seeds (theoretically) won't grow.

Considering the state of famine and the population of the world...do we really think it's a good idea to let a couple of mega-corporations essentially OWN the world's food supply? Really? And what happens when a very specific blight hits that GM corn and essentially wipes it out...but there aren't other uncontaminated and resistant varieties extant any more?

So, yes. Whenever major corporations get involved with "owning" copyright (or patent) there's some serious cause for concern.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you Mac, I'm just saying if they are going to be this ridiculous, then they need to make sure their seeds aren't blowing onto innocent farmer fields. I think it's greedy and the epitome of corporate evils.

I just wish people could stop being so stupid.

Nivarion said:

Okay, Me 2 cents. (and more specifically to omega)

Copyrighting does benefit society more than it hurts it.

And here is my reasoning. Remember the Atari? Do you remember how it died? I was born well after the atari and I still have heard of the awful E.T. Copyright says that you go out and just write a work off of anybody's world and publish books in it by any means. If it didn't exist or expired within it lifetime of the lime light then it would get swarmed with bad fanfiction. Every series would become an atari waiting for it E.T. to come along and just wipe it out.

Now As for the length of the copyrighting. I think it should stay in the family. I don't think it should go to third party corporations or any of that stuff. And I also think that family members shouldn't have to renew it like crazy.
I'm going to use the example of tolkien. His work is very likely to keep selling well for a long time. I think that his family and such keep the title, Like a lordship. If something happens and the holder dies without heir then it should jump right to public domain.

But this isn't where I think it should just end, that clean cut. I also think that if the family can't sell the book/don't do anything with it for long enough then the part of the copyright that says that noone else can just go and write a book bassed off of it without permision expires but they keep the royalties on the four books.

Oops bell ring, I'll hold this thought.

Click to expand...

Okay where was I?

Ah yes.

Now, There is always the question of how long. How long does the period of low activity need to be?I would say five to ten years.

How long after the publication can they sue?
The most simple ansewer IMO would be about fifty to Seventy years before it (Oh god) become part of the public phsyce. (Shudders "I can't believe I just said that!") Or gets forgoten anyways. Like take a look at Tolkeins work (I'm going to keep using him because Tolkien Estates are the worst of them. I mean, my god, try to copyright "Shire" when that is an ancient word!? unbefreakinlevable) He was the first person to make a fantasy series with Elves and Orcs. Now almost everywhere you turn there are elves and orcs in fantasy they are like a staple. Popular Phsycie. Blech that is gross to say after Lady Silly Potatoes.

anyways Oh, might want to mention why their control over the story doesn't dies but royalties don't. If it slips under, then it becomes public. Someone writes an awesome sequel that brings it back. He gets his royalties on the new book but the origionals still go to the family of the author.


But I'm quite for keeping it in place. I would like an experation clause to force people to keep their copyrighted stuff circulating or lose their copyright. Cause I hate it when they stop pubing after a while and are sitting on their horde "No Its mine My Precioussssssss mine, You can't have itsssss" (Is shocked as a tolkien lawyer kickes in his door and hands him a C&D.)

I will conclude this SoapBox here by saying, Our founding fathers were brilliant men, and well farsighted. This system works and works well. Just live with it like all the rest of us and learn to dodge it.

MacAllister said:

Right...but holding seed back from your own harvest for the next planting is a farming practice that's thousands of years old. Does the farmer not own that second or third or fourth generation of seed? And if not, then that's a pretty dramatic change. It means you don't OWN the seeds you're growing, but rather you have a license to do certain things with them, but not other things.

Extrapolate from there, and companies are indeed building a suicide clause into seed to make the second generation infertile. You can't buy a watermelon, an avodado, a pepper, or a tomato that's been modified this way, and plant the seeds in your own garden, either. Those seeds (theoretically) won't grow.

Considering the state of famine and the population of the world...do we really think it's a good idea to let a couple of mega-corporations essentially OWN the world's food supply? Really? And what happens when a very specific blight hits that GM corn and essentially wipes it out...but there aren't other uncontaminated and resistant varieties extant any more?

So, yes. Whenever major corporations get involved with "owning" copyright (or patent) there's some serious cause for concern.

Click to expand...

Actually the seeds you get from them does grow, It just doesn't make any fruit. I planted some watermelon seeds last year, they grew big beautiful watermelon vines but never made any flowers to pollenate.

Also, when the big corporations controll the food and it gets whiped out by a plague (Very likely like the potato famine) well thats what you would calll the second horseman. His buddies will be right behind.

Well, Tolkien didn't create elves. Orcs I'm not sure. Sure, he created a group of elves that lived in a fantastical society with their own myths, language, etc. but the idea of elves does not belong to him. Much of Tolkien's inspiration comes from mythology, and while he owns the characters he doesn't own dwarves or elves or humans (as much as Christopher might wish otherwise - he's the one who controls the estate currently and yes, he is not happy about other people touching his father's work). If anything, Tolkien brought them into popularity. But he doesn't own them anymore than any other fantasy writer out there, elves are not something that was his and now has become part of the public domain.

MacAllister said:

Right...but holding seed back from your own harvest for the next planting is a farming practice that's thousands of years old. Does the farmer not own that second or third or fourth generation of seed? And if not, then that's a pretty dramatic change. It means you don't OWN the seeds you're growing, but rather you have a license to do certain things with them, but not other things.
<snip>

Considering the state of famine and the population of the world...do we really think it's a good idea to let a couple of mega-corporations essentially OWN the world's food supply? Really? And what happens when a very specific blight hits that GM corn and essentially wipes it out...but there aren't other uncontaminated and resistant varieties extant any more?

So, yes. Whenever major corporations get involved with "owning" copyright (or patent) there's some serious cause for concern.

Click to expand...

QTF It's very, very scary. What really disturbs me is that many farmers in the developing world don't understand that they're not allowed to save the seed, so they do and then they're at the business end of a law suit. Or if the terminator technology is approved and distributed, they try to save seeds and can't. Or those farmers which don't buy the patented seeds can't even save theirs because the next gen seeds are infertile. Plants are VERY promiscuous. During an internship, I worked on cotton phylogeny. We had cotton species hybrids that were the product of a South American cotton and an African cotton. Imagine the time those two species had been separated and yet, they could still breed and produce viable offspring. It's just insane- the seed made it's way across the Atlantic somehow, landed in South America, grew into a plant and then polinated a native cotton which then produced viable seeds. Crazy!


OK, seriously, I promise I'm done with the thread derail now sorry!

ETA: Maybe we could have a split off thread in the office party or political section to talk about GMO seeds? It seems like a lot of people are interested in the topic.

M.R.J. Le Blanc said:

Well, Tolkien didn't create elves. Orcs I'm not sure. Sure, he created a group of elves that lived in a fantastical society with their own myths, language, etc. but the idea of elves does not belong to him. Much of Tolkien's inspiration comes from mythology, and while he owns the characters he doesn't own dwarves or elves or humans (as much as Christopher might wish otherwise - he's the one who controls the estate currently and yes, he is not happy about other people touching his father's work). If anything, Tolkien brought them into popularity. But he doesn't own them anymore than any other fantasy writer out there, elves are not something that was his and now has become part of the public domain.

Click to expand...

I know he invented orcs, and reinvented elves. elfs were old mythology, elves were his. I am confused as to what is going on with the tolkein estates though, I have some orcs in my book and saw a thread about the stuff on them. The US and UK trademark and copyright offices said those had expired copyrights and trademarks. So, I've been like frantically trying to find if someone else holds it now. Do you have a clue how many things named Orc there are on their servers? ANY CLUE!?!? (same with the elves, does hollywood hold em now?)

but um, any ways I'm thinking of a new name anyways. they are different enought I can name them what I want.

jessicaorr said:

QTF It's very, very scary. What really disturbs me is that many farmers in the developing world don't understand that they're not allowed to save the seed, so they do and then they're at the business end of a law suit. Or if the terminator technology is approved and distributed, they try to save seeds and can't. Or those farmers which don't buy the patented seeds can't even save theirs because the next gen seeds are infertile. Plants are VERY promiscuous. During an internship, I worked on cotton phylogeny. We had cotton species hybrids that were the product of a South American cotton and an African cotton. Imagine the time those two species had been separated and yet, they could still breed and produce viable offspring. It's just insane- the seed made it's way across the Atlantic somehow, landed in South America, grew into a plant and then polinated a native cotton which then produced viable seeds. Crazy!


OK, seriously, I promise I'm done with the thread derail now sorry!

ETA: Maybe we could have a split off thread in the office party or political section to talk about GMO seeds? It seems like a lot of people are interested in the topic.

Click to expand...

plants like that would be tough as it would stand to inherit all of its ancestors strenghts. with some breeding you could have a cotton with all of the cons and no pros. wait. all of the pros and no cons.

But I'm quite for keeping it in place. I would like an experation clause to force people to keep their copyrighted stuff circulating or lose their copyright. Cause I hate it when they stop pubing after a while and are sitting on their horde "No Its mine My Precioussssssss mine, You can't have itsssss" (Is shocked as a tolkien lawyer kickes in his door and hands him a C&D.)

Click to expand...

Just a note in passing. I can't speak for any long-dead writer's heirs, but I'd hazard a guess that nobody wants their work (or a parent's work, or whatever) to remain out of print.

The problem usually isn't with the author or his/her heirs but with the simple fact that we can't find a publisher willing to reissue/repackage the works. (I'm talking print publication here; ebooks and the like are opening up giant cans of potential worms.) Publishers have to believe they can make a profit in reissuing something. They also have to have room on their lists for such.

So don't blame the authors for being selfish -- unless you know for a fact that they're selfishly withholding their work from the public.

As for why some publishers sit on rights they hold (and many do), that's usually for the same reasons ... generally. They want to be able to make a profit reissuing a book, and their Marketing department may have told them The Time is Not Right!

Contracts often allow the publisher to sit on something without reissuing for a number of years. Five to seven is probably average, but there are contracts out there either without reversion clauses (to return rights to the author), or else with ridiculously long terms.

Nivarion said:

I will conclude this SoapBox here by saying, Our founding fathers were brilliant men, and well farsighted. This system works and works well. Just live with it like all the rest of us and learn to dodge it.

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the Founding Fathers you praise did not create a system whereby copyright lasted for the lifetime of the creator + an additional 70 years. The brilliant and well farsighted Founding Fathers' first copyright law, enacted in 1790, offered 14 years protection with an option to renew for an additional 14 years. In 1831, the initial stretch of protection was extended to 28 years. By 1909 terms remained well short of today's even after renewals were extended to 28 years, too. Historically, it is only relatively recently that copyrights were extended to the lengths now enjoyed by copyright holders.

Just a point of clarity, as it would be misleading to attribute modern copyright laws (or anything resembling them) to the Founding Fathers.