Copyright

[Willtor]

I'd also point out that in many nations (including Canada and, until last post, I had assumed the US) treated software as a matter of copyright, and not as a matter of patent (though, what the software does, for instance, Amazon.com's "One-Click Shopping process" can potentially be patented if it meets the guidelines).

Not sure if it changes peoples minds, but should code also be a forever matter, or should it be more limited?

Code copyrights have an interesting nuance: they provide the authors with some measure of legal protection. As far as open source licenses go, even the shockingly brief BSD and MIT licenses disclaim responsibility for damages. This is not something with which authors of literature generally concern themselves.

The author of Minecraft, for example, wants to release Minecraft into the public domain, eventually, but I think he would be better off with a license that gives him protection. After all, if it accidentally erases someone's harddrive, he may be liable.

More realistically, someone who writes a bit of AJAX with a security vulnerability that allows exposure of a whole bunch of credit card numbers...

That added dimension is one that copyright was never intended to address until now. I think if authors of source code in the public domain were automatically protected, then I would advocate for the expiration of copyrights on source code.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Finally! Obama signs patent reform!

Wiltor, what's your take on this? Are you in the camp that it will only hurt the small inventor and serve the big folks? Or do you think it will help the patent process by streamlining it, avoiding lots of expensive legal battles over "first to invent" and improving the general quality of patents?

Personally from what I've read it sounds like it is much needed reform and will align us with the majority of the rest of the world and hopefully clear out the backlog of about 700,000 applications.

I just got a granted patent the other day that we filed about 4 years ago. The average prosecution time is now about 3 years.

 

[Willtor]

Finally! Obama signs patent reform!

Wiltor, what's your take on this? Are you in the camp that it will only hurt the small inventor and serve the big folks? Or do you think it will help the patent process by streamlining it, avoiding lots of expensive legal battles over "first to invent" and improving the general quality of patents?

Personally from what I've read it sounds like it is much needed reform and will align us with the majority of the rest of the world and hopefully clear out the backlog of about 700,000 applications.

I just got a granted patent the other day that we filed about 4 years ago. The average prosecution time is now about 3 years.

I think it's both/and. It will streamline the process, as you say, and make for fewer court cases. Also, it will hurt the little guy.

I'd rather the bill did the one and not the other. But there is strong pressure for a solution that does both.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

When dealing with copywriting intellectual property, people have to realize - we have an essential "patent" bred into us already. People (at least uneducated people) tend to give less attention to things which are unoriginal or blatant ripoffs. The act of LEGALLY copywriting though makes it where even concepts could be considered "stolen".

For example, the Cinderella story has been done hundreds of times, in hundreds of books and movies. It's also folk lore with no singular author. Let's say when Disney made Cinderella, they filed a patent for more than just their characters and designs (and I believe songs). They took ownership of the story Cinderella, and even the concept of Cinderella. Suddenly several inspired stories are stuck in their creators heads.

It's just dangerous ground to tread - people are the copyright holders, they know what is original, what should be respected. There's a small minority who don't (they're the minority who read fan fiction and Twilight, otherwise know as teenage girls).

 

[thaumaturgy]

When dealing with copywriting intellectual property, people have to realize - we have an essential "patent" bred into us already. People (at least uneducated people) tend to give less attention to things which are unoriginal or blatant ripoffs. The act of LEGALLY copywriting though makes it where even concepts could be considered "stolen".

For example, the Cinderella story has been done hundreds of times, in hundreds of books and movies. It's also folk lore with no singular author. Let's say when Disney made Cinderella, they filed a patent for more than just their characters and designs (and I believe songs). They took ownership of the story Cinderella, and even the concept of Cinderella. Suddenly several inspired stories are stuck in their creators heads.

It's just dangerous ground to tread - people are the copyright holders, they know what is original, what should be respected. There's a small minority who don't (they're the minority who read fan fiction and Twilight, otherwise know as teenage girls).

Remember: Copyright doesn't cover a "concept". You can't copyright "Characters" and you can't copyright the "concept". It is the actual story as written.

It wouldn't be possible to write something that it so close to the original story as to be blatant, but the "concept" is not what is covered by copyright.

So if Disney had copyrighted their movie Cinderella (which they probably did) they probably copyrighted the actual film and the script as written.

Any unique characters may have also been covered by trademark law as well.

But the original idea of the young scullery maid who is treated badly but gets to bloom as the swan and the truth of her predicament is made obvious to her prince, well that concept is still free to use.

 

[Umaro]

I read yesterday that a "crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich" and "using a laser pointer to play with a cat" are both patented ideas.

 

[A2SG]

So, what's the offense to society by calling it Cinderella?

There isn't one.

If you're going to retell the story, why not use the names everybody knows, like people have done for centuries? If everybody knows it's Cinderella, why not call it, "Cinderella"? I'm not talking about genres -- I'm talking about specific stories.

If all you're going to do is retell the same story, sure, why not. But, if you want to add something to it, to reimagine the story in a new, unique way, to make the story your own, why keep the names? Why remind people of what influenced you? Why not carve your own path, and let future writers use you as an influence instead?

The clever answer is: research.

The real answer is: procrastination.

Ah yes, very valuable. Me, I've been brainstorming, and trying to use the subconscious to generate ideas.

Again, I'm not talking about general themes. Consider Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movie: New Line acquired the right to make those movies, and I thought they were great. There was no shame in such a direct translation to the screen. The only shame is that they had to acquire the right to do so, after so many years.

Why shouldn't they need to acquire the rights? It wasn't Peter Jackson's story to tell. He adapted an existing story to a different medium, rather than create a new one, so he needed to ask permission. No harm in that, obviously, since Tolkein's heirs agreed.

Now, had he decided to, instead, take the time to reinvent the themes Tolkein worked with, and tell a new story, one he created himself and made his own much like Tolkein did with existing mythological themes, then he needn't ask anyone's permission.

Indeed, it's fortunate that Perseus predates Disney, or, no one couldn't. My question is not whether there is a public domain, but why that public domain does not continue to grow?

It does. Sherlock Holmes is now in the public domain, as well as Popeye. Granted, due to changes in copyright law back in 1976, we're currently in a public domain "donut hole", but it won't last forever. Things will start to fall back into the public domain eventually.

All things come to those who wait.

The Statute of Ann lasted for 14 years. More than ever, with modern replication and distribution technologies, 14 years is a long time. But even with 28 years, at least people who were influenced by stories written during their childhoods have a chance to retell them during their lifetimes.

They still can, they just have to do a bit more work to make the stories their own rather than rely on familiar names and scenes. Sure, George Lucas could have called his movie Heracles in Space, but now, generations of kids and adults will be inspired by Luke Skywalker instead.

-- A2SG, not the same at all, but so very similar in theme.....

 

[Willtor]

There isn't one.

If all you're going to do is retell the same story, sure, why not. But, if you want to add something to it, to reimagine the story in a new, unique way, to make the story your own, why keep the names? Why remind people of what influenced you? Why not carve your own path, and let future writers use you as an influence instead?

Because some stories are worth retelling with nothing more than a new voice. It isn't worth to denying this, since many favorite stories that have come to us as posterity are this kind of work.

Just because you and I are not doing this does not mean that others should be stifled.

Ah yes, very valuable. Me, I've been brainstorming, and trying to use the subconscious to generate ideas.

Why shouldn't they need to acquire the rights? It wasn't Peter Jackson's story to tell. He adapted an existing story to a different medium, rather than create a new one, so he needed to ask permission. No harm in that, obviously, since Tolkein's heirs agreed.

Peter Jackson was working with New Line Cinema. Of course they agreed. You say, no harm in that, but I say it means that only wealthy people are allowed to retell (or adapt) stories written in the 1940's.

Now, had he decided to, instead, take the time to reinvent the themes Tolkein worked with, and tell a new story, one he created himself and made his own much like Tolkein did with existing mythological themes, then he needn't ask anyone's permission.

I'm not, here, concerned with the right to tell a new story. I'm concerned with the right to retell an existing story.

It does. Sherlock Holmes is now in the public domain, as well as Popeye. Granted, due to changes in copyright law back in 1976, we're currently in a public domain "donut hole", but it won't last forever. Things will start to fall back into the public domain eventually.

All things come to those who wait.

It certainly isn't something that ever came to my grandparents, and is unlikely to come to my parents. I am doubtful that anything will fall into the public domain (on its own) during my lifetime. It probably will not come to my children or grandchildren, either, no matter how long they wait.

If you dispute this point, let's make some kind of wager on whether Steamboat Willie enters the public domain in 2023 (and remains there for at least a year).

They still can, they just have to do a bit more work to make the stories their own rather than rely on familiar names and scenes. Sure, George Lucas could have called his movie Heracles in Space, but now, generations of kids and adults will be inspired by Luke Skywalker instead.

-- A2SG, not the same at all, but so very similar in theme.....

I'm not talking about writing new stories. I'm talking about retelling existing ones, adhering to the formula closely enough to violate copyright.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I read yesterday that a "crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich" and "using a laser pointer to play with a cat" are both patented ideas.

US5443036 "Method of Exercising a Cat"

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved method of exercising a cat in normal day and night lighting environments.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a method of providing amusing, entertaining and healthy exercise for a cat.
It is yet another object of the present invention to teach a method of exercising a cat effortlessly at any time.
In accordance with the present invention, a light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation ( laser) device in a small hand-held configuration is used to project and move a bright pattern of light around a room to amuse and exercise a cat.
The method is effective, simple, convenient and inexpensive to practice and provides healthy exercise for the cat and amusement and entertainment for both the cat and the owner.
These and other objects, features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the following description and accompanying drawings of one specific embodiment thereof.

US6004596 Sealed Crustless Sandwich

While these sandwiches may be suitable for the particular purpose to which they address, they are not as suitable for providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly. The prior art does not teach a sandwich without an outer crust which sealably retains an inner filling for extended periods of time.
In these respects, the sealed crustless sandwich according to the present invention substantially departs from the conventional concepts and designs of the prior art, and in so doing provides a sandwich primarily developed for the purpose of providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly.

(Appears the novelty may be around the "sealed" part.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Remember: Copyright doesn't cover a "concept". You can't copyright "Characters" and you can't copyright the "concept". It is the actual story as written.

It wouldn't be possible to write something that it so close to the original story as to be blatant, but the "concept" is not what is covered by copyright.

So if Disney had copyrighted their movie Cinderella (which they probably did) they probably copyrighted the actual film and the script as written.

Any unique characters may have also been covered by trademark law as well.

But the original idea of the young scullery maid who is treated badly but gets to bloom as the swan and the truth of her predicament is made obvious to her prince, well that concept is still free to use.

The script and the movie aren't what I'd define as "intellectual property" - they're tangible items that can be printed and distributed. One wouldn't call a pretty notebook "intellectual property" even though the artistic design probably had some work put into it. Copyrighting to retain ownership of the word by word writing is hardly copywriting at all - anyone who reprinted it, that would be blatant theft and no ethical publisher or producer would take it to begin with.

If you really wanted to copyright your work, you would have to copyright the concept, the characters, the idea. Otherwise you're just taking legal steps so you have a foundation if someone does try to republish your words.

 

[Willtor]

US5443036 "Method of Exercising a Cat"


US6004596 Sealed Crustless Sandwich



(Appears the novelty may be around the "sealed" part.

Haha! Well, there it is.

 

[A2SG]

Because some stories are worth retelling with nothing more than a new voice. It isn't worth to denying this, since many favorite stories that have come to us as posterity are this kind of work.

Just because you and I are not doing this does not mean that others should be stifled.

I agree. I'm not against the public domain, nor against people retelling classic tales. Just that, sometimes, it can be lazy. It takes more work to make a classic trope your own, but oftentimes, it's worth the effort.

Peter Jackson was working with New Line Cinema. Of course they agreed. You say, no harm in that, but I say it means that only wealthy people are allowed to retell (or adapt) stories written in the 1940's.

Depends on the story, really. Take, for example, Walter Gibson's The Shadow. A unique character, who has been adapted a handful of times (with mixed results), but look at how many times the basic theme behind the character has been adapted and made into new, unique characters: Batman, Moon Knight, Midnighter, The Cape, etc. Again, to mixed results.

Also, there are properties from that era that may no longer be under copyright due to the owners going out or business or no longer existing. Hey, if you want, you might be able to use Secret Agent X or The Phantom Detective for free!

I'm not, here, concerned with the right to tell a new story. I'm concerned with the right to retell an existing story.

What's the difference, really? All stories are based, in some way, on past stories, when you come right down to it.

It certainly isn't something that ever came to my grandparents, and is unlikely to come to my parents. I am doubtful that anything will fall into the public domain (on its own) during my lifetime. It probably will not come to my children or grandchildren, either, no matter how long they wait.

Not true, stuff falls into the public domain every year. The works of F. Scott Fitzgerald just entered the public domain this past January (based on the old standard of life plus 70), in fact, so you can get crackin' on that adaptation of The Great Gatsby you know you want to work on!

If you dispute this point, let's make some kind of wager on whether Steamboat Willie enters the public domain in 2023 (and remains there for at least a year).

No bets where Disney is concerned! But that doesn't mean other stuff is now available!

I'm not talking about writing new stories. I'm talking about retelling existing ones, adhering to the formula closely enough to violate copyright.

I know. I'm just saying that copyright need not be an impediment, you just need to do a little more work.

-- A2SG, there really is little, if anything, new under the sun.....

 

[Willtor]

I agree. I'm not against the public domain, nor against people retelling classic tales. Just that, sometimes, it can be lazy. It takes more work to make a classic trope your own, but oftentimes, it's worth the effort.

Yes, lazy people do this thing. Lazy people also write out their own ideas, with lousy results. I'm not particularly concerned with what lazy people do or do not do. I'm concerned with what anybody (lazy or otherwise) is allowed or is not allowed to do.

Depends on the story, really. Take, for example, Walter Gibson's The Shadow. A unique character, who has been adapted a handful of times (with mixed results), but look at how many times the basic theme behind the character has been adapted and made into new, unique characters: Batman, Moon Knight, Midnighter, The Cape, etc. Again, to mixed results.

Also, there are properties from that era that may no longer be under copyright due to the owners going out or business or no longer existing. Hey, if you want, you might be able to use Secret Agent X or The Phantom Detective for free!

Okay, that's a good point. Some works of that period _do_ enter the public domain. But there is a date after which it can't be helped that a book or a movie is guaranteed never to come into the public domain on its own. That may more in the ballpark of 1966 than 1940, but the point is -- it's still very old. Any author who managed to hold on a little longer than Walt Disney will never have his or her work enter the public domain on its own.

What's the difference, really? All stories are based, in some way, on past stories, when you come right down to it.

It's true.

Not true, stuff falls into the public domain every year. The works of F. Scott Fitzgerald just entered the public domain this past January (based on the old standard of life plus 70), in fact, so you can get crackin' on that adaptation of The Great Gatsby you know you want to work on!

I don't want to adapt or rewrite anybody else's work. I just don't want people who _do_ to be stifled. I anticipate there will be people who will want to create derivative works off of what I am writing, now. But I have to be careful to make sure that it enters the public domain in a reasonable amount of time, or it never will. It is the same with every author, today, who is more concerned about expressing an "original idea" (whatever that means, given your last point) than about making that idea his or her great grandchild's retirement plan.

No bets where Disney is concerned! But that doesn't mean other stuff is now available!

I know. I'm just saying that copyright need not be an impediment, you just need to do a little more work.

-- A2SG, there really is little, if anything, new under the sun.....

It _is_ an impediment when it is extended for too long. I think you're not appreciating the time honored tradition of reworking and refining existing texts. You say, "just do this other thing," but my point is that authors who want to do this thing are stifled.

More or less work is not the issue. Surely, you would not say that Walt Disney should have "just done a little more work" to produce any of his classic stories, even if copyright had been then as it is now, some of them could not have been produced in their current form. It wasn't a question of doing more or less work. He simply did what many great storytellers have done for millennia. And he achieved amazing results! It would be a shame if he had been kept from making these things, forever.

 

[A2SG]

Okay, that's a good point. Some works of that period _do_ enter the public domain. But there is a date after which it can't be helped that a book or a movie is guaranteed never to come into the public domain on its own. That may more in the ballpark of 1966 than 1940, but the point is -- it's still very old. Any author who managed to hold on a little longer than Walt Disney will never have his or her work enter the public domain on its own.

I don't believe that is correct. Some copyrights are held by corporate entities, like Disney, and that can extend the copyright almost to perpetuity, but not every work is protected that way. Copyrights last up to 70 years from the author's death, and then they enter the public domain.

Just because some works have found a way around the public domain, that does not mean all works do. And I don't believe that loophole is indefinite either...even if a copyright is held by a corporate entity, if the book falls out of print and there is nothing new done with the work (if the corporation goes out of business, say, without transferring the rights), then the work will become public domain.

That's why a lot of pulp characters and stories are fair game, I believe.

I don't want to adapt or rewrite anybody else's work. I just don't want people who _do_ to be stifled.

They aren't. Not really. Sure, you can't write a sequel to Disney's The Little Mermaid with Ariel, Flounder and Sebastian, but you can always go back to the original Andersen.

I anticipate there will be people who will want to create derivative works off of what I am writing, now. But I have to be careful to make sure that it enters the public domain in a reasonable amount of time, or it never will. It is the same with every author, today, who is more concerned about expressing an "original idea" (whatever that means, given your last point) than about making that idea his or her great grandchild's retirement plan.

There is something called a "creative commons license" you can use that will allow your work to be used or adapted without the need to seek permission first. Or you can do what many studios and publishers do about things like fanfic and simply turn a blind eye.

It _is_ an impediment when it is extended for too long. I think you're not appreciating the time honored tradition of reworking and refining existing texts. You say, "just do this other thing," but my point is that authors who want to do this thing are stifled.

I'd say challenged instead.

More or less work is not the issue. Surely, you would not say that Walt Disney should have "just done a little more work" to produce any of his classic stories, even if copyright had been then as it is now, some of them could not have been produced in their current form.

Well, they didn't try to make a Harry Potter movie without JK Rowling, did they? They went for old stories and made them their own. Anyone can do this, even today, even to the same stories.

The only problem here is trying to adapt someone else's work without the author's permission. And while I agree with you that an author shouldn't be allowed hold onto the rights to a story in perpetuity, I have no problem with a period when they do retain the rights.

During that time, if you want to retell an author's story, either seek permission (and take your lumps if it's refused) or retell it in a different, unique way that's your own, not someone else's.

I don't see a problem there, frankly.

It wasn't a question of doing more or less work. He simply did what many great storytellers have done for millennia. And he achieved amazing results! It would be a shame if he had been kept from making these things, forever.

He isn't. No one is.

I think you're exaggerating the problem, really. The public domain still exists, and will continue to exist. Works are added to it every year. While some works may escape that fate due to corporate holdings or trademark issues, that does not mean no work can ever enter the public domain from this point forward.

--A2SG, and even for those works that remain out of the public domain, well, there are ways around even that.....

 

[Willtor]

I don't believe that is correct. Some copyrights are held by corporate entities, like Disney, and that can extend the copyright almost to perpetuity, but not every work is protected that way. Copyrights last up to 70 years from the author's death, and then they enter the public domain.

Just because some works have found a way around the public domain, that does not mean all works do. And I don't believe that loophole is indefinite either...even if a copyright is held by a corporate entity, if the book falls out of print and there is nothing new done with the work (if the corporation goes out of business, say, without transferring the rights), then the work will become public domain.

That's why a lot of pulp characters and stories are fair game, I believe.



They aren't. Not really. Sure, you can't write a sequel to Disney's The Little Mermaid with Ariel, Flounder and Sebastian, but you can always go back to the original Andersen.



There is something called a "creative commons license" you can use that will allow your work to be used or adapted without the need to seek permission first. Or you can do what many studios and publishers do about things like fanfic and simply turn a blind eye.



I'd say challenged instead.



Well, they didn't try to make a Harry Potter movie without JK Rowling, did they? They went for old stories and made them their own. Anyone can do this, even today, even to the same stories.

The only problem here is trying to adapt someone else's work without the author's permission. And while I agree with you that an author shouldn't be allowed hold onto the rights to a story in perpetuity, I have no problem with a period when they do retain the rights.

I think you're responding to a view that has not been expressed in this thread.

My problem is not with copyright, either. It is with the present duration of copyright (and its inevitable extension in a few years). My problem is about the loss of rights to do a thing that has been done, as I say, for millennia -- not the retention of a right to do another, different (albeit, also good and worthwhile) thing. This is a point to which you have not responded, so let me ask directly: Do you believe that 28 years is too short a time for copyright? Do you believe present copyright duration is acceptable? Do you believe it won't be extended, again, in the near future? When and if it does, do you anticipate that the new duration will be acceptable?

During that time, if you want to retell an author's story, either seek permission (and take your lumps if it's refused) or retell it in a different, unique way that's your own, not someone else's.

I don't see a problem there, frankly.

He isn't. No one is.

I think you're exaggerating the problem, really. The public domain still exists, and will continue to exist. Works are added to it every year. While some works may escape that fate due to corporate holdings or trademark issues, that does not mean no work can ever enter the public domain from this point forward.

--A2SG, and even for those works that remain out of the public domain, well, there are ways around even that.....

Do you believe that there are some stories that should not be permitted to be retold (in the sense in which I mean it) by people without much money in a few generations?

 

[A2SG]

I think you're responding to a view that has not been expressed in this thread.

My problem is not with copyright, either. It is with the present duration of copyright (and its inevitable extension in a few years). My problem is about the loss of rights to do a thing that has been done, as I say, for millennia -- not the retention of a right to do another, different (albeit, also good and worthwhile) thing. This is a point to which you have not responded, so let me ask directly: Do you believe that 28 years is too short a time for copyright?

28 years from creation of the work? That's probably a bit short.

Do you believe present copyright duration is acceptable?

Death of the author plus seventy? It's workable, I'd say. A little less time after death isn't a problem, but I do believe some time after death is reasonable.

Do you believe it won't be extended, again, in the near future?

Probably, so long as there is money to be made.

When and if it does, do you anticipate that the new duration will be acceptable?

Acceptable in the sense that we will have to accept it, sure. Acceptable in the sense that we're all gonna like it, probably not.

Do you believe that there are some stories that should not be permitted to be retold (in the sense in which I mean it) by people without much money in a few generations?

Nope.

My only point is that copyrights aren't an insurmountable problem for writers who want to tell stories based on other people's work. It all depends on the story you want to tell, and how willing you are to be flexible in the way you tell that story.

After all, ideas are not copyrightable.

-- A2SG, and that's where the magic happens....

 

[Willtor]

28 years from creation of the work? That's probably a bit short.

I've maxed out my 401K contributions, but I doubt it will last 28 years, even if I'm really frugal. 28 years sounds like a pretty good basis for a retirement plan to me -- especially if it's a good book that's doing well. But the real question is, do you perceive 28 years as insufficient time to act as incentive to create the work?

Death of the author plus seventy? It's workable, I'd say. A little less time after death isn't a problem, but I do believe some time after death is reasonable.

I agree with the second part. Some time is good on account of supporting a widow or widower. But seventy years? Who else can expect such return from a life's work, let alone just a couple of years (or even a couple of months in the case of, e.g., Stephen King)?

Probably, so long as there is money to be made.

Acceptable in the sense that we will have to accept it, sure. Acceptable in the sense that we're all gonna like it, probably not.

What I meant by that question was more along the lines of: if you were emperor, would you allow the extension? How long would you make copyright last?

Nope.

My only point is that copyrights aren't an insurmountable problem for writers who want to tell stories based on other people's work. It all depends on the story you want to tell, and how willing you are to be flexible in the way you tell that story.

After all, ideas are not copyrightable.

-- A2SG, and that's where the magic happens....

Yes, if you don't mind being restricted from doing what I am talking about, you can certainly do what you are talking about. If, on the other hand, you _do_ mind being restricted from doing what I am talking about, then it is an insurmountable problem for authors (unless, as you rightly point out, they have a lot of money).

 

[A2SG]

I've maxed out my 401K contributions, but I doubt it will last 28 years, even if I'm really frugal. 28 years sounds like a pretty good basis for a retirement plan to me -- especially if it's a good book that's doing well.

I don't see it as primarily a financial question. Fact is, very few books make money 28 years after publication, so that isn't the issue for me. I think an author deserves to have the rights to his work for as long as he lives, at the very least.

But the real question is, do you perceive 28 years as insufficient time to act as incentive to create the work?

I don't think that's a factor. I've read some books that, before I've even finished I'd figured out several better ways to redo it myself.

I agree with the second part. Some time is good on account of supporting a widow or widower. But seventy years? Who else can expect such return from a life's work, let alone just a couple of years (or even a couple of months in the case of, e.g., Stephen King)?

True, very few works make money that long. I'm not sure where that seventy year figure came from but I'd have no problem reducing it. But, as I said, I don't think an author should lose the right to his own work as long as he's alive, at the very least.

What I meant by that question was more along the lines of: if you were emperor, would you allow the extension? How long would you make copyright last?

I dunno...death plus 25 years maybe? A generation seems long enough time.

Yes, if you don't mind being restricted from doing what I am talking about, you can certainly do what you are talking about.

If the goal is to tell a story, that's not a restriction at all, I'd say.

If, on the other hand, you _do_ mind being restricted from doing what I am talking about, then it is an insurmountable problem for authors (unless, as you rightly point out, they have a lot of money).

Only if they lack imagination, I'd say.

See, it all depends on what you want to do. If, say, you want to write sequels to To Kill A Mockingbird ("Boo and Scout and the Mystery of Jem's Missing Pants"), or rewrite it moving Atticus and Scout to a colony on Venus, sure, you're restricted. But if you want to tell a story about a young person's coming of age in a world of prejudice where she learns a valuable lesson about judging others without knowing them...well, that you can do. Even on Venus, with room for several sequels if you like.

You say the ability to retell old stories and adapt them for a new generation is a valuable thing, and I absolutely agree with you. I just don't see copyrights as a problem in doing that. It just means that, sometimes, you need to tell the story in a different way than you may have at first imagined.

-- A2SG, and isn't that what writing is, when you come right down to it....

 

[Willtor]

I don't see it as primarily a financial question. Fact is, very few books make money 28 years after publication, so that isn't the issue for me. I think an author deserves to have the rights to his work for as long as he lives, at the very least.

Why does the author deserve this? Do you believe patents should last for the life of the inventor?

I don't think that's a factor. I've read some books that, before I've even finished I'd figured out several better ways to redo it myself.

It's the sole factor mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (I don't know whether you are from the U.S., or what the Constitution means to you, of course...). What is another factor you perceive as being important to the duration of copyright?

True, very few works make money that long. I'm not sure where that seventy year figure came from but I'd have no problem reducing it. But, as I said, I don't think an author should lose the right to his own work as long as he's alive, at the very least.

I dunno...death plus 25 years maybe? A generation seems long enough time.

My response to this is subsumed by the previous question.

If the goal is to tell a story, that's not a restriction at all, I'd say.

That is your goal. That is my goal, too. That is not everybody's goal. I suppose there is a sense in which a restriction is only a restriction to one who doesn't intend to violate that restriction. The point is that there are people who want to violate this restriction, and who will be kept from doing so their whole lives.

Only if they lack imagination, I'd say.

See, it all depends on what you want to do. If, say, you want to write sequels to To Kill A Mockingbird ("Boo and Scout and the Mystery of Jem's Missing Pants"), or rewrite it moving Atticus and Scout to a colony on Venus, sure, you're restricted. But if you want to tell a story about a young person's coming of age in a world of prejudice where she learns a valuable lesson about judging others without knowing them...well, that you can do. Even on Venus, with room for several sequels if you like.

You say the ability to retell old stories and adapt them for a new generation is a valuable thing, and I absolutely agree with you. I just don't see copyrights as a problem in doing that. It just means that, sometimes, you need to tell the story in a different way than you may have at first imagined.

-- A2SG, and isn't that what writing is, when you come right down to it....

As you say, it depends on what you want to do. But I'm not sure imagination enters into it. Do you believe that Walt Disney lacked imagination in selecting stories from the public domain and retelling them?

 

[A2SG]

Why does the author deserve this?

Because he added something new and unique to the world, a product of his imagination. Stories are important to our world and our culture.

Do you believe patents should last for the life of the inventor?

Haven't given that much thought, really. Probably not, but I suppose a reasonable argument could be made.

It's the sole factor mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (I don't know whether you are from the U.S., or what the Constitution means to you, of course...). What is another factor you perceive as being important to the duration of copyright?

You lost me here.

It sounded like you asked if 28 years was an insufficient time to create derivative works from an existing one, and I don't think time is an issue there, since people can come up with ideas based on existing stories as soon as they read them. But given your response, I may have misunderstood you here.

That is your goal. That is my goal, too. That is not everybody's goal. I suppose there is a sense in which a restriction is only a restriction to one who doesn't intend to violate that restriction. The point is that there are people who want to violate this restriction, and who will be kept from doing so their whole lives.

If the goal isn't to tell a story, I'm not sure what the goal would be. If all someone wants to do is leech off another person's work, well, I don't see why that shouldn't be restricted, or at least made difficult.

But, again, I still don't see a restriction here. If you want to infringe on an existing copyright and, say, rewrite Star Wars or adapt The Little Mermaid to feudal Japan, you can. You can't make money off of it, but you're free to post it to the internet for the enjoyment of anyone who likes that kinda thing. Even before the internet you could have photocopied or mimeographed it and sent it to like-minded friends.

Copyrights don't prevent infringement, it only protects the author's right to make money off of the story.

As you say, it depends on what you want to do. But I'm not sure imagination enters into it. Do you believe that Walt Disney lacked imagination in selecting stories from the public domain and retelling them?

Not at all. But if someone is only interested in rewriting Star Wars, and can't consider the possibility of going a step backward and retelling the hero's journey myth in their own way without infringing George Lucas' copyright, that does lack imagination, I think.

-- A2SG, the problem isn't retelling existing stories, only which stories you want to retell.....