[B5JMS] attn. JMS: On Length of Copyright

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: eaburns at annotations.com (Eric Alfred Burns)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:43:01 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 44

>That's your inference, but that's not what it says.
>The provision is there because the Founding Fathers
>knew that allowing writers the exclusive rights to their
>works WAS what was needed to "promote the progress
>of Science and Useful Arts."  The whole idea of the
>provision as stated isn't to say "no, no, you're limited to 
>this period," it was to CREATE THE IDEA that they were
>entitled to such rights in the first place.  It was the
>ability to earn a living from one's writings that would 
>create and encourage these useful arts.


First off, I completely agree. My feeling is that copyright protection
should extend for the lifetime of the author. (And if I had my
druthers -- which I do not, last time I checked -- that 'company-owned
copyright' would still extend to the lifetime of the principal author
or to the lifetimes of co-authors as appropriate, instead of a
nonperson like "ConHugeCo."  But that's not really germane to my
question.)

My question is, should copyright extend past the death of the author,
and if so for how long? If it were up to you? While I agree that the
author should receive compensation for his works through his old age,
is it part of society's obligation to provide for the author's heirs?
If so, for how long? I wouldn't want an aged author's aged spouse to
be thrown out of the family house and rendered penniless at a time of
grief, but I also don't want to see society's interest in works of art
and derivatives of said works of art be abrogated so that the great
grandchildren of the Steinbeck estate can continue to make exclusive
money off _The Grapes of Wrath_, or withdraw it from circulation if
they wish. (An example picked at random, I should mention.)

What is fair? And when does society's interest, and the further
evolution of art (through derivative works, for example) become
salient?

--
Eric A. Burns
Freelance Writer and Textual Whore
http://www.annotations.com
"Silent brooding and hot cocoa don't go together as well as I had
hoped.'" --Superosity



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 22:28:51 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 49

>My question is, should copyright extend past the death of the author,
>and if so for how long? If it were up to you? While I agree that the
>author should receive compensation for his works through his old age,
>is it part of society's obligation to provide for the author's heirs?
>If so, for how long? 

Well, that's really the rub, isn't it?  If copyright means ownership -- and
technically it does -- then it really shouldn't be any different from passing
along anything else one owns to one's family.  It's a part of the estate, same
as the old rollaway desk and pictures of the family dog.

Society's obligation?  Seems like we're again looking at the wrong end of the
microscope.  The Bush administration is inche away from *totally* repealing
estate taxes, so you carry the burden of that lost revenue in what you as an
individual pay.  (Sidelight: the Democrats said, at one point, "look, tell you
what, why don't we just exempt the first hundred million dollars from estate
taxes, but if you get over $100,000,000, you have to pay some taxes."  The
Republicans dismissed it out of hand, not one person went for it.  Kind of
tells you where their proirities are, doesn't it?  This ain't about helping
poor farmers keep their farms.  And whenever they've used that line, btw, it's
been shown afterward that not one farmer could be produced who lost his farm
due to estate taxes.)  

Corporations earning billions of dollars incorporate overseas and pay zero
taxes...you and the rest of society are picking up the check on that one. 
Personally, I'd be more concerned about that than the average novel, which
earns only a few thousand bucks a year.  There aren't many Steinbecks among us
right now.  

So yeah, I do think the period should extend beyond the author's life.  Fifty
years is a goodly amount of time, but if it were to be peeled back a bit from
that, say to 20 or 30, I'd be okay with that.

One sidelight to this thing...most writers working at a certain level these
days incorporate, and all their works are owned/copyrighted by the corporation,
not the individual.  So all Harlan's works are (c) the Kiliminjaro Corporation,
and mine are (c) Synthetic Worlds, Ltd.  Which means that the works are
copyrighted for *the life of the corporation*, not my life.  

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)