UK Green Party proposed cutting copyright to 14 years

Well, between 14 years and lifetime+70, I'd vote for 14.

Not that I am a UK voter.

We had a big copyright argument-thread a while ago.

I am in a minority here in that I am unconvinced copyrights should be a thing at all*, and given that the media industry would clearly like copyrights to be eternal, if they could make that happen, I am in favor of pushing back in every way possible.


* "Unconvinced" - not the same as "convinced they should not be." Yes, I know all the arguments pro and con, yes, I want artists to be able to make a living, yes, I have considered the ramifications, etc.

You could always republish them yourself and the the publisher wouldn't own the copyright to them either.

I don't think this automatically puts me off either. I think the copyright is too long at the moment. Also it says usual maximum so what would be unusual? I think I would need to know more.

aruna said:

According to this law, I would have already lost copyright of the out of print book I published in 1999. The book was republished last year. So, the publisher who snatched it up would be able to make money from it, but I couldn't? Two more of my older books would be going out of copyright in the next two years. They, too, would be lost.

How is that remotely fair?

I'm depending on the sale of books well into my old age as I will have a very small pension.

I don't think you have considered the ramifications at all.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes I have.

If copyright were shortened, I would not propose doing so immediately so as to pull the financial rug out from beneath everyone like you who has made plans based on existing laws.

Usher said:

You could always republish them yourself and the the publisher wouldn't own the copyright to them either.

Click to expand...

I feel like the problem with this argument, though, is that it's impractical. It's absolutely an uneven playing field, and it's really difficult for an individual to compete with a publisher. They have the distribution channels to get their version of your book into book stores. You don't. They have the volume to cut ebook prices in a way that you might not if you're trying to earn a living wage from your books. What if Amazon was your publisher? Would they be fair in listing your version of your book alongside their version of your book? Hard to say at this point.

aruna said:

They could make blockbuster movies from your work and you get nothing.

I can just see the big corporations rubbing their hands in glee.

Click to expand...

Exactly

And considering their motive is supposedly to stop big corps screwing the little guy...it seems ill thought out that they would try to do so by screwing the little guy/author

It doesn't exactly foster creative endeavours either -- you can make something, slave over it for years, but after this puny amount of time, it is ripped from you, and all you get is nothing. Where's the incentive to create, then?

Many authors rely on backlist sales to live. How is ripping that from them (and handing it to big corps) helping them?

ETA: Frankly it's making me wonder about the rest of the manifesto if this little part is so ill considered.

The Green Party has been full of big ideas with no real idea of what they're doing, as far as I can tell.

Put into perspective with the biggest game out there, considering this is the UK and all.

Harry Potter was published in 1996, in England. That's 19 years ago. Rowling's copyright would have already run out for the first three novels, maybe four.

The final movie of the original books' run was in 2011, 15 years after the initial release of the first novel. Deathly Hallows would still be covered by copyright, but the earlier books wouldn't.

The proposed new films would be after copyright, as Fantastic Beasts was published in 2001.

This is her universe, and she's not done with it. No way should anyone else be able to stake a claim on it so long as she's alive - especially companies that might exploit the popularity with compensating the author.

With a 14 year span, there would never be a valid 20th or 25th anniversary edition of a novel, without someone constantly reprinting the books as "new" editions to keep the copyright going.

It's stupid.

Okay I apologise since it's clear from Amadan's posts this has been discussed a lot already, and no one has to answer if they don't want to. But what is the advantage to having a shorter copyright term or no copyright at all? This is a sincere question as I truly do not see it and would really like to understand.

From what I can gather, the Greens want to stop big corporations (*cough* Disney *cough*) using copyright laws to their advantage by limiting the term

However, the proposed solution seems to me to benefit them as much as the old one (They could make big films and not pay the creator a penny, and not even have to wait to long to do it)

Now, I agree that it is something that needs looking at, debating etc. But trying to limit big corps by taking away a creator's income stream...does not seem like a good move.

ETA Although they seem to have removed the bit about file sharing being fine if you don't make money from it -- ie piracy would be legal. Probably at about 10:43 this morning when the twitter shit hit the fan

Mr Flibble said:

From what I can gather, the Greens want to stop big corporations (*cough* Disney *cough*) using copyright laws to their advantage by limiting the term

Click to expand...

Changing copyright wouldn't dent trademark, and that's where Disney makes its money.

I see . . . but I still don't understand why getting rid of copyright would make things harder for big companies.

And I don't understand why authors, like Amadan, would be happy with no copyright at all.

Can someone explain that for me too please?

Short version, I think prolonged copyrights (extending well past the life of the creator) are intellectually and creatively stagnating. I also think existing copyright law is problematic.

I probably wouldn't be so radical as to do away with copyright altogether, but the current regime just allows corporations and estates of long-dead creators to hold onto property that should have passed into public domain.

And yes, that means I think JK Rowling's heirs should be satisfied with living off of whatever she leaves them when she dies, not living off the royalties from Harry Potter into perpetuity, and that Lord of the Rings should now be public domain.

Toothpaste said:

I see . . . but I still don't understand why getting rid of copyright would make things harder for big companies.

Click to expand...

I am not clear on that either, though apparently it is A Thing.

Tbh, I think it's a fair point for debate and perhaps reform

However, I do draw the line at any reform that includes me having to go on the Philip K Dick diet*

Screwing the creators does not stimulate creation (which is what the Greens say they want), but may take us back to the days when the only people who wrote were people with a private income.




*One of the most famous and influential SF writers ever, who was so poor at times he lived on pet food.

Toothpaste said:

Okay I apologise since it's clear from Amadan's posts this has been discussed a lot already, and no one has to answer if they don't want to. But what is the advantage to having a shorter copyright term or no copyright at all? This is a sincere question as I truly do not see it and would really like to understand.

Click to expand...

Are you only asking with regard to the Green Party's reasons or are you asking about reasoning behind pro-copyright limit positions in general?

Amadan said:

Short version, I think prolonged copyrights (extending well past the life of the creator) are intellectually and creatively stagnating. I also think existing copyright law is problematic.

I probably wouldn't be so radical as to do away with copyright altogether, but the current regime just allows corporations and estates of long-dead creators to hold onto property that should have passed into public domain.

And yes, that means I think JK Rowling's heirs should be satisfied with living off of whatever she leaves them when she dies, not living off the royalties from Harry Potter into perpetuity, and that Lord of the Rings should now be public domain.

Click to expand...

Ah okay, I can get that, and can actually agree I think. But couldn't that be an easily phrased thing? Like create a law that says copyright can only exist for x years after the creator's death? I guess I just don't understand the copyright from date of creation thing being cut down, so that during the creator's lifetime they might find themselves no longer owning their own work. I do know there are people out there who think copyright shouldn't exist at all, and you also said as much above, can you explain that reasoning to me? (again, seriously not a leading question ).

heza said:

Are you only asking with regard to the Green Party's reasons or are you asking about reasoning behind pro-copyright limit positions in general?

Click to expand...

More in general I guess. It was sparked by Amadan's response.

Toothpaste said:

More in general I guess. It was sparked by Amadan's response.

Click to expand...

These are some of the more well-reasoned positions I can recall off the top of my head.

1) Like Amadan said, it slows intellectual development. Not so much in the developed world, imo, but in regions where books might be harder to come by, lengthy copyrights on scientific, technological, and medical literature could be having more of an impact on development.

2) Lengthy copyrights increase the risk that some literary works will be lost. If a work is between that stage where someone is actively exploiting the copyright and the time that it falls into the public domain, and no one is ensuring copies are being retained anywhere, it could disappear from circulation. This is especially true of short stories.

3) Creatively, artists need to be able to create derivative works that act as commentary on popular fiction of our time in ways that might not be currently protected or are often a giant hassle and super expensive to defend.


There are undoubtedly others I just can't recall at the moment and still others I just don't understand/agree with and so can't comment on them.

Pretty much. The philosophical argument is that proprietary ownership of intellectual property stifles creativity, synergy, and more intellectual productivity. (The counter-argument being that without an economic motive, people are less likely to put effort into such activities.) Most proposals to do away with copyright entirely would require an entirely new economic model for artists. For musicians, it would mean making a living off of your performances, rather than your lyrics and recorded albums, and for writers, you'd pretty much need some sort of modern-day patronage system.

Like I said, I probably wouldn't do away with copyright entirely, because I don't really see it working in a way that would allow artists to make a living (except a rare few - rarer than now). But I don't see any reason why Disney shouldn't have to give up Mickey Mouse to the public domain, or why anyone should be entitled to keep collecting royalty checks and licensing fees for something their grandfather did.

Amadan said:

Like I said, I probably wouldn't do away with copyright entirely, because I don't really see it working in a way that would allow artists to make a living (except a rare few - rarer than now). But I don't see any reason why Disney shouldn't have to give up Mickey Mouse to the public domain, or why anyone should be entitled to keep collecting royalty checks and licensing fees for something their grandfather did.

Click to expand...

I could agree with that -- a shorter after death term perhaps.

The Greens proposal was "14 years maximum", which was taken to mean "from publication"*. And I think a creator (of anything) should be able to make a living from it for their whole lifetime.


I do wonder about the "ownership stifles creativity" argument. How exactly does that work? If I own what I create, I am more likely to do it more rather than if I create something and have to give it away. If I build houses for a living but am forced to give them away, I'll stop building them, and having built one and made a living is actually an incentive to build more. If I choose to give it away is different -- I made it, I should be the one deciding what happens to it.


I'd love to give all my stuff away. Unfortunately I'd like to eat as well.
*I think they've confirmed this

Mr Flibble said:

I do wonder about the "ownership stifles creativity" argument. How exactly does that work? If I own what I create, I am more likely to do it more rather than if I create something and have to give it away. If I build houses for a living but am forced to give them away, I'll stop building them, and having built one and made a living is actually an incentive to build more. If I choose to give it away is different -- I made it, I should be the one deciding what happens to it.

Click to expand...

Well, for example, right now fan fiction is quasi-legal, and making money off of it is a copyright violation, full stop.

There is an argument to be made (which I admit I am on the fence about) that one should be able to write Harry Potter novels, using JK Rowling's creations, as long as you are not selling her stories. It's not like Rowling wouldn't still make money from her books, or she can't keep writing new books (which people are more likely to buy than yours). Not really that different from JK Rowling writing an alien invasion story, and me writing an alien invasion story - people will buy the one(s) they like.

I tend to lean that way, not primarily because of fan fiction, but because in principle, I don't think creating a new thing using someone else's idea should be illegal. IOW, you shouldn't have proprietary control over an idea, only over what you do with it.

But there are both economic and philosophical angles to both sides. Certainly it would be a large change in how we view intellectual products.