About Copyrights

[glottal]

This is a spin-off from this thread

In my opinion, the sole purpose of a copyright is to allow creators to be economically compensated for their work.  The vast majority of any economic benefit, aside from some very rare cases, is going to come in the first 14 years, so a copyright which only lasts 14 years with the possibility of a 14 year extension if the creator is still alive fulfils this purpose.

Why 14 years?  Mainly for historical reasons.  The original copyright law of the United States was 14 years with the possibility of a 14 year extension if the creator was still alive.  Using the number 14 is a way to remember this.  14 years also gives a generous amount of time for a creator to gain economic benefits, while not being such a long period of time as to harm the public.

How do excessively long copyrights harm the public?  For one example, look no further than the adventure game genre.

Under such a copyright scheme, Sierra would have still made about the same amount of money from KQ.  However, anyone who wanted to make another KQ game would be free to do so soon (assuming the copyright would fully expire by 2012 and not be extended) without having to worry about licenses.  They could even charge money for it if they were so inclined.

Other examples from the adventure gaming world: abandonware would be legal (while I do NOT advocate law-breaking, I think everyone agrees that distributing abandonware online would be an almost entirely beneficial activity if it were legal), Jane Jensen could write a new Gabriel Knight novel, or even work on Gabriel Knight 4 (if the copyright were due to expire soon, it would be easier for a game studio to hire her to make GK4), etc. etc.

An example from outside the gaming world: there are many old films which are going to be lost soon - the original reels are few, not in good shape, expensive to maintain, and might not last much longer.  Some people would love to digitise these old films in order to preserve them as a cultural legacy - but they can't (legally), because they are still under copyright.

I personally think that the copyright law as it currently stands is unconstitutional: the constitution says that copyrights should be limited, but the way Congress keeps extending them makes they seem de facto unlimited.  The Supreme Court has ruled on this; I happen to agree with Justice Breyer and Justice Stevens.

The reason why copyrights have been so over-extended is because it is profitable for Disney to bribe lobby Congress to extend copyrights so it can still have exclusive use of Mickey Mouse and Snow White.  Never mind that Walt Disney would have made Mickey Mouse even if he didn't expect the copyright to last so long (indeed, copyrights were shorter in his day), or that Snow White herself was inspired by that very public domain that Disney is trying to impoverish.  And Pinocchio (1940) was based on a novel from 1883.  Under the Copyright Act of 1909 (the copyright act in force in 1940) Pinnocchio was in public domain when Disney made the movie - yet had current copyright laws been in effect then, Disney would have had to pay the heirs of Carlo Collodi.  Yet now Disney wants to extend and extend and extend the copyright to Pinocchio (the movie).

As you can see, this is a topic I care about.

[darthkiwi]

I like a lot of what you're saying. Series like KQ and Gabriel Knight are prey to this kind of corporate rights-holding and it helps nobody at all. KQ was incredibly lucky to have this fan sequel but we mustn't forget that this is not the norm: after all, PoS were shut down twice.

I can see a few places where things would get messy, though. For instance, Jane Jensen makes GK1, 2 and 3. GK is therefore under copyright to her. Eventually, no more GK games are made so the copyright lapses. After a while, Jane Jensen decides to return to GK and make GK4. Does this mean that she gets copyright of GK back again? After all, it seems unfair to her if somebody else could make a Gabriel Knight "sequel" (and sell it!) without her input; it might not be true to the spirit of GK and might damage the series.

But if we do give rights back to Jane Jensen, what does that mean for other creators? If Jensen hadn't revived GK but a fan developer had, would they get the rights to GK? Would this mean that the first person to use a license after it lapsed would get a new copyright? If that were the case, a greedy corporation could simply release "Gabriel Knight Pinball" the day it lapses, and get 14 years of GK ownership.

At this point it looks like the most reasonable thing to do is to prioritise the original owner of a copyright, but since the video game business is largely collaborative, it's hard to define "creator". Is Ken Levine responsible for BioShock, or is Irrational Games?

I do agree with your ideas, but I'm trying to subject them to as many unseen scenarios as I can think of to see whether they'd be feasible in the real world. Which I hope they would be, to be honest!

[glottal]

I would like to point out that Jane Jensen does not currently have the rights to GK.  I think she indicated in an interview that if she had the rights to GK, she would do something (even if it was just writing another GK novel).

If the rights to GK were to expire soon, she could go out and, let's say, write a novel of GK4.  She would have the rights to the GK4 novel, which could not be copied without her permission for 14 years (let's say this is the length of copyright).

Likewise, if the rights were expiring to GK, I could go out and write and public a GK novel too (I wouldn't, but I could).  I would have the copyright to *that novel*, but not to GK in general.

It's the same way public domain stuff is handled now, so we know it works in the real world.  For example, The Little Mermaid is public domain.  Disney made a movie of The Little Mermaid, to which they have the copyright, but I could still go write a novel based on the Little Mermaid if I wanted to.  Disney couldn't stop me, and I would hold the copyright to the novel as long a the law permitted.

For a series like KQ, the copyright would expire in stages.  So when the copyright to KQ1 expires (it theoretically will expire, though I think the current situation is de facto perpetual copyright), but before KQ2 onward expires, people can make their own KQ whatever based on KQ1, but not the other KQs.  Thus somebody could write a story about Graham in Daventry, but they wouldn't be able to use Rosella, or the Green Isle, etc.  I believe this is how the current law works when copyright expires.

When something enters public domain, everybody has a right to it, including the creators.  They just have to share.  Whereas under current copyright law, it is common for creators to, for whatever reason, not have any rights to their work.

And while GK in public domain could allow someone to make a terrible GK game, I don't think we should use the law just to prevent people from making stuff that violates the artistic spirit of something.  And under the current law, somebody could make a terrible GK game a hundred and fifty years from now, and I don't really see the difference between somebody doing it then and somebody doing it now.

[DawsonJ]

In the 1960s, MGM Records had ownership of Lou Christie's recordings, despite the fact that Lou wrote many of the songs. Still, they only release what they want from their vault. He has little say in it.
In the 1970s, Henry Gross had an entire album vaulted, I believe by LifeSong Records, and he still can't get access to any of it, despite writing most, if not all of the songs.
Music copyright lasts for a very long time, apparently.

[darthkiwi]

The more I hear about this, the more I think that current copyright law is flawed and glottal's idea is a great alternative. Is anyone currently trying to change copyright law, do you know?

And I guess it makes sense that after 14 years people could use material from one piece of content, but wouldn't be able to use material from the sequels until they themselves had expired. It still feels a *bit* weird: if Roberta Williams had created a KQ game every couple of years (had kept the brand going, as it were) then it seems a little odd that she wouldn't have complete creative control of the content she created. But I agree that in these things we should probably err a little towards the public rather than the rights holders (since we've gone perhaps too far towards the holders up to this point) and, when all's said and done, a KQ sequel would feel somewhat crippled unless it took all the games into account, effectively meaning that Roberta would have pretty wide creative control, if not a complete monopoly.

And, of course, another thing in favour of the "14 years then it expires" rule is that it's *simple*, which is always welcome in legal proceedings where a fan developer might want to know where they stand legally.

[glottal]

@DawsonJ: Thanks for the examples.  Those cases are sad.

To clarify my position, I say

For an original human creator, a copyright should last 14 years and be extendable for a second 14 years.  I would grant the possibility of a 14 extension to the original creator, if human, only, because humans are vulnerable to exploitation and there might just be enough situations where a mere 14 year copyright would get somebody screwed where a 28 year copyright would not to justify the option of an extension.

For heirs, anyone who bought the copyright, and corporate owners (even if the corporation is the original creator), I think there should be 14 years, period, finito, no extension.

As for people organising around this, I can think of a few groups

1) The free software movement (think GNU public license) is of course more concerned with software than other kinds of copyright, but they are generally interested in changing the situation (some of them have positions more extreme than mine - some advocate abolishing copyright, for example).
2) The Pirate Party is an international political organisation which has become a legally registered party in some places (Massachusetts, for example), and reforming copyright law is a key part of their platform.  I have considered joining the Pirate Party, but I am still holding back - I want to wait and see a little before I make up my mind.
3) The anti-banksters.  There isn't a really good name for this group, so I made a name up.  They are, of course, mostly concerned with reigning in the abuses of financial institutions.  That is such an epic task that they do not spend a lot of time dwelling on copyrights.  However, I know Barry Ritholtz, possibly the most widely read writer in this group, has said that the current state of copyright law is part of the corporate-government complex which privatises gains (for the rich) and socialises losses (paid by the taxpayers, and the rich have a lot of loopholes to get around that tax thing because they can afford to bribe lobby the government to lower their taxes in a way the middle class cannot).  He said that it is yet another example of corporations bribing lobbying Congress so that they can privatise something which rightfully belongs to the public.

EDIT: And how could I forget to mention one of the most important groups trying to reform copyright law -

4) The free book/culture movement (think Project Gutenberg).  Their task is to try to make public domain works as widely available as possible, so they are very aware of these issues and are also in favour of the expansion of the public domain.  They are the ones who brought the case to the Supreme Court that the current copyright law violates the clause in the Constitution which says that copyrights should be limited.  Google might or might not be on board with these people, as they are trying to create the largest digital archive of books ever.  Google has far deeper pockets than any of these other groups, so they might be able to counteract the *cough* lobbbying which has brought copyright law to its current state.

[Baggins]

Some authors like the option of owning the rights to their material their entire lifetime! ...or in the case of the children, holding the rights to their parents works.

I understand what your getting at, where corporations kinda take over something, and then stop doing stuff with it (not even rereleasing it to the public). But I also very much understand the personal right to want to maintain control of whatever you have created/helped create.... I want to maintain control of my own scholarship (as an archaeologist and researcher), and want to be acknowledged if people reference my work.

If every thing, like characters went into public domain, so that just anyone could make whatever they want, then the market would become dilluted, hurting the company who owns the rights to that material. Bad spinoff material can tarnish the marketability and respect for the official material. I don't want people to be able to market, 'fan fiction'. It confuses things.

That being said, with my own work, if it goes out of print, I might allow digital access at some point; with the caveate that it doesn't spread around (that you would have to sign up to download it, with digital waterstamp for the person dloading it (so that if the copy spreads around, I would know who was doing it)).

[DawsonJ]

I understand Baggins' stand. It does make sense. One problem with copyright is kind of the opposite of that. Like in the cases I mentioned previously, the songwriters get no access to their own songs, even if the song itself was never released, but just vaulted. Why should a song that never made money for the company be held back from its creator? All it's doing is being wasted and taking up space, while serving no purpose whatsoever. And, like LifeSong Records, the company which now owns LifeSong may not even know what they have. It takes an hour of research to find out who holds the rights to which recordings, now. If copyright were different, then the writer himself could have ownership of his own creation, which the company doesn't even want. Regarding many artists, even mass petitions aren't enough for the recording company to SELL their original songs! It's not nearly as expensive to convert DATs to MP3s and get the songs on Amazon, eMusic, or iTunes as it is to compile a CD with liner notes and all. But, sadly, many rare songs are stuck in vaults or only available on "DJ Copy" records.

Yes, I am aware that the singer-songwriters accept the loss of their own creations, according to the rules of their agreement with the recording company. But, if the laws were different, the songwriter could eventually gain rights to their own creations in time, instead of their fans waiting for the singer to die in order to get compilations of the artist's lifelong work. Elvis Presley and Tupac Shakur have released more albums since their deaths than during their lifetimes. That just seems so wrong. (Not that I'm a particular fan of their music.)

[Fierce Deity]

Yes, I am aware that the singer-songwriters accept the loss of their own creations, according to the rules of their agreement with the recording company. But, if the laws were different, the songwriter could eventually gain rights to their own creations in time, instead of their fans waiting for the singer to die in order to get compilations of the artist's lifelong work. Elvis Presley and Tupac Shakur have released more albums since their deaths than during their lifetimes. That just seems so wrong. (Not that I'm a particular fan of their music.)

A lot of what is in a recording contract is evil, corrupted, nonsensical BS. But the artists won't be fronted the money required to record their album if they didn't sign it. That's how they get ya. Fortunately, Indie labels have been doing a lot better than they ever have before, and for the most part, artists can present themselves without a label thanks to social networking sites like Myspace, Facebook, and Youtube (especially). It's sad that record labels try to make money after their artist has died however. Sony tried to do it with Michael Jackson, but failed terribly.

[Baggins]

In the music world people have iTunes to upload and perhaps sell their own songs on as well! Complete indie style I think.

The old style of music contracts/distribution is a dying breed!

[Fierce Deity]

In the music world people have iTunes to upload and perhaps sell their own songs on as well! Complete indie style I think.

The old style of music contracts/distribution is a dying breed!

Indeed. But one factor that will forever play against the music industry is piracy (the same could be said for any multimedia outlet). As long as people can get their music for free, paying for music will not seem worth it. There needs to be a way for artists to supply their music without it becoming so easy to turn into a file. Once it is a file, the war has already been lost. I say, go back to vinyl. 

[DawsonJ]

In the music world people have iTunes to upload and perhaps sell their own songs on as well! Complete indie style I think.

The old style of music contracts/distribution is a dying breed!

Indeed. But one factor that will forever play against the music industry is piracy (the same could be said for any multimedia outlet). As long as people can get their music for free, paying for music will not seem worth it. There needs to be a way for artists to supply their music without it becoming so easy to turn into a file. Once it is a file, the war has already been lost. I say, go back to vinyl. 

Actually, I've been buying plenty of vinyl lately, which I run through my USB turntable and make into MP3 files and audio CDs. So vinyl and audio cassettes are easy to convert to files, too. Maybe DAT or Reel-to-Reel?

[Fierce Deity]

In the music world people have iTunes to upload and perhaps sell their own songs on as well! Complete indie style I think.

The old style of music contracts/distribution is a dying breed!

Indeed. But one factor that will forever play against the music industry is piracy (the same could be said for any multimedia outlet). As long as people can get their music for free, paying for music will not seem worth it. There needs to be a way for artists to supply their music without it becoming so easy to turn into a file. Once it is a file, the war has already been lost. I say, go back to vinyl. 

Actually, I've been buying plenty of vinyl lately, which I run through my USB turntable and make into MP3 files and audio CDs. So vinyl and audio cassettes are easy to convert to files, too. Maybe DAT or Reel-to-Reel?

Ahh, technology. Is there nothing it can't do? 

[glottal]

I've busy for the past few days, so it took a while to get to this (rather long) rebuttal.

Some authors like the option of owning the rights to their material their entire lifetime! ...or in the case of the children, holding the rights to their parents works.

And why should the law enable this?  Why should the law be used so that authors control their work, or heirs get rights to work they did not help create?

In my opinion, the law should serve the public interest.  It is in the public interest for people to be able to make a living from their intellectual labor, and *limited* copyrights make it easier for that to happen.  But do copyrights which last a lifetime really make it much easier for people to make a living from their intellectual labors than a copyright which lasts 28 years?  And if so, do the advantages TO THE PUBLIC outweigh the harm to the public?  And is it good *for the public* that people have lifetime copyrights for reasons other than economics?

I am OK with heirs getting something if the creator dies less than 14 years after a copyright period has started, but that's mainly because I think publishers/distributors getting a windfall in such a situation would be perverse, not because I want to help the heirs.

The reason why we have inheiritance laws is that when people die, they leave behind stuff, and much of it is stuff (clothes, houses, money, etc) which cannot be jointly owned by all of humanity.  It can be taken by the government, but that is very different from something that is jointly owned by all of humanity.  Inheiritance laws decide who gets the stuff.  An intellectual work, however, can be jointly owned by all of huamanity, so again, why should heirs get anything for a work they didn't put effort into (unless the creator died shortly after the copyright started, in which case I think they should get something because I think the alternative is worse).

But I also very much understand the personal right to want to maintain control of whatever you have created/helped create.... I want to maintain control of my own scholarship (as an archaeologist and researcher), and want to be acknowledged if people reference my work.

And why should the law be used to enable such control?  What benefit is there for the public (aside from the benefit I already mentioned about it being easier for people to make a living from intellectual labor)?  And I thought it was standard practice to reference work even if it is in public domain, so I don't see what copyrights have to do with that?

If every thing, like characters went into public domain, so that just anyone could make whatever they want, then the market would become dilluted, hurting the company who owns the rights to that material. Bad spinoff material can tarnish the marketability and respect for the official material. I don't want people to be able to market, 'fan fiction'. It confuses things.

First of all, under my system, *it would take 14-28 years for this to happen*.  Most artistic works decline in popularity after the first 14 years.  And if a steady stream of sequels had been coming out, as darthkiwi noticed, it would make it harder to market/sell fanfic even after that period.  And I don't know of any examples where this kind of "dilution" did harm to the original creators.  I know of cases where it benefited them:

1) The KQ fangames.  Y'all know the details.
2) Doujinshi.  Fancomics sold for money in Japan.  One reason why publishers ignore them, even though they are breaking copyright law, is that the publishers think that they lead to more profits.  Some prominent comic book artists in Japan have also started from the doujinshi world, so it is a ground for new artists to grow.  I think yet another harm done by such extensive copyright laws is that it makes it harder for new artists to grow in this way.

... and other cases which seem to have a mostly neutral effect (on the creators - I think they have a positive effect on culture in general)

1) There are a number of Harry Potter spinoffs, or other works which succeeded on Harry Potter's coattails, which have been sold and marketed, without the explicit permission of JK Rowling (examples [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Worlds_of_Harry_Potter]here[/link], [link=http://www.barrytrotter.com/]here[/link], [link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6245333.stm]here[/link] for a few examples).  I would also argue that the Harry Potter fanfiction community has made Harry Potter more profitable than it would be otherwise.
2) The Jane Austen published spinoffs.  I don't know much about them, but my mother reads them (books along the lines of "what happened to Elizabeth and Darcy after P&P...).  Of course Jane Austen is dead, but since these books aren't doing anyone harm now, would they have done harm way back in the day?
3)Another Japanese example - Lupin III.  Definite violation of copyright, and you know how they resolved the legal issue?  They declared that Lupin would become public domain in Japan early (this created complications when trying to sell Lupin III overseas though...).  I don't see how the rights holders to Lupin were worse off than they would have been had Lupin III never existed.

There are enough situations where this "dilution" could have happened, that if it likely enough to happen and/or severe enough that the law should be involved, there should be examples, either from when copyright laws were more limited (18th and 19th century) or in more recent times when this kind of thing is illegal, but is still done.  However, just because I don't know of any examples doesn't mean there aren't any, so please do share if you know of any case where the market became "dilluted, hurting the company who owns the rights to that material."

As far as the MP3 issue ... this is one of the things holding me back from the Pirate Party people.  I think MP3 distribution should be limited, whereas they think it shouldn't be.  However, they have a point, that when so many people violate a law so often, there is something really wrong, either with the people, or with the law.  I actually think it's a little of both, or more precisely, it's a problem with our culture (which affects both people's behavior and the law).  But that would be another little essay, which I don't feel like writing now.