Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70?
In a message dated 1/4/2005 1:17:05 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua@hutchinson.net writes: <<I'm confused. Is there a problem with PG-Australia <<(life+50) or PG-Europe (life+70)? Josh, the best I can tell right now, Australia is life+50 BUT a law has just been passed, though not to my knowledge ratified or else ratified but not yet going into effect, to put Australia in the same area as the other countries. Also to the best of my knowledge, other countries have now moved to life+95, and if the US hasn't done so yet it is in the process of doing so. Even speaking as a writer, guarding my copyrights fiercely because I think that if the publisher and the illustrator are still making money from my creation I also should make money from it, I think life +95 is absurd. Life +25 should be quite adequate for anybody. There are many people in this community who consider even that to be absurd. If my reply is incorrect, please somebody correct me. Flaming is not necessary. Really. Anne
Few countries have gone past life+70. Those that have: Life+75: Guatemala Samoa Life+80: Colombia Life+99: Ivory Coast Life+100: Mexico If there is impending legislation in the US or Europe to exceed life+70, I haven't heard widespread complaint about it. -- RS
The US is 95 or 120 years, per the 1998 copyright extensions. Our copyright rules describe US guidelines: http://gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto The best resource I know of for worldwide copyright durations is at the OnlineBooks page: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html -- Greg On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:38:47PM -0500, Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/4/2005 1:17:05 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua@hutchinson.net writes:
<<I'm confused. Is there a problem with PG-Australia <<(life+50) or PG-Europe (life+70)?
Josh, the best I can tell right now, Australia is life+50 BUT a law has just been passed, though not to my knowledge ratified or else ratified but not yet going into effect, to put Australia in the same area as the other countries.
Also to the best of my knowledge, other countries have now moved to life+95, and if the US hasn't done so yet it is in the process of doing so.
Even speaking as a writer, guarding my copyrights fiercely because I think that if the publisher and the illustrator are still making money from my creation I also should make money from it, I think life +95 is absurd. Life +25 should be quite adequate for anybody. There are many people in this community who consider even that to be absurd.
If my reply is incorrect, please somebody correct me. Flaming is not necessary. Really.
Anne
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:42:32PM -0800, Greg Newby wrote:
The US is 95 or 120 years, per the 1998 copyright extensions. Our copyright rules describe US guidelines: http://gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto
The best resource I know of for worldwide copyright durations is at the OnlineBooks page: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html
Oops - sorry, I forgot to mention: Yes, Australia has moved to life+70 (essentially the same as the EU). Effective January 1 2005 or thereabouts. It is *not* retroactive, at least for most works. Sounds like this basically means that nothing new will enter the public domain in Australia for at least 20 years, but stuff that is already public domain will stay there. Steven Thomas has sent some newspaper article links about it to this mailing list, I think. But I don't know of a link to the actual text of the law for complete details.
-- Greg
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:38:47PM -0500, Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/4/2005 1:17:05 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua@hutchinson.net writes:
<<I'm confused. Is there a problem with PG-Australia <<(life+50) or PG-Europe (life+70)?
Josh, the best I can tell right now, Australia is life+50 BUT a law has just been passed, though not to my knowledge ratified or else ratified but not yet going into effect, to put Australia in the same area as the other countries.
Also to the best of my knowledge, other countries have now moved to life+95, and if the US hasn't done so yet it is in the process of doing so.
Even speaking as a writer, guarding my copyrights fiercely because I think that if the publisher and the illustrator are still making money from my creation I also should make money from it, I think life +95 is absurd. Life +25 should be quite adequate for anybody. There are many people in this community who consider even that to be absurd.
If my reply is incorrect, please somebody correct me. Flaming is not necessary. Really.
Anne
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
From: Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org>
The US is 95 or 120 years, per the 1998 copyright extensions.
Or Life+70, as pointed out at the web site you mentioned. I think the original poster probably conflated "Life+70" and "95" into "Life+95" Dave Doty
Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
Even speaking as a writer, guarding my copyrights fiercely because I think that if the publisher and the illustrator are still making money from my creation I also should make money from it, I think life +95 is absurd. Life +25 should be quite adequate for anybody. There are many people in this community who consider even that to be absurd.
I agree wholeheartedly. I seem to remember the copyright office in Australia last year recommending that copyrights be SHORTENED rather than LENGTHENED. The benefits to authors from extending copyrights from Life + 50 to Life + 70 are pretty much non-existent. You could perhaps make the argument that authors may do more work to see that their children or grandchildren are well looked after after their death. However, when you start getting into Life + 70 territory, it's likely that the only beneficiaries will be a generation of descendents who weren't even born when the author was alive!!! The people who really benefit from copyrights are the publishers. Longer copyrights mean longer periods without competition from low-cost public domain publishers. It's perhaps unfortunate that at the governmental level, the people most represented (publishers) are the people who least need to be represented. If governments are given the choice to please high-powered corporations with minimal complaint from the electorate, they'll go right ahead and do it. It's even worse when, as in the case of Australia, the government may not even _want_ to impose longer copyrights but they have their hands forced through "Free Trade Agreements" with more powerful countries. When given a choice between sanctions from the richest country in the world and increasing copyrights by _another_ 20 years, which one would you choose? The sad part of it is, governments are increasing copyrights against the advice of their copyright offices, without considering the choices which will have the best impact on their country (which government has seriously taken advice on the "optimal" length of copyright?). These decisions are adversely affecting consumers every day but they're hurried through because nobody cares. Cheers, Holden
The sad part of it is, governments are increasing copyrights against the advice of their copyright offices, without considering the choices which will have the best impact on their country (which government has seriously taken advice on the "optimal" length of copyright?). These decisions are adversely affecting consumers every day but they're hurried through because nobody cares.
The sad truth is that when approached from an economic point of view, the optimal length is so short that it seems absurd, and nobody takes you seriously after they hear the result. Here's the analysis: Let's say that we have a work of enduring reputation, so that the right to publish it is worth a perpetuity of some annual income A. The copyright then has a present value of A/r, where r is the interest rate. We wish to transfer the copyright from the rights holder to the public when the public has paid the rights holder A/r. The public pays the rights holder A per year, and if this money accrues interest at the same rate r, then (omitting a pile of algebra), then the public will have paid the rights holder A/r after N years, where N=log(2)/log(1+r). Those with some accounting knowledge will recognize that the optimal copyright term at some interest rate is the same time as the doubling time of money at that interest rate: interest copyright rate term 2% 35.0 yr 3% 23.4 yr 4% 17.7 yr 5% 14.2 yr 6% 11.9 yr 7% 10.2 yr It's interesting to note that the copyright term of the legislation that started the Anglo-American copyright tradition, the 1710 Statue of Anne, hit this range on the nose with a 14 year term (5% interest). It got the number from the 1624 Statute of Monopolies, which limited royal monopolies to 14 years. In patent law, where the economic disadvantages of too long a patent term are quite clear, most patent offices have kept patent terms in the 14-20 year range, which seems reasonable, looking at the table above. In copyright law, the Continental jurists won the day, and things have gotten out of hand ever since. -- RS
Interesting aproach, but we have to translate it into a reality where lobbying has locked up life+50 into a number of international treaties that will take time to change (but MUST in due time, if the public starts to understands how they are being robbed). For the inbetween, I suggest a smart taxation scheme. Most countries have a sales tax or value added tax in the order of 10 to 20 percent. We could now offer two ways of paying that tax, either the normal way, that is, on sales as they are being made, or payment as a much earlier dedication to the public domain, according to some formula similar to that of Robert. Since most works don't have an enduring reputation, most publishers (except those of established classics) will probably go for the short term benefit. To enter the scheme, a registration and a contract with a copyright office will be required. We could try to make the scheme compulsory for DRM-ed works (together with a deposit of an unencumbered copy in a copyright office), since legislation around DRM is still on the drawing table in many countries. Joining the scheme will be (due to international obligations) be voluntarly, but could be made compulsory once these obstacles are taken out of the way; such that life+50 (or 70) will only remain in place for unpublished works, where I have much less trouble with the long term. I will further work out this idea in a document I am working on, called: "Cultural Heritage and Copyright, a misbalancing act"... Jeroen Hellingman. Robert Shimmin wrote:
The sad truth is that when approached from an economic point of view, the optimal length is so short that it seems absurd, and nobody takes you seriously after they hear the result. Here's the analysis:
Let's say that we have a work of enduring reputation, so that the right to publish it is worth a perpetuity of some annual income A. The copyright then has a present value of A/r, where r is the interest rate. We wish to transfer the copyright from the rights holder to the public when the public has paid the rights holder A/r.
The public pays the rights holder A per year, and if this money accrues interest at the same rate r, then (omitting a pile of algebra), then the public will have paid the rights holder A/r after N years, where N=log(2)/log(1+r). Those with some accounting knowledge will recognize that the optimal copyright term at some interest rate is the same time as the doubling time of money at that interest rate:
interest copyright rate term 2% 35.0 yr 3% 23.4 yr 4% 17.7 yr 5% 14.2 yr 6% 11.9 yr 7% 10.2 yr
It's interesting to note that the copyright term of the legislation that started the Anglo-American copyright tradition, the 1710 Statue of Anne, hit this range on the nose with a 14 year term (5% interest). It got the number from the 1624 Statute of Monopolies, which limited royal monopolies to 14 years. In patent law, where the economic disadvantages of too long a patent term are quite clear, most patent offices have kept patent terms in the 14-20 year range, which seems reasonable, looking at the table above. In copyright law, the Continental jurists won the day, and things have gotten out of hand ever since.
I've been studying this idea a bit further, and think there is a fallacy in this reasoning, that is, you are giving the author his present value at publication, but you are not giving it at the present, but spread out of N years.... Under your assumptions, he can consume A forever from day zero with perpeptual copyright, but he will have to wait for N years (and save everything, except interest) before he can consume A forever after this deal. Since most people don't life forever, this isn't a very good deal. I think you can still make a good economical case for a copyright lasting in the order of 28 years, but that will require some more math, and statistics about sales patterns of common copyrighted works. That's why I wanted to throw in the VAT, or even some arbitrary valuation of elements borrowed from the public domain, so that we can claim a work for the public when the author has earned roughly 85 % of its value according to very conservative estimates. Jeroen Hellingman. Robert Shimmin wrote:
The sad truth is that when approached from an economic point of view, the optimal length is so short that it seems absurd, and nobody takes you seriously after they hear the result. Here's the analysis:
Let's say that we have a work of enduring reputation, so that the right to publish it is worth a perpetuity of some annual income A. The copyright then has a present value of A/r, where r is the interest rate. We wish to transfer the copyright from the rights holder to the public when the public has paid the rights holder A/r.
The public pays the rights holder A per year, and if this money accrues interest at the same rate r, then (omitting a pile of algebra), then the public will have paid the rights holder A/r after N years, where N=log(2)/log(1+r). Those with some accounting knowledge will recognize that the optimal copyright term at some interest rate is the same time as the doubling time of money at that interest rate:
interest copyright rate term 2% 35.0 yr 3% 23.4 yr 4% 17.7 yr 5% 14.2 yr 6% 11.9 yr 7% 10.2 yr
It's interesting to note that the copyright term of the legislation that started the Anglo-American copyright tradition, the 1710 Statue of Anne, hit this range on the nose with a 14 year term (5% interest). It got the number from the 1624 Statute of Monopolies, which limited royal monopolies to 14 years. In patent law, where the economic disadvantages of too long a patent term are quite clear, most patent offices have kept patent terms in the 14-20 year range, which seems reasonable, looking at the table above. In copyright law, the Continental jurists won the day, and things have gotten out of hand ever since.
Jeroen Hellingman (Mailing List Account) wrote:
I've been studying this idea a bit further, and think there is a fallacy in this reasoning, that is, you are giving the author his present value at publication, but you are not giving it at the present, but spread out of N years.... Under your assumptions, he can consume A forever from day zero with perpeptual copyright, but he will have to wait for N years (and save everything, except interest) before he can consume A forever after this deal. Since most people don't life forever, this isn't a very good deal.
I think you can still make a good economical case for a copyright lasting in the order of 28 years, but that will require some more math, and statistics about sales patterns of common copyrighted works. That's why I wanted to throw in the VAT, or even some arbitrary valuation of elements borrowed from the public domain, so that we can claim a work for the public when the author has earned roughly 85 % of its value according to very conservative estimates.
The assumption is this style of scheme is that the creator should retain the right to a work as long as there remains significant value in the work. No matter where you draw the line, though, there exist some works of enduring value, which happen to be those works which are most cared about. While you would say, the collective value of free use of old ephemera is worth the value lost to the creators of enduring works, it could just as easily be said that the value lost to the creators of enduring works cannot possibly be worth the use of those works that have lost all value. The same assumption you start with can be used to justify perpetual copyright! If we instead say that the public should invest in a work the value of that work, but no more than the value of that work, then you reach my result. After N years, the value of the public's investment in the work, plus interest on that investment, has reached the value of that work. Causing the public to invest still more in the work is inefficient, because the public cannot both invest in the old work and new work. -- RS
My assumption is not "the author should get the value of the work," as that opens up the doors to perpetual copyright, but rather something like "the author should get a sufficient opportunity to try to earn back his initial investment." In your scheme, you claim to give him the present value (at publication date), but actually give it somewhat later, but then you can't maintain you're giving him present value. In my scheme, I would try to find a term that would not distract investors from investing in the production of a work, taking into consideration a number of factors, such as return on investment within a reasonable time (no investor will invest in a project with a break-even point more than 70 years in the future -- that is if he is thinking about the money), the distribution of earnings derived from a work, influence of competition from a vibrant public domain (if it can be shown that that really inhibits the creation of new works, not just stops the creation of "More of the same"); the debt every work has from borrowings from the public domain, and even personality rights (better known under a misnomer 'moral rights'), and even then I think publication + 28 years is very much more reasonable than the life + 70 we have to struggle with today. Once the public has paid the author what was necessary to enable him to create the work, I think the public should pay no more, as that will only disencourage the author to write yet another work (Why should he work if he is still getting money for nothing?), and disable us to distribute those same resources to other authors who also want to be able to write books. I am perfectly happy to give considerable margins, so that authors can actually earn a lot if their works have a big value to the public. Jeroen Hellingman.
I posted something about this on December 12, to the Book People list: "THE final element of the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) has passed through federal parliament. [...] The copyright aspects of the FTA [...] come into force on January 1 [...] The term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years." So Australia is now Life+70 -- for those authors who died after 1954. It's my understanding -- and I'll keep adding books until someone tells me otherwise -- that the change to our copyright law is NOT retrospective, so any authors who died before 1955 are still available. Including Margaret Mitchell. Steve Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/4/2005 1:17:05 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua@hutchinson.net writes:
<<I'm confused. Is there a problem with PG-Australia
<<(life+50) or PG-Europe (life+70)?
Josh, the best I can tell right now, Australia is life+50 BUT a law has just been passed, though not to my knowledge ratified or else ratified but not yet going into effect, to put Australia in the same area as the other countries.
Also to the best of my knowledge, other countries have now moved to life+95, and if the US hasn't done so yet it is in the process of doing so.
Even speaking as a writer, guarding my copyrights fiercely because I think that if the publisher and the illustrator are still making money from my creation I also should make money from it, I think life +95 is absurd. Life +25 should be quite adequate for anybody. There are many people in this community who consider even that to be absurd.
If my reply is incorrect, please somebody correct me. Flaming is not necessary. Really.
Anne
-------------------------
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
-- Stephen Thomas, Senior Systems Analyst, Adelaide University Library ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY SA 5005 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 8 8303 5190 Fax: +61 8 8303 4369 Email: stephen.thomas@adelaide.edu.au URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/
participants (7)
-
Dave Doty -
Greg Newby -
Gutenberg9443＠aol.com -
Holden McGroin -
Jeroen Hellingman (Mailing List Account) -
Robert Shimmin -
Steve Thomas