# "Book that are 30 years old should be in the public domain."



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367091002561998848
If I have to sit here looking at the worst opinions in the world and getting ridiculously mad about them, so do the rest of you.

It's not even the policy wonk on a six-figure salary tweeting out brain farts like this that really grinds my gears: it's the legion of otherwise reasonable-seeming people engaging in that discourse over the past few days, many of whom agree that yeah, even though our society is run by landlords and rent seekers and politicians whose ancestors made their fortunes 300 years ago trading slaves and pillaging India, there's no way an author should be able to collect their $142 of annual royalties on a novel they wrote 30 years ago - that's just beyond the pale.

The other one that drives me mad is the really vague, nebulous notion that having recent works in the public domain "encourages" or "incentivises" other artists. Funnily enough it never seems to be actual writers or musicians or artists who say that, it's always people whose Twitter bio suggests a STEM background.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

God forbid this ever happened. No one would ever buy books again there would be that many free.
/
Here's a thought. Amazon have millions of our files for eBook and print that are exclusive to them. When we are all dead and gone and our copyright runs out, do you think as a business they will simply archive them? Some bright spark at Amazon will have already thought of that as a future income stream as soon as they become public domain. Or maybe I don't nderstand how it works.


----------



## Some Random Guy (Jan 16, 2016)

Keep in mind that Matt Yglesias is a f****ng idiot of the first order. Always treat anything he vomits as well, vomit.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

This seems like it falls in the mentality of, I'm just going to go on twitter, say a lot of ridiculous ideas, see which one people gravitate to, and then make that my main talking point going forward. I don't know this person, but I'm sure they don't care about making 30 year old books public domain. It's just, if it became popular, then they'd sure care about it a lot. Either that or someone who wanted to keep up an active twitter, but then realized that they weren't actually that interesting, and then were like, crap, now I have to shout about any random thought in my head.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

I actually generally like Yglesias and think he has good policy ideas but he's very clearly the kind of analyst who views people as data. Good in the back room of a Washington government department or think tank - bad on Twitter!

The real kicker is that his father was a successful novelist/screenwriter whose book was adapted into a Peter Weir film in 1993!


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Anyway, the important thing is that I spent all day arguing with dipshits about this on Twitter instead of generating some more of that sweet original content they all apparently crave so much. (Every person whingeing about how everything should be in the public domain has a petabyte of illegally downloaded movies and music on their harddrive, guaranteed.)


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Anyway, the important thing is that I spent all day arguing with dipshits about this on Twitter instead of generating some more of that sweet original content they all apparently crave so much.


Ha, uggh, I hear you. Mostly I just stay far away from twitter and the twitterey things. It's too easy to get on there and feed the part of me that loves conflict. So, I'm sticking to writing and jamming Bob Marley these days, and just kinda enjoying ignorance of what is happening out there. Because whoever it is saying stuff, if they say enough stuff, some of it is going to be legit bullshit.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

I'd love someone to tweet the alternative. Books should never be in public domain unless the rights holder formally consents.

Mark


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> It's not even the policy wonk on a six-figure salary tweeting out brain farts like this that really grinds my gears: it's the legion of otherwise reasonable-seeming people engaging in that discourse over the past few days, many of whom agree that yeah, even though our society is run by landlords and rent seekers and politicians whose ancestors made their fortunes 300 years ago trading slaves and pillaging India, there's no way an author should be able to collect their $142 of annual royalties on a novel they wrote 30 years ago - that's just beyond the pale.


Love this. Spot on.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

ShaneCarrow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367091002561998848
> If I have to sit here looking at the worst opinions in the world and getting ridiculously mad about them, so do the rest of you.
> 
> It's not even the policy wonk on a six-figure salary tweeting out brain farts like this that really grinds my gears: it's the legion of otherwise reasonable-seeming people engaging in that discourse over the past few days, many of whom agree that yeah, even though our society is run by landlords and rent seekers and politicians whose ancestors made their fortunes 300 years ago trading slaves and pillaging India, there's no way an author should be able to collect their $142 of annual royalties on a novel they wrote 30 years ago - that's just beyond the pale.
> ...


As soon as I read this tweet yesterday and saw this coming from another writer, I went straight to google, and sure enough he grew up in New York private schools and went to Harvard. I don't resent people just for having privilege, but if this is how you use your voice, blegh.


----------



## SaltObelisk (May 24, 2017)

Oh man, just imagine all the Harry Potter remakes we'd be seeing in about 5 more years. lol. 

Colossally bad idea, dude.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

it's un-thoughtout bunk.


----------



## archaeoroutes (Oct 12, 2014)

SaltObelisk said:


> Oh man, just imagine all the Harry Potter remakes we'd be seeing in about 5 more years. lol.
> 
> Colossally bad idea, dude.


Well, given that Harry Potter is just a rehash of other stories anyway...


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

I wonder if the STEM guys believe all original code (computer software) should be quickly released into the public domain. And, since computer time is accelerated--a decade of computer development is like a century anywhere else--all apps and proprietary code should be given a life of 3 years, then into the public domain for the benefit of all...right?

See how they scream then...


----------



## DawnLee (Aug 17, 2014)

I’ve been absent from KBoards for at least four years, so I don’t know you. I also don’t read much apocalyptic fiction, as your books appear to be. But this post was better written and more fun than 80% of the books I’ve read this year, so I’m off to Amazon to get yours. If you ever wander into the suspense/mystery/thriller cats, please let me know. I’d want to read that, and I know 12k subscribers who would probably love you. 🙂[/QUOTE]


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

DawnLee said:


> I’ve been absent from KBoards for at least four years, so I don’t know you. I also don’t read much apocalyptic fiction, as your books appear to be. But this post was better written and more fun than 80% of the books I’ve read this year, so I’m off to Amazon to get yours. If you ever wander into the suspense/mystery/thriller cats, please let me know. I’d want to read that, and I know 12k subscribers who would probably love you. 🙂


[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that's very kind and I hope you enjoy them! As a matter of fact I'm about to finish a uni degree in criminal justice and will be moving into that as my day job career, so I wouldn't be surprised if my writing drifts in that direction in the coming years...


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

I actually support a twenty-year copyright from first publication. For books, music, film, software, etc. 

Studies on books for example show 90-95% of the money is made within the first five years. Also within five year 90+% are out of print.

The current way copyright works only enriches Disney et al and impoverishes the rest of us. 

I'll give some examples - do you think Wicked is a cool musical? How about the books they're based on? If copyright maximalists got their way, Wicked (the books and musical) don't exist. 

How about Sherlock Holmes? Surely you've seen the family of the author (a few generations down now) trying on their copyright position of the "character wasn't fully formed until the author laid down their pen". This was rejected thankfully.

Do you like your laptop or computer you write on? It's built almost entirely of components that have expired patents and are now in the public domain. Patents only last twenty years and companies still manage to make billions in that time. 

As a society, the people decide what laws exist and whom they benefit. I'm sure pharmaceutical companies wish that infinite patents existed but they don't because they don't benefit society at all. 

We collectively weigh benefit vs costs and that's why patents sit at twenty years. When patents enter the public domain, they're free to use for anyone. 

For books, the fact is that copyright as it currently exists only enriches Disney et all and millionaires. It doesn't benefit you or me. 

Let's look at Harry Potter for example. If that slipped into the public domain, JK Rowling is still a billionaire. Movies can still be made. Animations, comic books, all forms of art. 

We'd see things that currently cannot be - like, say, a darker reworking of Harry Potter. Or a show about Aurors. 

These types of books are a sort of modern mythology, like Greek and Roman mythology that is so readily mined for the creative realm. 

How about us, the lowly ebook authors? Currently that book I published in 2020 likely won't go into the public domain until 2130, if I live the average lifespan. So 110 years after I publish it, it finally enters the public domain. That book however will make most of its money within the first decade. Twenty years after publication it's unlikely to be earning the author a lot of money.

And even if it is - then great! The author has earned a good chunk of money and now the work joins the public domain.

I'd note that this doesn't stop the author from continuing to publish that title on KDP or wherever else. They'd still be making sales. 

The current state of copyright globally is essentially Disney and some other massive megacorporations at work with their lobbying. They are currently screwing with trademark law to gain further extension, due to Mickey Mouse heading for the public domain. 

We shouldn't be banding together to defend companies with earnings in the billions of dollars. We definitely shouldn't be extending copyright. There are so many lost and orphaned works out there. Books that didn't make the digital shift. Books that have arguing grandchildren and so are denied to everyone. Books that could become amazing new things but the arrogant snot of a great-grandchild is holding out for more money. 

Look around your life. It's enriched and better by the public domain. It's everywhere too - from your tv to computer to heater to bookshelf. 

You can just look at music and see how dire copyright has become - court cases won on "it has the same _feel_ as our song*. 

You personally will not benefit from infinite copyright or even how copyright is now. It only harms you.

Who knows, you might have wanted to write the next Wicked but you can't because that snotty grandchild is holding up rights for no purpose at all.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

........ said:


> I actually support a twenty-year copyright from first publication. For books, music, film, software, etc.
> 
> Studies on books for example show 90-95% of the money is made within the first five years. Also within five year 90+% are out of print.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to break it all the way down.

At first glance, this looked like an outsiders = ignorance situation. I had a what about me gut reaction. I want to retire one day, and I hope what I write over the years helps me make that happen... that's where my mind went. 

But this is a bigger issue, and it does need a what about us level of consideration. Your points are well taken.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I actually support a twenty-year copyright from first publication. For books, music, film, software, etc.
> 
> You personally will not benefit from infinite copyright or even how copyright is now. It only harms you.
> 
> ...


If you support a twenty-year copyright you can certainly put your work into the public domain whenever you like. You don't have to wait for it to expire. Personally, I'm happy to keep my copyright. Why shouldn't I be able to will the copyright to my family so they can maybe benefit from it in some way.

There's nothing stopping someone from writing a book or a show about wizard police. You couldn't call them aurors, but it could still be a perfectly good story without infringing on or referencing JK Rowling's work.

Also, why is one person's desire to 'write the next Wicked' - or whatever other thing they might want to write - more important than the rights of the person who created it?


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

I know Disney was intrinsic in extending copyright laws decades ago, but I find it dismaying how many people fixate on that one company and blinker out everything else. There are a lot of people out there who would be happy to screw over hundreds of thousands of smaller artists and their families just to stick mud in the big corporation's eye.

Wicked is a weird example to use - it's based on a book written in 1995, i.e. 76 years after Baum died, i.e. it wasn't hampered by copyright! You could argue that society was "harmed" by not having that book in the 1940s or 1950s. I strongly disagree that the "harm" caused to society by having to wait a longer period for the handful of decent works of art which are _directly_ derivative of somebody else's work outweighs the harm caused to artists and their families by being stripped of the ability to earn from their own creations after such a short period of time.

The idea that directly derivative works are so important (which I mostly see espoused by people who are not themselves writers) I think is highly dubious. One Twitter thread was a tech bro talking about all the "cool stuff" that we're "missing out on" and outlined all his ideas and it was a horrible vision of a world not dissimilar to Ready Player One; a grown man wanting nothing more than the stories of his youth repeated to him like a lullaby, who views characters as something akin to action figures. Our cinema in particular is already so over-saturated with existing IP, especially superhero stories, that it seems bizarre to me for anyone to argue that what we need is _more_ of that.

(The patent comparison also gets thrown around a lot, and is specious, because patents are far, fare more restrictive than copyrights.)



........ said:


> I'd note that this doesn't stop the author from continuing to publish that title on KDP or wherever else. They'd still be making sales.


If you think that if your books entered the public domain after 20 years that Amazon would still give you royalties for sales made through their website, I have a bridge in Sydney for sale.


----------



## Clay (Apr 17, 2020)

20 years isn't enough time. If someone creates something they shouldn't lose the rights to it during their lifetime. Though some of you seem to think that copyright should last forever and get passed around through multiple generations. It shouldn't, it doesn't, and it has never worked that way. 

The only reason it last as long as it does now is because of greedy megacorporation and the corrupt politicians they own. The life of the author plus twenty years, or in the case of corporate owned works, I would say copyright should last something like 50 years.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

99.9% of authors are not in the Rowling income bracket. And I have no trouble with Rowling making another billion after her first.billion, it is earned from something she took years to create.

For that 0.1%, they need protection and time to make money from what they created. 

If you are an author who needs to dip into the someone else' work to come up with an idea...than maybe you are not really much of author worth reading and if you really need to borrow someone's quote or whatever, you can try asking.

There are creative ways to take what is out there and work around it. Notice the word "creative".

The reason drug patents are limited is it goes to the basic need of maybe saving lives before profit. As a society, that is on a different level of survival.

Mark


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

The issue is not one of principle, mainly. The principles are clear. Let the creator profit for a certain "fair" period of time, and then the work passes into the public domain so society at large can benefit. 

The issue is, what's "fair" or what balances the interests and rights of the artists vs. society. 

Imagine if Bach, Beethoven, the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Lord Byron, Frederick Douglass, etc. etc. were forever copyrighted. Society would be denied untold benefits. 

But imagine if copyright were a mere 20 years, as US patents are? Stephen King would have his earlier work adapted by movie production companies, etc. for their own profit and none of his. 

Somewhere between these two extremes is a sweet spot of fair to the artist and beneficial to society.

Lifetime seems the minimum fair. Lifetime plus 90 seems far too long to me. Somewhere between those is a sweet spot.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

If anyone thinks that Disney wouldn't remain a billion-dollar company if there were 20 (or even 30) year copyrights, sorry, they aren't thinking.

Big Pharma makes billions even when the patents expire in 20 years. The fact that megacorporations benefit from the longer terms of copyright ownership doesn't preclude the little guy from benefitting also.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Yeah, I have to say, I don't think we're really hurting by lack of Harry Potter fanfiction for sale. If people want to put a new spin on Harry Potter, they can do that in a creative way.

Twenty years is not a very long time in trad terms. With a book a year as an average pace, some series would be in the public domain by the time they finished.

Life plus a solid chunk of time for heirs seems fair to me. Not forever. But as long as we're living in a capitalist society, authors should get some of the same benefits as other businesses in terms of generational wealth.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> If you support a twenty-year copyright you can certainly put your work into the public domain whenever you like. You don't have to wait for it to expire. Personally, I'm happy to keep my copyright. Why shouldn't I be able to will the copyright to my family so they can maybe benefit from it in some way.
> 
> There's nothing stopping someone from writing a book or a show about wizard police. You couldn't call them aurors, but it could still be a perfectly good story without infringing on or referencing JK Rowling's work.
> 
> Also, why is one person's desire to 'write the next Wicked' - or whatever other thing they might want to write - more important than the rights of the person who created it?


I'll tell you why you shouldn't be able to keep your copyright - patent law. 

When we change things, we use studies and evidence to make our decisions. We look at similar areas of law and study outcomes.

In patent law, businesses get twenty years to make money then it's free for the world. This is an unparalleled good, for all of us. Many things that currently exist (like your computer) cannot exist in world where patents are life + 70 years or infinite. 

Despite the fact a pharma company could make more billions, we say no, that's enough. That's the trade they get for twenty years of patent protection.

Your books are just the same as a medicine. They give you money for twenty years. The Government backs you with harsh laws for anyone who breaches your copyright. Then after that twenty years, the books are free for everyone.

Because what we're talking about here is all the things that currently don't exist because of the horrific way copyright works. 

I use Wicked as an example. If the copyright maximalists got their way, this simply wouldn't exist. The author wouldn't have been free to reimagine the Wizard of Oz and make his excellent books. The subsequent musical doesn't get to exist. 

Shows like Westworld exist but only because the licensing of the copyright managed to get through. I want Westworld to exist. 

I'd also like a bunch of other movies and tv shows to exist but unfortunately a third-generation grandson refuses to let anyone use the rights and that situation will be continuing for the next thirty to forty years. 

As a society we are constantly balancing off benefits and costs. The patent system currently strips a pharma company of money. This isn't in dispute. Why shouldn't they have infinite patent over their inventions? Didn't they do amazing things for the world? What? You don't want to pay $16,000 a dose? Well, you can go die then. 

We already have a lot of negative outcomes from the current system. Did you know James Dean's image can be licensed?

Check out this website: CMG Worldwide

So, licensing of estates is a thing. Okay, what's the harm? Why can't some grandson or whatever make some money from someone they maybe never met? 

Well, just try to write a novel with James Dean as an alcoholic secret agent who does a bunch of unsavoury things and is eventually murdered in a car accident.

You'll be sued into the ground. 

You'll be sued into the ground for writing a fictionalized version of a movie star who died in 1955. 

Let's check out the Lord of the Rings and the powerful forces at work there: They think they own the word DRAGON

"According to Gary Gygax (the co-creator of _Dungeons & Dragons_) in a post on _EN World, _the Tolkien estate wanted the words dragon, dwarf, elf, ent, goblin, hobbit, orc, and warg removed from the game."

Most of these were successfully argued to be in the public domain and thus remained.

An author tried to write Mirkwood, featuring Tolkien as a character. Hey, lawsuit! Can't write fiction about an estate

This was settled, which is usually code for "money was paid". 

If you look, this kind of nonsense is all over the place. I don't believe Richard Feynman, the famous physicist, would probably have been down with lawsuits in his name. And the fact is, you don't even hear about most lawsuits. You have no idea of the publisher that reaches out, gets threatened, pays up and then we get some edited version of what could have been.

That licensing website wants infinite copyright. In many cases the family sells the estate entirely and then a corporation owns it forevermore. Good luck trying to fictionalize any of those people, no matter how long they've been dead. You'll be sued into the ground. 

This is what the copyright maximalists want. Disney want to own their things forever. They want to be able to buy estates and companies and own those copyrights for all eternity. 

This stifles things out of existence that could have been. Destroys adaptations and remakes. Destroys the ability of people to make cool and interesting things we'd all like.

Hey, I'd read a book about James Dean actually being a alcoholic spy who was eventually murdered. Sounds fun. Can't exist.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> I know Disney was intrinsic in extending copyright laws decades ago, but I find it dismaying how many people fixate on that one company and blinker out everything else. There are a lot of people out there who would be happy to screw over hundreds of thousands of smaller artists and their families just to stick mud in the big corporation's eye.
> 
> Wicked is a weird example to use - it's based on a book written in 1995, i.e. 76 years after Baum died, i.e. it wasn't hampered by copyright! You could argue that society was "harmed" by not having that book in the 1940s or 1950s. I strongly disagree that the "harm" caused to society by having to wait a longer period for the handful of decent works of art which are _directly_ derivative of somebody else's work outweighs the harm caused to artists and their families by being stripped of the ability to earn from their own creations after such a short period of time.
> 
> ...


What would Disney's ideal outcome be? Infinite copyright. Same with pharma companies. They'd like infinite patent. 

And patent and copyright are comparable. It's ownership over invention. 

I use Wicked as an example because if the copyright maximalists got their way, it doesn't exist. It's gone. Then the musical is gone. 

There are already things that don't exist. All those people who tried to negotiate with the Sherlock Holmes licensors and couldn't get through because they wanted Sherlock to be black or gay or set in China. Or because they wouldn't pay the fee demanded.

I mean, look at his licensing website: CMG

The Wright Brothers are on there. This means you want to make a movie with them in it, hand over some money. Or get sued. 

Did you like Westworld? I did and so did millions of other people. A screw-up in the licensing, which can be a grandchild demanding a lot of money, means it doesn't exist. 

This is the ongoing harm: the non-existence of cool and good things. The sueing of people trying to make cool things (like Mirkwood novel that featured Tolkien as a character).

When I say that 95% of the money is made in five years and 90% of books are out of print within five years, that's a true statement.

So you're going in to bat for millionaires and billion-dollar corporations who'd love nothing more than for copyright to be infinite. 

You may have seen the Great Gatsby enter the public domain recently. So now we'll see some new stuff from that. A movie, a tv show, some rewriting, who knows? 

All made with no fees paid to some great-grandchild. Maybe in two years the hottest thing on Netflix will be some amazing reworking of Gatsby in tv show format. Something that couldn't have existed before because the estate didn't allow it. 

As authors we use the public domain all the time. Greek and roman gods. Names of places. The current push of copyright law, tangling with trademark law, and the horrible outcome of "estates" existing for decades after death results in so many bad things. 

Like if the maximalists got their way, you wouldn't be able to write about any real person without handing over money. They'd be able to stop publication of your book if you fictionalized that real-life dead person. 

I'd like to point out that you personally do not benefit, nor does your family from the way it is now. 

You have only lost - lost all the things that could have been. If Tolkien's estate had been successful, they'd control the word Dragon.

And we saw even recent attempts around cover designs and trademarks for "Cocky" how that all goes. 

The battle is constantly running between the copyright maximalists and everyone else. This group want infinite copyright. The public domain ceases to exist. Nothing leaves their hands, ever. They use every angle they can to push their agenda, which is why trademark law is being screwed with. 

Don't be on their side. A shorter copyright term (like twenty years) means authors still make buckets of money (for the authors who would make money). Then at twenty years the work joins the public domain.

It has such broad implications for all of us. Love that game from the 1990s that never got remastered? Someone will do it and you'll love it! Economic activity will be produced! Cool things too! Find some out of print book that never made the digital transition? Someone can put it online and now we preserve it. 

There are so many wonderful things we could have if we cut copyright down to twenty years from first publication. Disney et al would still make billions. They'd be on the same line as pharma companies with twenty years to extract all their money. Even after it entered the public domain they'd still be making money from selling it.

It's good for all of us. 

.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Yeah, I have to say, I don't think we're really hurting by lack of Harry Potter fanfiction for sale. If people want to put a new spin on Harry Potter, they can do that in a creative way.
> 
> Twenty years is not a very long time in trad terms. With a book a year as an average pace, some series would be in the public domain by the time they finished.
> 
> Life plus a solid chunk of time for heirs seems fair to me. Not forever. But as long as we're living in a capitalist society, authors should get some of the same benefits as other businesses in terms of generational wealth.


We don't know what we've lost because it doesn't exist. We can see hints of it. Like Mirkwood author being sued. Like projects stuck in "development hell". Like licensing websites with all these famous estates listed on them. These are the clues of things that could exist but don't. 

Like do you know that Richard Scarry's son works on his father's estate? The Busytown books and animations and all that run via him. There aren't more new things because the son controls the estate. Licensing issues again. So it will be until 2064 when the copyright finally enters the public domain.

Cool, only another 43 years to go.

Oh, the son is a multi-millionaire by the way. Rich beyond belief. We should definitely be on his side to extract more value from the estate.

What is likely to happen in reality is that the son will die and eventually the entire estate will be sold. Some licensor will then start making new things. We'll see new animations and new books and so on. 

Happens all the time. There are so many useless estates out there. The children of the creators can't agree and so nothing happens. They want too much money. They won't let things be changed. 

So all this cool stuff we could have doesn't get to exist because some millionaire child wants more money. 

The series you're talking about in trad that make money over twenty years are written by millionaires. Like Evanovich. She has been writing a long time. She is writing an endless series. It has no conclusion. She's just fine financially if the books started entering the public domain. 

As for everyone else, the reality is that most books are out of print (like 95%) within five years of publication. Most money is made within the first five years. 

As eBook authors, we can see the long-tail too. My statistics match the evidence. I took two years to write a long series. Then I stopped on that name entirely. Sales dropped until I released a box set. It made a good chunk of money. 

I have no doubt that at the twenty-year mark that some money will still be trickling in. Even if it was $500 a year, sure I'll take it.

But I'd much rather those titles enter the public domain so new and cool things can be made. 

As for authors get the benefits of businesses - the change would mean Disney loses their copyrights after twenty years too. Star Wars would have entered the public domain and anyone could make cool Star Wars stuff. 

This would be good for all of us.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

That's all very interesting to consider. I remember reading the Sookie Stackhouse books and I thought it was odd how they danced around calling Elvis (the vampire) by his name. The characters had to call him "Bubba" because otherwise he would get upset because he wasn't quite the same after being turned. I wonder if this was a creative workaround because of what you're talking about.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Yes, but we don't know what projects we lost to remakes and retellings of classics either. You can make the same argument. What if someone did something new instead of rewriting _Pride and Prejudice_ for the eight millionth time?

What if we created a new character instead of reincarnating Sherlock Holmes?

I like Wicked. But I can't say that it's better than the book Gregory Maguire could have written, if he wasn't able to write Wicked.

Maybe it would be my new favorite book.

I would argue we lean on classics too much, not too little.

What if we didn't have Wicked? Well... I don't think anyone is arguing we shouldn't have Wicked or that copyright should be longer, but if we didn't have Wicked... that wouldn't really be a big deal.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy work in conversation with other work. But it's possible to have a conversation with a piece of work without using (previously) copywritten material.

Most things stuck in development hell are not there because of copyright issues. That is not a genuine argument.

Edit: this is the same argument pirates make. No one is entitled to someone else's content. Copyright laws shouldn't be based around what you (or I) think is cool or your (or my) desire to watch Westworld.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Yes, but we don't know what projects we lost to remakes and retellings of classics either. You can make the same argument. What if someone did something new instead of rewriting _Pride and Prejudice_ for the eight millionth time?
> 
> What if we created a new character instead of reincarnating Sherlock Holmes?
> 
> ...


Your argument that the current ultra-restrictive copyright laws result in _more creativity_ often comes up in this conversation.

Like the Tolkien estate won't allow you to make a cool tv show that reimagines Sauron and maybe the good guys aren't so good after all? Cool, I'll make my own fantasy world with blackjack and hookers and hey, that's Game of Thrones!

But this doesn't really bear out.

People make original stuff all the time. They make it because they want to. That will continue to happen whether copyright is changed or not. So we get all those books.

But we lose so many more that coulda woulda shoulda been.

I mean even Scalzi, who was ranting on about this today (he's opposed) wrote a book in another author's series. Fuzzy Nation

It claims it was written as a writing exercise and then got permission etc. Reads like he wanted to make something cool using existing IP and because of his success he was able to negotiate with the estate.

If Scalzi was a nobody or an indie author, Fuzzy Nation gets nowhere.

I used to work in licensing. There are so many things that die because of bad licensors. Argumentative grandchildren. Someone who wants a stupid amount of money because their grandmother did something cool.

As for pirates - no, this isn't the same argument. And the word "entitled" is usually thrown around in these conversations too... but somehow most people are cool with pharma companies losing their patents that we are now "entitled" to.

The argument is infinite copyright vs limited copyright. Disney et all and these licensors are on the infinite copyright side of things. They're suing people and stopping publication and there is an immense amount of stuff that flat-out just can't exist.

The ones on that side are millionaires and billion-dollar megacorporations that will outlive us all.

Like, I love The Halfmen of O series by Maurice Gee. It was published in 1982. I love this series so much that when I was an editor back in the day, I tried to convince my publisher that we should acquire the rights and publish it. I even got into it with the estate... for what it was. It's... nothing. So that didn't get published where I was. It eventually got republished back in 2005 and now it's mostly back in out-of-print.

This is one of New Zealand's most successful authors. His work sits mostly hidden and copyright is largely to blame.

He's already making almost no money from this title, too. And he's still alive. So it's until death and then seventy years later.

This is the reality for the vast majority of books. eBooks changes things a little because they're always available, provided the print book made the digital jump. There are millions that didn't because the author is dead or the estate doesn't know or care, etc.

This isn't about entitlement. It's about acknowledging that your life as it is now rests on the public domain. Your computer exists only because of expired patents. All sorts of technology. Medicines. All kinds of art.

But the art is so cut down and reduced from what it could be. We don't get the massive outpouring of creativity that comes with the public domain.

These culturally significant titles are modern mythology too. People don't want something Oz-like. They want Oz. They want to explore that mythology. And we can because of expired copyright.

But the way Disney et al are pushing, we'll never get to explore Harry Potter outside of illegal fan fiction. Which is a real shame.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

........ said:


> I'll tell you why you shouldn't be able to keep your copyright - patent law.
> 
> When we change things, we use studies and evidence to make our decisions. We look at similar areas of law and study outcomes.
> 
> ...


"This is an unparalleled good, for all of us." Only if you've done very little critical thinking into how companies like Disney would make out like a bandit if this happened. Or don't consider current problems in publishing like some folks taking on nearly identical names of authors with decent sales to profit off buyer confusion and how it would get so much worse if they could directly copy the characters too.

"Your books are just the same as a medicine." If I wasn't doing medically okay right now, I would have flamed you into the sun and caught a ban with zero regrets. I have no idea why people think this is a great argument when these two things are not in the same league.

"Copyright maximalists?" This is a thing now? _Sigh_

I don't know how listing a play and show that were successfully made with our current copyright laws proved your point, so..._shrug_. Same thing with DnD which changed a few names of creatures that were created in Tolkien's books and was made without any problem.

As far as not being able to put famous people in your books, that's a you problem. If you're really determined to put real people in your books, there's a decent amount of advice out there on how to do that without getting sued. Heck, Charlaine Harris got Elvis into multiple books as a vampire.

"This stifles things out of existence that could have been. Destroys adaptations and remakes. Destroys the ability of people to make cool and interesting things we'd all like." My watchlist is a mile long right now, and I can't afford all the awesome books coming out this year. I'm sorry you can't find interesting things to read or watch now because of copyright maximalism or whatever, but this a you problem too.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

We're arguing about brand identities being placed on story archetypes, and how long said brand names can exist to enrich party 'x' before being allowed to be pillaged for riches by party 'y'. Ridiculous. It's not like there's a world of difference in the temporary dopamine hits readers get from spending their afternoon reading the Brothers Grimm versus Marissa Meyer.

Every story's been told. The only difference is "IP" and "shareholder value" is attached to everything under the sun now. It's done under a banner of "this is Homer's 'The Odyssey', only... _in space_". "What if Cinderella was a robot?" "What if The Most Dangerous Game was a dystopian game show?" "Oh, wait, what if The Most Dangerous Game was a dystopian game show featuring teenagers chosen by lottery?" "Speaking of teenagers, what if Dracula, but in high school?"

Does it really matter? The names in bold letters change on these archaic story archetypes, and entire industries get built up around them, but the foundation remains the same. Human creativity and capacity for storytelling isn't going anywhere. This is all arguing over money, just 'cuz.

Who cares if The Maze Runner gets to be "The Maze Runner" for a 150 years? Human creativity is essentially boundless. So your great, great aunt wrote Pacific Rim-meets-Voltron-meets-Moonlighting and gets you and your descendants paid for 200 years, go with God. Every writer I know has a folder the length of their arm with ideas to write about. Creative spins on everything from counting paperclips to quantum physics. 

Okay, so your paperclip counting epic gets bought by a megacorp and brand named "Jenny Clip and the Stationery Adventure Squad", and it's now copyrighted from here to the heat death of the universe, and now some soccer dad in Topeka can't make bank on his Jenny Clip take. So? Some writer down the block's sitting on an epic quadrology about a teenage team of vampire mermaids who live inside of a ballpoint pen. Next!

Let the Riches squabble over their IP money. It's really the lawyers who are coming out the real winners in all of this anyway.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Doesn't it boil down to who owns ideas, to what extent, and how long?

There's a spectrum when I consider where my writer friends land on this issue. There's those who think a fellow writer is stealing when they see someone write something vaguely similar, but there's also those that think there's nothing new under the sun, and what I would call original they consider a subconscious quilt of the things I've read and seen. If you believe everyone is riffing on something(s) else when they write, you're going to look at this differently. I would also think your going to look at writers playing in established worlds differently.

I don't completely buy into one mindset or the other, so it's interesting to see the arguments laid out, even if computers and pharmaceuticals aren't the best comparisons.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

I do think a lot of people who knee-jerk to "why shouldn't I own copyright forever" don't understand the history of copyright, or patents or how these things work for our benefit. 

It's like the idea that if libraries didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to create them now because of how badly distorted copyright has become.

Like check out that licensing site I linked. Most people have no idea about licensing. No idea the Wright Brothers are a brand. Like what? 

But they are. Some grandchild has sold rights to someone or licensed them and these "brand" companies are out there trying to make money from it. 

And they'll sue you if you depict this long-dead person in a bad way because you're harming the brand. 

And yeah, copyright maximalists is a real thing. Megacorporations who want to own all things forevermore. Who want to sue anyone out of existence who dares tread near their precious IP.

Like, when you see Mirkwood author having to settle with the Tolkien estate, or the battle over Sherlock Holmes or Happy Birthday or people trying to trademark "Cocky" or Tolkien estate claiming the word Dragon... you're seeing the edges of this very bad and toxic copyright regime. 

You're not seeing all the stuff not able to be made.

Arguably books like American Psycho might not be able to be made today and have been grandfathered in, because of the litigious nature of copyright fights. 

It also makes me laugh that people who aren't making a living from creative work are in the fight on the side of millionaires and megacorporations. They'll never benefit from their current laws. Their heirs never will. 

It's like fighting against taxes on billionaires because, you know, one day that might be you!

I worked licensing for many years. I worked in trad publishing. I've been to licensing shows. It's a whole world people. There is so much hidden stuff going on. Lawsuits and cease and desist.

Like... try to make a dog who is a police officer. You'll soon get a lawyer letter from Paw Patrol. Even if you're not copying.

This is the reality and unfortunately, the lawsuits keep coming and new stuff gets wiped out and it just gets worse. 

If the Tolkien estate had its way, it'd have some kind of control over Dragon. 

And I'd like to point out that if the infinite copyright existed, they way Disney et al want, you wouldn't be writing about greek and roman gods or Sleeping Beauty. Greece would own the copyright on their gods in name, form and function.

Whoops, Marvel, looks like you're in serious trouble!

Whoops, Disney, you don't get to exist because you made movies of existing mythology!

What great calamity do you think happens if after twenty years all books, movies, music, plays, software, etc, entered the public domain?

Do you think amazing work still wouldn't have made millions to billions? 

Would some author be harmed horribly? 

Would some software company shut down because a super old version of photoshop has now entered the public domain? 

Those pharma companies seem to be doing just fine. So do all the tech companies using expired patents. 

I think a lot of people could do with some serious thinking about who copyright benefits right now. Because it ain't them. And all around you can see harm. The idea that you can't fictionalize a dead person is utter nonsense. But it'll stay in lawyer territory until someone makes some art, gets into a massive legal battle and prevails. 

It shouldn't take massive legal battles to free Happy Birthday to the public domain. We shouldn't allow lawsuits to determine how copyright works in reality.

And again, this is only enriching millionaires. John Scalzi was ranting about this, pretending like he's some struggling author who will be out on the street when in fact he's already rich, would have made a lot of money by the time his work entered the public domain... and most of all - he literally wrote fanfic and then got permission to publish it due to his status. All the estate had to do was say no and there goes that book. 

There is so much to gain from fixing copyright. The end of a bunch of legal threats. Being able to read millions of books for free, legally. Being able to make new things from them. 

Not getting sued into the ground because you want to write an alt-history novel about Tolkien. 

And I say all this as someone who owns IP, is making money from it, will likely be making money from it at the twenty-year mark, and who has had my work stolen, rewritten and published and I had to use existing copyright law to have it taken down.

Twenty years is more than enough.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

I'd just like to add to all those arguing for long copyright - why shouldn't Italy get to utterly control and own all representations of Roman gods? Why shouldn't Greece control and own all the Greek gods? Why shouldn't Rick Riordan have to go cap in hand and have to pay a substantial chunk of his earnings to make his derivative works?

Why shouldn't Marvel have to pay to use Thor? It came from a region that still exists.

Why shouldn't Disney be charged for using Grim fairytales? Should it be backdated? Should it be like fifty percent of all earnings backdated to publication?

Look at Champagne. Nope, can't call it that if it's not from Champagne. It has to be sparkling white wine.

People really don't get it at all. The legal fights you see over things like Champagne and the moves the copyright maximalists make result in really perverse bad outcomes.

I can't see any reason why Greece shouldn't own and control all Greek gods in all forms, under the logic put forward. Why you shouldn't have to make an individual licensing agreement with Greece to put a Greek god or a derivative in your creation.

When you realize and understand why this is utterly stupid and wrong (which by the way would mean Tolkien's work literally doesn't get to exist either as it drew on mythology) then you start to grasp why the current copyright situation is so bad and is only getting worse.

I'm sure we can track down some Stoker heirs who want to argue about vampires. Then of course we can track down a country that will sue them because that's where vampire mythology came from.

I'm sure we can find some heirs of Nicholas-Jacques Conte who can head out to sue anyone daring to manufacture a pencil. He only made it in 1795! His heirs should be able to profit!

Sounds all a bit foolish, doesn't it? But it's not far away. There is currently no legal reason Greece couldn't start to argue for owning all their Gods. And it's just flimsy laws in the way of you having to pay every time you use their name.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Indy Strange said:


> "This is an unparalleled good, for all of us." Only if you've done very little critical thinking into how companies like Disney would make out like a bandit if this happened. Or don't consider current problems in publishing like some folks taking on nearly identical names of authors with decent sales to profit off buyer confusion and how it would get so much worse if they could directly copy the characters too.
> 
> "Your books are just the same as a medicine." If I wasn't doing medically okay right now, I would have flamed you into the sun and caught a ban with zero regrets. I have no idea why people think this is a great argument when these two things are not in the same league.
> 
> ...


Okay, so let's say the twenty-year term comes in today, backdated. Immediately, Disney sees a massive chunk of their IP enter the public domain. Every streaming service around has all pre-2001 Disney movies/tv shows on them. People start making Mickey toys. 

Then apparently, Disney, who were just salivating over some thirty-year-old book that could have made a cool movie, now go and make that movie... because, you know, they don't have a long history of buying movie rights or anything. Nope, they were just waiting for this moment! Now they can enrich themselves and not pay a cent to anyone for it! Mwah ha ha!

Oh, you mean like how they made Hercules and didn't pay the countries that own that mythology? Yup. 

Listing a book and musical that were made is to show you the loss that happens when copyright maximalists get their way. It would take nothing at all for laws to be changed, for books to be removed from the public domain and put back under copyright. Disney et al are pushing, always pushing. Oz could easily get backdated and then Wicked is in serious trouble. 

Charlaine Harris got grandfathered in from a time of less litigious estates. Try to write a book with Tolkien in it, I dare you. See how that goes. 

And then we get to - there is already a lot of stuff so why do you want more stuff argument. 

Because I want more stuff. I want someone to be able to make a black, gay Sherlock without having to fight a legal battle. I want masses of books and movies and software and songs to enter the public domain so we can get cool new things that currently don't exist.

I don't actually think money should be paid for some forty-year-old song, just like I don't think money should be paid for a forty-year-old patent. 

Remember, we're still talking about millionaires and billion-dollar megacorporations. Not you. Not me. You're defending the rich or their children or their grandchildren or who knows how many generations down. 

And believe me, I've dealt with some of the heirs of creators. They're not the careful stewards of their parents work. Usually their job is extracting money from what their parent or grandparent did. Usually they get into legal battles with others who have claim to the IP. There is so much dead IP out there. Like if you ever wonder why didn't they make a movie out of X? Most of time it's a licensing barrier, e.g. grandson wants money.


----------



## Indy Strange (Aug 29, 2019)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Doesn't it boil down to who owns ideas, to what extent, and how long?
> 
> There's a spectrum when I consider where my writer friends land on this issue. There's those who think a fellow writer is stealing when they see someone write something vaguely similar, but there's also those that think there's nothing new under the sun, and what I would call original they consider a subconscious quilt of the things I've read and seen. If you believe everyone is riffing on something(s) else when they write, you're going to look at this differently. I would also think your going to look at writers playing in established worlds differently.
> 
> I don't completely buy into one mindset or the other, so it's interesting to see the arguments laid out, even if computers and pharmaceuticals aren't the best comparisons.


I don't mind the conversation itself if someone else was making this argument who didn't deny the reality of our society as it currently stands. The medical stuff gets my hackles up because this twenty-year copyright idea ignores marginalized groups including those with health issues. My spoons are too low to write a long post right now, so maybe I'll expand on this tomorrow.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

........ said:


> Remember, we're still talking about millionaires and billion-dollar megacorporations. Not you. Not me. You're defending the rich or their children or their grandchildren or who knows how many generations down.


No, you're talking about indie authors, too. 

As things stand currently, it's difficult enough to deal with decreased visibility, increased competition, changes in various algos, increases in advertising and marketing costs, and even piracy, and now you think that indie authors should lose all their rights to their works well within their lifetimes? 

Luckily, that will never happen.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I'll tell you why you shouldn't be able to keep your copyright - patent law.
> 
> Despite the fact a pharma company could make more billions, we say no, that's enough. That's the trade they get for twenty years of patent protection.


Patent laws on things like drugs and technology can literally save people's lives. We say twenty years is enough because we weigh the corporation's right to own the patent against the greater good of all the people in the world. Copyright on books isn't even close to the same thing.




........ said:


> I'd also like a bunch of other movies and tv shows to exist but unfortunately a third-generation grandson refuses to let anyone use the rights and that situation will be continuing for the next thirty to forty years.


Why do you think that your desires are more important than the rights of the people who created the stories in the first place?




........ said:


> Well, just try to write a novel with James Dean as an alcoholic secret agent who does a bunch of unsavoury things and is eventually murdered in a car accident.


This has nothing to do with copyright law.




........ said:


> That licensing website wants infinite copyright. In many cases the family sells the estate entirely and then a corporation owns it forevermore. Good luck trying to fictionalize any of those people, no matter how long they've been dead. You'll be sued into the ground.
> 
> This is what the copyright maximalists want. Disney want to own their things forever. They want to be able to buy estates and companies and own those copyrights for all eternity.
> 
> ...


There's a big difference between infinite copyright and reasonable copyright. No one is saying that a corporation should own copyrights forever. That's ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to think you should be able to take someone's copyright from them while they're still alive, too.

Why does it have to be James Dean? What's wrong with it being some random dude who's an alcoholic spy who is eventually murdered?

And you're wrong. It doesn't destroy the ability of people to make cool and interesting things - in written form, anyway - people are generally free to write all the fanfic they want. It just prevents people from charging for it.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> And then we get to - there is already a lot of stuff so why do you want more stuff argument.
> 
> Because I want more stuff. I want someone to be able to make a black, gay Sherlock without having to fight a legal battle. I want masses of books and movies and software and songs to enter the public domain so we can get cool new things that currently don't exist.


Now we get down to the crux of the matter. You want more stuff. 

But we can have more stuff. There's absolutely no reason in the world that there can't be a black gay detective who is absolutely brilliant at solving crimes. You can't call him Sherlock Holmes, but you could give him a similar name and write all the stories you wanted.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Patent laws on things like drugs and technology can literally save people's lives. We say twenty years is enough because we weigh the corporation's right to own the patent against the greater good of all the people in the world. Copyright on books isn't even close to the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure you realize it but you're saying the same rehashed stuff that always comes up with this topic.

The propaganda over copyright has been very successful and ongoing for years. The reasonable question of "why shouldn't someone be able to make money from their book/song/play/etc" has been twisted by copyright maximalists so now someone is out there trying to control the Wright Brothers "brand".

James Dean and other "brands" are all about copyright. The rise of "estates" is quite new actually. It rose as licensing did. I mean we're talking 1978 George Lucas getting toy rights because the studio has no idea. That's how recent some of this stuff is. 

These litigious "brands" are driving copyright reform in bad ways. They do it through case law and intimidation and politicians willing to change the laws to benefit corporations.

And they do it by convincing people like you that some great calamity will befall creators if copyright is reduced. They hide the great and ongoing calamity that is already happening. 

It's no joke that Greece has a total claim over the Greek gods copyright and could seek to enforce it. We're just not quite there yet. But always the trade negotiations continue and France tries to take words and hold them and Disney have an interest and along we go. 

And I'm going to argue that copyright on art is just as important as copyright on technology or medicine. Absolutely. I mean, we're on a site for artists - do I have to argue why art is so important? You ask people about the things that make their life good and it's art. The books they read, the movies, the songs, the tv shows, the plays, the galleries, the design that is all around us, and so on. 

I'm going to return to the facts: the vast majority of books make their money in the first five years and the vast majority are out of print within five years. The survivors this is apparently about are written by millionaires. There is no imaginary author who didn't make money for twenty years and then suddenly hit it big with their backlist. 

This is the same across music too. Same with TV shows. 

Currently, patents enrich us all after twenty years but books don't. People don't get to make their own Star Wars stuff or Tolkien stuff or whatever.

And I'll absolutely back people who want to do so and make money from it. Not just fan-fiction. But real intellectual property, like Wicked. 

The benefits are immense and the harm is virtually nothing. Some millionaire has books enter the public domain. Doesn't matter. Someone who published a book that went out of print. It's fine for that to go into the public domain.

Like, why fight for millionaires and megacorporations? They're not you or me. 

I'll fight for the Mirkwood author to fictionalize a dead man. I'll fight for people to write about orcs or goblins too. 

And after twenty years and a billion dollars I'll fight for people to write and sell their own Harry Potter creations. The benefits far outweigh any harm to a billionaire. 

I mean, you're not fighting for all those adaptations of Snow White to be destroyed are you? For the countless books and plays and tv shows and movies to all have to pay royalties to some Government who could legally claim the copyright over mythology? 

Because it's not a stretch. The current form of copyright is a choice. Just because you lived in this doesn't mean it's the right way.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Now we get down to the crux of the matter. You want more stuff.
> 
> But we can have more stuff. There's absolutely no reason in the world that there can't be a black gay detective who is absolutely brilliant at solving crimes. You can't call him Sherlock Holmes, but you could give him a similar name and write all the stories you wanted.


You say this sorta like when people talk about piracy. Like the word "entitled" is trembling on your lips.

I don't want the author of Mirkwood sued. I want people to be able to freely create within worlds that people make after twenty years of the original creator making it.

And mythology says you're wrong. Thor isn't renamed. We could have a God of Thunder, you just can't call him Thor. Pluto is out too. And Hades. Zeus. Apollo.

These cultural concepts and mythologies aren't renamed. I mean, we have Arachne and we took it and made arachnids and those words are tied into our actual language. A cultural shorthand of meaning that is woven through stories.

Sherlock Holmes is that. A mythology. No longer a story owned by descendants of the creator. Something to be freed from those shackles so people can use that name and make whatever they want.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Why have any copyright at all then?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> Why have any copyright at all then?


I don't believe this to be a genuine question. If you really are asking it I suggest you do some research about the creation and benefits of copyright.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> You say this sorta like when people talk about piracy. Like the word "entitled" is trembling on your lips.
> 
> I don't want the author of Mirkwood sued. I want people to be able to freely create within worlds that people make after twenty years of the original creator making it.
> 
> ...


Uh, no. The word entitled is not trembling on my lips. I have quite a few opinions about pirates, but none of them are repeatable on this board. Suffice to say those opinions are full of four-letter words, and I would love to kick all pirates into the sun.

What you're saying makes me think that you're extremely entitled, though. Or at least, you think you are. What other reason could there be for you demanding to have copyright removed from the people who created it just so you can play in those worlds?

Sorry. Mythology does not say I'm wrong. I'm not arguing for copyright forever. I'm not saying copyright should last millennia. I'm saying that someone who wants to take my copyright from me after only 20 years can take their grabby hands and go elsewhere.

Sherlock Holmes is not a mythology. And there are plenty of stories featuring him or his descendants that are not written by the Conan Doyle estate. They were licensed by the estate so that other people could write them.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

........ said:


> I don't believe this to be a genuine question. If you really are asking it I suggest you do some research about the creation and benefits of copyright.


You've been arguing with a straw man forever copyright all thread, so I'd say this is a fair question.

I'm not going to keep arguing. In our world, right now, art is not a public good and it can't be treated as one.

Parent laws are not the same as copyright laws.

Books aren't medicine.

That's an argument made to distract.

People keep remaking old IP because it's safe and free. People watch Sherlock Holmes #1119 because they know what they'll understand and recognize the character. That's because of the work of the original author and the work of all the authors who built upon it.

It wouldn't have ever happened if we had forever copyright, so we wouldn't have this attachment or feel this sense of loss. Is that a bad thing? Maybe. I'm glad we have Elementary. But your argument doesn't work, because we wouldn't have made these icons into icons without current laws. You can't imagine a world with different laws and keep the other circumstances.

There's more original content, and more creativity, than any person could consume in a lifetime. Authors are not lacking ideas because they can't write Harry Potter fanfic and sell it.

And, if they do want to write about Harry Potter, they can write a parody, or a piece of criticism, or other work that falls under fair use.

Or... They could negotiate with the author for the rights. Yes, in this specific instance, they won't convince her. But plenty of authors would be happy to cut a deal.

If you want to play in someone else's sandbox you have options. Almost no one goes after fan art. Write some fan fiction.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

Simply stated...create Star Wars, or Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings...and do whatever you want those universes and characters.

But, if you didn't create them then so sad,too bad.

I hate people who whine about public domain in literature. For goodness sakes be creative....and try not make a living off someone else's sweat.

Sorry but, people who whine because they can't live off someone else's creation really must lack imagination or talent.

Mark


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I'm not sure you realize it but you're saying the same rehashed stuff that always comes up with this topic.
> 
> And they do it by convincing people like you that some great calamity will befall creators if copyright is reduced. They hide the great and ongoing calamity that is already happening.


You're incorrect. I've not been convinced that some great calamity will befall creators if copyright is reduced. I simply am not up for a change to the laws that will take my copyright from me before I'm dead. I work very hard on my writing. It takes me a long time to create the characters and stories I write, and I'm not down with anyone thinking they can take that from me just because they feel entitled to my IP. And when it gets down to it, I guess I'm glad that big corporations want to hold onto copyright for longer, because my pockets aren't deep enough to defend a lawsuit from some greedy, entitled over-reacher who wants to screw the little guy out of their IP, so it's a good thing that Disney can.




........ said:


> It's no joke that Greece has a total claim over the Greek gods copyright and could seek to enforce it. We're just not quite there yet. But always the trade negotiations continue and France tries to take words and hold them and Disney have an interest and along we go.


It makes it really hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this.




........ said:


> And I'm going to argue that copyright on art is just as important as copyright on technology or medicine. Absolutely. I mean, we're on a site for artists - do I have to argue why art is so important? You ask people about the things that make their life good and it's art. The books they read, the movies, the songs, the tv shows, the plays, the galleries, the design that is all around us, and so on.


You can argue all you want, but that doesn't make you right. 

Of course you don't have to argue why art is important. Nobody here is going to disagree with that. But no one is going to buy into this utterly ridiculous claim that copyright on art is as important as a patent on medicine. Because, for one thing, art may make life worth living, but it doesn't literally save lives. And for another, there might be only one formulation of a medicine that can save people's lives, but there can be a million books with similar stories. So just because authors can't play in the Harry Potter universe the way they would like to, no one is going to be deprived of enough similar stories to keep them entertained.




........ said:


> I'm going to return to the facts: the vast majority of books make their money in the first five years and the vast majority are out of print within five years. The survivors this is apparently about are written by millionaires. There is no imaginary author who didn't make money for twenty years and then suddenly hit it big with their backlist.


This might be true of traditional publishing, but it's not true of indie publishing. And this is a board for indie publishers. There's no such thing as out of print when it comes to ebooks. They can remain published for as long as the author wants them to be.




........ said:


> Currently, patents enrich us all after twenty years but books don't.


Books most certainly do enrich us after twenty years. The books that the creator wrote, which many people can enjoy.





........ said:


> People don't get to make their own Star Wars stuff or Tolkien stuff or whatever.


Boo-freakin-hoo. This is starting to sound like the kind of argument that a whiny child would make when told they can't play with some other kid's toys.

Create your own stuff and stop getting grabby with other people's.




........ said:


> The benefits are immense and the harm is virtually nothing. Some millionaire has books enter the public domain. Doesn't matter. Someone who published a book that went out of print. It's fine for that to go into the public domain.
> 
> Like, why fight for millionaires and megacorporations? They're not you or me.


I don't care about some millionaire's stuff. I'm not fighting for some millionaire's stuff. I care about my stuff. As an indie publisher who publishes ebooks, and print through a POD printer, my stuff need never be out of print.




........ said:


> I'll fight for the Mirkwood author to fictionalize a dead man. I'll fight for people to write about orcs or goblins too.


People can write about orcs and goblins. There's nothing stopping them. But why on earth are you so fired up to write fiction about a dead guy?




........ said:


> And after twenty years and a billion dollars I'll fight for people to write and sell their own Harry Potter creations. The benefits far outweigh any harm to a billionaire.
> 
> I mean, you're not fighting for all those adaptations of Snow White to be destroyed are you? For the countless books and plays and tv shows and movies to all have to pay royalties to some Government who could legally claim the copyright over mythology?
> 
> Because it's not a stretch. The current form of copyright is a choice. Just because you lived in this doesn't mean it's the right way.


Of course I'm not fighting for adaptations of Snow White to be destroyed. I'm also not arguing for copyright to last forever. But there's no way I'm ever going to agree to someone coming along and saying they have more right to my copyright than I do. What on earth makes you think that a government can legally claim copyright of mythology? It would be a lot easier to take your argument seriously if you weren't making such ridiculous claims.

It's great that you're so sure of yourself that you think you should get to decide for everyone else how long they get to keep their copyright. But thankfully, you don't get to make the rules.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Man, whiny, lacking imagination or talent... out come the personal insults, predictably. 

Talk about changing copyright and soon enough come the accusations of "you just want other people's stuff" and entitled and so on. 

There's a super weird thing where some people think that the way current laws are is right, because it's the law. It's like they're frozen at Stage 4 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. 

There is absolutely no reason copyright should be life + 70 years. When it was made that way they could have gone for life + 100 years and I'm sure people would be on here arguing that's the best way, how dare you take what's not yours and all that nonsense.

I notice that people don't address Wicked. If the copyright terms were adjusted a bit more, that doesn't get to exist. That is an example of something we'd presumably want in the world that only exists because a stupidly long copyright term already expired. 

Yet these people cannot seem to imagine what else is currently quashed out of existence. 

And as for working hard... well, the pharma companies work hard too. They provide an absolutely massive benefit from their life-saving medicines and then are required to give them up.

If you say your books aren't medicine and are arguing they are less than medicine, why should you then get longer and greater protection than something that literally saves lives?

In this conversation I notice the facts aren't addressed. The fact that the vast majority of books barely make any money, at all and the amount of "harm" to the creator from entering the public domain is virtually nothing. The fact that even if a book makes money, it makes most of its money in the first five years. 

We are talking about a tiny sliver of a flood that benefits from these copyright terms. Again, the millionaire authors and megacorporations.

Before France took Champagne, no one would have really thought that was possible. Words get made common all the time and now this new legal move reverses that.

So when I talk about Greece controlling all Greek gods and mythology, it's not a joke. If you can't draw a line from a licensing company trying to make money from The Wright Brothers "brand" to France taking Champagne to other countries claiming their national symbols and mythology then I'm afraid you're not thinking clearly enough about what the copyright maximalists want.

These copyright maximalists are the ones who fight against fair use. They're the ones who try to harm libraries. They are the ones who try to make things like memes that use copyrighted material illegal.

They don't stop. They're always working to undermine copyright and the public domain.

And there are people here who want to help them! 

People who say they're glad Elementary exists but don't seem to grasp all the amazing things that could have been that never were because some arrogant grandson wanted more money. 

People who will say that Mirkwood should exist but can't seem to work out what to do about the Tolkien estate suing for fictionalizing a dead man. 

There is so much that has been lost. So many good and interesting things we could have had that just doesn't exist. 

And the excuse of "well, there's already a lot of stuff" doesn't cut it. I don't care there is a lot of stuff. 

Copyright is the answer to how we can ensure artists can make money from their work. It's a good answer. It was never intended to lock up material for well over a century. 

Finally, for those arguing against this, answer me this: give a coherent argument for why copyright should be life + 70 years that can't automatically be applied to making it life + 100 years. Or life + 150 years. 

Because when you get into where you draw the line and why, you will eventually have to talk about the benefit of the public domain. Which, by the way, is billions upon billions across the world. 

If you can't come up with a good argument for life + 70 and a good argument for why it shouldn't be life + 100 then congratulations, you're a copyright maximalist, arguing for infinite copyright, which is exactly what Disney and the rest want you to do. 

Companies working under patent law are just fine. You'll be fine too. So will Disney. But we'll see such an explosion of new and cool things that it will be amazing. I cannot understand why someone would oppose this. I own IP too. It'll be making money twenty years after publication. So what? I've had twenty years to make money from it!


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> Parent laws are not the same as copyright laws.
> 
> Books aren't medicine.
> 
> That's an argument made to distract.


Patents also offer far broader protection than copyright. You can patent an idea for a device, an invention, a formula. You cannot copyright an idea for a story. There is a reason Lev Grossman hasn't been sued by JK Rowling, and why JK Rowling hasn't been sued by the estates of Ursula Le Guin or Charles Hamilton, and why Charles Hamilton wasn't sued by the estates of Talbot Baines Read or Thomas Hughes. Unless someone is lifting your exact names, characters and settings, you are going to have a difficult time in court.

This, to me, is why the argument that creativity is all derivative and therefore copyright hampers creators is baloney. For every single novel and short story I've ever published, there's a multitude of other creative works I can point to having read and say that they influenced me; in several cases, I could point to a single other creative work and say "if this book/film had never been written, it wouldn't have set my brain in motion to the point where I wrote this story." Of course creativity is derivative. But, like every other writer, I'm lifting vague ideas, themes, notions, concepts, scenarios; I'm not expressly plucking out Sherlock Holmes or Spiderman or Marty McFly and writing my own stories about them. And I certainly don't think society is any the poorer for that - quite the opposite.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

........ said:


> Before France took Champagne, no one would have really thought that was possible. Words get made common all the time and now this new legal move reverses that.


I don't know why you think the EU's protected designation of origin laws are a) new, b) harmful, or c) exclusive to France and champagne.



> Finally, for those arguing against this, answer me this: give a coherent argument for why copyright should be life + 70 years that can't automatically be applied to making it life + 100 years. Or life + 150 years.


Of course it's arbitrary. Life +70 years is intended to benefit an authors' immediate family, who could theoretically still be alive and well about 70 years later if their parent or spouse gets hit by a bus at 21 right after publishing a bestseller. I simply do not agree that a family in a case like that (rare as it may be) have less of a right to control and profit from their family member's work than anybody else does. This is also why life +150 is excessive, whereas life +20 is not enough.



> But we'll see such an explosion of new and cool things that it will be amazing. I cannot understand why someone would oppose this.


Look, I haven't seen Wicked, I'm sure it's great, obviously you're a fan. But I've grown up in an age when cinema is dominated by Marvel films and "gritty reboots." New stories and ideas have a hard enough time gasping for air in the contemporary pop culture environment as it is, and I simply don't believe there's some untapped reservoir of Wicked equivalents that would a) outweigh the torrent of ouroboran crap that would also be unleashed, and b) be worth undermining the rights of creators.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Of course it's arbitrary. Life +70 years is intended to benefit an authors' immediate family, who could theoretically still be alive and well about 70 years later if their parent or spouse gets hit by a bus at 21 right after publishing a bestseller. I simply do not agree that a family in a case like that (rare as it may be) have less of a right to control and profit from their family member's work than anybody else does. This is also why life +150 is excessive, whereas life +20 is not enough.


You giving your answer of why life + 150 years is excessive doesn't explain why. Why do you think life + 150 years is excessive? There are heirs, they have a right to earn money from the creation, how dare you try to take it away from them. 

Do you get what I'm saying? You need to come up with a coherent position as to why the line was drawn in one place and not another. Why isn't life + 50 years enough? Why not just life? Why not just publication date + 50 years? And so on.

To do that you need to start talking about the public domain, which I notice you haven't. You need to talk about how the public domain benefits all of us, globally. You'd need to talk about the billions of dollars earned from the public domain enabling new and cool things. 

But if you don't engage with that side of it at all, then you are stuck defending a broken system that currently benefits millionaire authors, megacorporations, or the third-generation descendants of someone they may have never met. 

While it enables lawsuits over fictionalizing dead people and all kinds of nonsense.

The line isn't arbitrary either. It was a fight to get it there. When it was made, Disney was lobbying hard and pushing for it to be as long as possible. 

Read about the Copyright Extension Act that brought about this toxic stew: Copyright Term Extension Act

Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:


> Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.


And:

Proponents believe that copyright encourages progress in the arts. With an extension of copyright, future artists have to create something original, rather than reuse old work, however, had the act been in place in the 1960s, it is unlikely that Andy Warhol would have been able to sell or even exhibit any of his work, since it all incorporated previously copyrighted material.

That wikipedia article is actually a great place to start to understand why people fight for shorter copyright terms. You can see there are sections on economics and the benefit of the public domain. That there has been empirical testing of the claims made by those who want longer copyrights. 

See I notice those arguing against longer copyrights seem to not know a thing about the history, the facets of the debate and why they would pick one side over the other. If you can't talk about public benefit, at all, then you're not honestly engaging with the topic. 

This isn't some simple thing, a nothing that some random person on the internet is arguing about and you can dismiss it by saying they're entitled or whatever other insult you want to throw at them.

Copyright reform is incredibly important. People who don't know anything about licensing or the rise of "estates" just don't understand how the creative world is being claimed and then anyone coming close is sued. 

Please, read the article, try to understand why this is important. And then try to come up with an argument for life + 70 that can't immediately be applied to life + 150. 

You can't. And when you can't, you're arguing for infinite copyright. Like the copyright maximalists wanted.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

LOL right. You totally ignored what I said about Wicked. It's not that no one addressed it.

The Champagne thing is also irrelevant. It's about labeling and authenticity in labeling. In other parts of the world, names are labels with legal meanings. In France, a baguette is only a baguette if it contains certain ingredients. If you add seeds, it's no longer a baguette. That seems overly strict to most Americans, but we have the opposite problem. Companies call their products meat or cheese or fruit when they aren't actually meat or cheese or fruit. Then we have to make laws so American cheese is actually American cheese product.

In other places, words mean things. They aren't constantly perverted by capitalist desires. Champagne is only Champagne if it's from Champagne, France. Same for Parmesan. (This has to do with the concept of terroir, which basically means the quality of the soil, topography, and climate. Grapes grown in Champagne taste different than grapes grown in other places, because the soil is different).

In the US, because these restrictions don't exist, anyone can call their sparkling wine Champagne. And consumers don't realize they're not getting authentic Champagne.

It's a move to trick customers.

Labeling laws are a fascinating topic. But they have NOTHING to do with copyright.

(But now I'm actually out. I think the book where I read about this labeling stuff was Real Food, Fake Food by Larry Olmsted, but I would have to check my Kindle to say for sure).


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I notice that people don't address Wicked. If the copyright terms were adjusted a bit more, that doesn't get to exist. That is an example of something we'd presumably want in the world that only exists because a stupidly long copyright term already expired.


I don't address Wicked because I couldn't give a furry rat's patootie about Wicked.




........ said:


> And as for working hard... well, the pharma companies work hard too. They provide an absolutely massive benefit from their life-saving medicines and then are required to give them up.
> If you say your books aren't medicine and are arguing they are less than medicine, why should you then get longer and greater protection than something that literally saves lives?


It's because they provide an absolutely massive benefit that they're required to make them available to the masses. Because saving lives is judged more important than the company's right to be the only one to produce that thing.





........ said:


> In this conversation I notice the facts aren't addressed. The fact that the vast majority of books barely make any money, at all and the amount of "harm" to the creator from entering the public domain is virtually nothing. The fact that even if a book makes money, it makes most of its money in the first five years.


And I notice that you're entirely ignoring the fact that what you're saying isn't true of indie published books.





........ said:


> These copyright maximalists are the ones who fight against fair use. They're the ones who try to harm libraries.


Books that are in libraries are paid for. The creators/copyright holders get a portion of the money that comes from buying those books. So how copyright maximalists harm libraries?





........ said:


> And the excuse of "well, there's already a lot of stuff" doesn't cut it. I don't care there is a lot of stuff.


So, again, this is what it's really about. _You want more stuff_.




........ said:


> Finally, for those arguing against this, answer me this: give a coherent argument for why copyright should be life + 70 years that can't automatically be applied to making it life + 100 years. Or life + 150 years.


I think Shane's argument that Life + 70 is intended to benefit the author's family is a perfectly good argument. If one of my fictional creations becomes popular, I would like to think that maybe my family could benefit from it.




........ said:


> Companies working under patent law are just fine. You'll be fine too. So will Disney. But we'll see such an explosion of new and cool things that it will be amazing. I cannot understand why someone would oppose this. I own IP too. It'll be making money twenty years after publication. So what? I've had twenty years to make money from it!


Well, lots of people would oppose this because they don't want their stuff taken away from them by someone who thinks they have more right to it than the person who created it does. And that's great that you don't mind giving away your stuff, but please stop thinking you have the right to decide for everyone else. You don't have that right and I suspect most of us would definitely not be cool with it if you did.

We see new and cool things all the time. Just because they're not called Sherlock Holmes or Snow White doesn't mean they're not cool.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I don't address Wicked because I couldn't give a furry rat's patootie about Wicked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please, go read about the copyright extension act so you can actually understand the issues.

If you can't understand why economists were fighting against this then you don't know enough to be in this conversation.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> You giving your answer of why life + 150 years is excessive doesn't explain why. Why do you think life + 150 years is excessive? There are heirs, they have a right to earn money from the creation, how dare you try to take it away from them.
> 
> Do you get what I'm saying? You need to come up with a coherent position as to why the line was drawn in one place and not another. Why isn't life + 50 years enough? Why not just life? Why not just publication date + 50 years? And so on.


No, he doesn't. He doesn't owe you a debate.




........ said:


> To do that you need to start talking about the public domain, which I notice you haven't. You need to talk about how the public domain benefits all of us, globally. You'd need to talk about the billions of dollars earned from the public domain enabling new and cool things.
> 
> But if you don't engage with that side of it at all, then you are stuck defending a broken system that currently benefits millionaire authors, megacorporations, or the third-generation descendants of someone they may have never met.
> 
> ...


What I care about is not having someone who feels entitled to my stuff trying to take it away from me. I care about being able to pass it on to my family so that they can benefit from it. I really don't care what some other random, anonymous person on the internet feels entitled to, when they're not actually entitled to it.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> No, he doesn't. He doesn't owe you a debate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look, I get you refuse to read. Okay. But let's not pretend that's fine. It's really not. You have access to wikipedia. I gave you the link. It's right there. Just go have a read. It won't take long.

Maybe it'll help you understand why economists were fighting against longer copyrights. This isn't some shallow issue where you can just keep saying "entitled".

And on that... it's so boring and predictable. Just stop please. I'm not calling you names. Please do the courtesy of not saying those things to me. 

This isn't about "random anonymous person on the internet". You think they write an entire wikipedia article from some random person? There are all kinds of issues at play here and you seem, sadly, entirely ignorant of them. 

So instead of writing back all upset and loading it will insults, please read a little.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Please, go read about the copyright extension act so you can actually understand the issues.
> 
> If you can't understand why economists were fighting against this then you don't know enough to be in this conversation.


I've read that article before. Don't make the mistake of thinking I don't understand just because I don't agree with you.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Look, I get you refuse to read. Okay. But let's not pretend that's fine. It's really not. You have access to wikipedia. I gave you the link. It's right there. Just go have a read. It won't take long.
> 
> Maybe it'll help you understand why economists were fighting against longer copyrights. This isn't some shallow issue where you can just keep saying "entitled".
> 
> ...


I don't refuse to read. I've read it. Long before now. I'm not ignorant of the issues, I just don't care why people don't want longer copyrights if it means they can come after mine while I'm still alive.

I'm not sure what other word to use, really. Someone wants something that doesn't belong to them. They believe they have the right to it even though they clearly don't. If that doesn't fit the definition of entitled, I don't know what does. Kind of like the way pirates feel entitled to stuff that they haven't paid for.

By 'random, anonymous person on the internet' I was referring to you. I don't care that you feel entitled to more stuff just because. Because if you get your way, I lose the rights to my stuff after 20 years, and I am most definitely not cool with that.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I don't refuse to read. I've read it. Long before now. I'm not ignorant of the issues, I just don't care why people don't want longer copyrights if it means they can come after mine while I'm still alive.
> 
> I'm not sure what other word to use, really. Someone wants something that doesn't belong to them. They believe they have the right to it even though they clearly don't. If that doesn't fit the definition of entitled, I don't know what does. Kind of like the way pirates feel entitled to stuff that they haven't paid for.
> 
> By 'random, anonymous person on the internet' I was referring to you. I don't care that you feel entitled to more stuff just because. Because if you get your way, I lose the rights to my stuff after 20 years, and I am most definitely not cool with that.


Yeah, I don't really believe you have read the article or understand the issues. 

Why do you think the economists are wrong about the benefit to the economy?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Yeah, I don't really believe you have read the article or understand the issues.
> 
> Why do you think the economists are wrong about the benefit to the economy?


I don’t care if you believe me. And I don’t care about your issues. I’m quite content with copyright lasting as long as it does. You’re the one who’s just going to have to deal with the fact that you can’t have more stuff just because you want it.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

........ said:


> You giving your answer of why life + 150 years is excessive doesn't explain why. Why do you think life + 150 years is excessive? There are heirs, they have a right to earn money from the creation, how dare you try to take it away from them.
> 
> Do you get what I'm saying? You need to come up with a coherent position as to why the line was drawn in one place and not another. Why isn't life + 50 years enough? Why not just life? Why not just publication date + 50 years? And so on.


Because it's quite possible your children (or even your spouse, if you die very young) will be alive 70 years after your own death. Not so for 150 years. One could argue it's equally arbitrary to draw the line at one's grandchildren or great-grandchildren rather than their children, but it does have to be drawn somewhere, because you are not incorrect in saying that there is a benefit to the public domain.

But I could also argue that there would be a benefit to wealth being more equitably distributed in the "public domain" rather than being overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the 1% of the population whose ancestors first "created" that wealth (often along the West African coast and in the cotton fields) a hell of a lot longer than 70 years ago. But for some reason it's the artists who are greedy and should give up their intergenerational wealth for the good of the commons, not the people living in their country manors or Manhattan penthouses.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I don’t care if you believe me. And I don’t care about your issues. I’m quite content with copyright lasting as long as it does. You’re the one who’s just going to have to deal with the fact that you can’t have more stuff just because you want it.


Yeah, so that's the crux of it and the end: refuses to read, doesn't understand the issue at all but really wants to argue about it.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Because it's quite possible your children (or even your spouse, if you die very young) will be alive 70 years after your own death. Not so for 150 years. One could argue it's equally arbitrary to draw the line at one's grandchildren or great-grandchildren rather than their children, but it does have to be drawn somewhere, because you are not incorrect in saying that there is a benefit to the public domain.
> 
> But I could also argue that there would be a benefit to wealth being more equitably distributed in the "public domain" rather than being overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the 1% of the population whose ancestors first "created" that wealth (often along the West African coast and in the cotton fields) a hell of a lot longer than 70 years ago. But for some reason it's the artists who are greedy and should give up their intergenerational wealth for the good of the commons, not the people living in their country manors or Manhattan penthouses.


So when you understand things like books making most of their money within the first five years and most books being out of print in five years (and this includes eBooks too by the way - those ebooks that sit there at rank 2.1 million and make zero sales), why would you advocate for those titles to not enter the public domain?

They're not funding the spouse or children. Or anyone else.

In fact, the only times that happens is in the case of multimillionaires. 

Not you. Not me.

So again it's defending the rights of a bunch of millionaires and megacorporations to control copyright for longer than human lifespans. 

We put stuff in the public domain all the time. This is the point of the patent system. So this isn't about the poor artists being the only ones on the hook for it. Technology of all kinds and medicine and every patent goes in. 

In fact, this is about artists getting a special deal that is far stronger than patent laws provide for life-saving medicine. 

And it comes down to a bunch of idiot senators and lobbying in the US to produce a perverse outcome. 

This isn't about intergenerational wealth either. It's about acknowledging the good of the public domain and advocating for that. 

Which I notice those arguing against changes to copyright never mention. They're happy to use mythology in their books but they won't speak up to defend the public domain. They won't even acknowledge they're writing on a computer that is hundreds of expired patents atop one another and literally could not exist without the public domain.

Nope, just ignore all that. Ignore generic cheap medicine and all the benefits of patents expiring. Pretend that a certain class of intellectual property is so different from, say, software, that it's not even comparable. 

I really don't get people who go in to bat for millionaires and multibillion-dollar corporations rather than their own class.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

ShaneCarrow said:


> But I could also argue that there would be a benefit to wealth being more equitably distributed in the "public domain" rather than being overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the 1% of the population whose ancestors first "created" that wealth (often along the West African coast and in the cotton fields) a hell of a lot longer than 70 years ago. But for some reason it's the artists who are greedy and should give up their intergenerational wealth for the good of the commons, not the people living in their country manors or Manhattan penthouses.


That's a really good point. I feel like I need to think about it some more to wrap my head around it, but my initial reaction is, wait, yeah...yeah...


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Yeah, so that's the crux of it and the end: refuses to read, doesn't understand the issue at all but really wants to argue about it.


Seems kind of arrogant to assume someone else doesn't understand just because they don't agree with you.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Seems kind of arrogant to assume someone else doesn't understand just because they don't agree with you.


You said: " And I don’t care about your issues"

You didn't read. You're not going to read. You can't answer about economists fighting against longer copyright because you don't know anything about it.

But I don't care now. I'm happy to discuss with people who will bother to educate themselves about this. Someone who will read a short wikipedia article just so they understand the common ground.

But someone who flat-out refuses? Nah, waste of time. So you really don't need to write back to me.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> You said: " And I don’t care about your issues"
> 
> You didn't read. You're not going to read. You can't answer about economists fighting against longer copyright because you don't know anything about it.
> 
> ...


I did read. I do understand. I just don’t agree. Because I care more about my right to keep my copyright than I do about the public having a right to my stuff.

I don’t care that a law professor thinks that extending copyright would impose costs without supplying public benefit, because ownership will remain with the creator. Which is what I want. And the idea that extending copyright will prevent the public from accessing copyrighted works is ridiculous in the age of ebooks, because they can be available forever in stores and in libraries. I can certainly understand the argument if it had been made even 20 years ago, before ebooks were a thing. Then, when things went out of print they were just gone and people couldn’t read them anymore. Which would be a shame. But ebooks have changed all that. Arguing that books only make a profit in the first few years and then are removed by the publisher would also be fine, if it weren’t for the fact that now, when a book is no longer published by a publisher, the author can publish it themselves and make it available on all the self-publishing sites. It may not be in the public domain, but the public can still have the benefit of it.

And it should also be noted that this argument for the good of the public was made so that the actual content of the books wouldn’t be lost. That the actual stories themselves would still be available for people to read in the future. Not so someone who wants to play in someone else’s sandbox can just play with whatever they want.


----------



## markpauloleksiw (Jan 15, 2019)

I am trying to think of one work of literature which would be in the best interest of humanity if it were in the public domain...Hmm.

If anyone has one...please explain why.

It's like saying you can own your home for 30 years and after that anyone can move in.

Mark


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

........ said:


> So when you understand things like books making most of their money within the first five years and most books being out of print in five years (and this includes eBooks too by the way - those ebooks that sit there at rank 2.1 million and make zero sales), why would you advocate for those titles to not enter the public domain?
> 
> They're not funding the spouse or children. Or anyone else.
> 
> In fact, the only times that happens is in the case of multimillionaires.


This is a straw man argument for two reasons. The first is that it's heavily reliant on the word "most" - _most_ of their money in five years, and _most_ books being out of print after that. There are plenty of books which make money for decades and which still provide their author with backlist income (_without _being massive bestsellers) 30 years later. Many of them were participating in that Twitter discourse. One of them was Rebecca Ore, whose 1988 novel Becoming Alien I happen to be reading for the first time right now! The idea that everybody whose books are still selling thirty years later are multimillionaires is flat-out, demonstrably wrong. It doesn't matter whether a thirty-year-old novel is still making its author $10 a year or $100 a year or $1000 a year or $10,000 a year: it's money they have every moral right to. Just because a book might make 50k in its first five years doesn't mean I'm not going to still want and/or need the $50 a year it might bring in down the track, and more importantly, why should any other individual or Netflix equivalent have the right to adapt and profit off it rather than me?

The second reason it's a straw man is because "out of print" is obviously no longer relevant in this day and age. Most non-bestselling authors are going to make more from backlist profits than they ever have in the past - even if that's still a modest figure which merely improves their lives rather than allowing them to live off it - simply because technology has removed the costs of printing and distribution.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> This is a straw man argument for two reasons. The first is that it's heavily reliant on the word "most" - _most_ of their money in five years, and _most_ books being out of print after that. There are plenty of books which make money for decades and which still provide their author with backlist income (_without _being massive bestsellers) 30 years later. Many of them were participating in that Twitter discourse. One of them was Rebecca Ore, whose 1988 novel Becoming Alien I happen to be reading for the first time right now! The idea that everybody whose books are still selling thirty years later are multimillionaires is flat-out, demonstrably wrong. It doesn't matter whether a thirty-year-old novel is still making its author $10 a year or $100 a year or $1000 a year or $10,000 a year: it's money they have every moral right to. Just because a book might make 50k in its first five years doesn't mean I'm not going to still want and/or need the $50 a year it might bring in down the track, and more importantly, why should any other individual or Netflix equivalent have the right to adapt and profit off it rather than me?
> 
> The second reason it's a straw man is because "out of print" is obviously no longer relevant in this day and age. Most non-bestselling authors are going to make more from backlist profits than they ever have in the past - even if that's still a modest figure which merely improves their lives rather than allowing them to live off it - simply because technology has removed the costs of printing and distribution.


This is one of the arguments put up by the infinite copyright advocates - technological changes mean x y z. 

The thing is, when you're talking about people who are still making money after twenty or thirty years, it is a vanishingly small group compared to the total work published. 

You know it wasn't ten thousand authors saying yes I make money and I need it. 

It's a handful. Next to nothing.

I'd also point out that we already have settled this argument: we decided that making money for the individual or business isn't the primary concern.

Then of course the horrible copyright extension act and suddenly the grandchildren of people they never met are fronting legal battles to extract more money on top of the million they already have.

Just because eBooks exist and some sales are made in X years doesn't mean we still don't extinguish that copyright and hand the work to the public domain.

What the copyright maximalists want is infinite copyright. Nothing ever goes to the public domain. They argue this with trying to claim there are all these authors out there who desperately need the royalty checks all the years later.

But it's just not true. Most authors see their work out of print within five years. Most eBooks make no sales at all. This is the reality. 

Saying that someone should get $500 because they have a moral right to it means valuing that money over what could be gained for society by putting the work into the public domain.

Did you read the copyright extension act link I posted? It has a breakdown of the arguments against extension. There are multiple reasons.

And again, we take patents away at the twenty-year mark. Patents worth millions expire. 

Somehow that's okay but that book making the author $110 in royalties for that year? Can't touch that! They have a moral right to the money!


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> This is one of the arguments put up by the infinite copyright advocates - technological changes mean x y z.
> 
> The thing is, when you're talking about people who are still making money after twenty or thirty years, it is a vanishingly small group compared to the total work published.
> 
> ...


That's what you think. That's what you say. But you can't prove it. You don't know what all those people made. Not to mention, ebooks haven't been around for twenty years yet, so there's no way of knowing how much money authors will be making from their ebooks after they've been published for twenty years.

It doesn't matter if they need it or not. It's their right to have it.



........ said:


> I'd also point out that we already have settled this argument: we decided that making money for the individual or business isn't the primary concern.


I think you decided that. Not sure anyone else did.



........ said:


> Just because eBooks exist and some sales are made in X years doesn't mean we still don't extinguish that copyright and hand the work to the public domain.


Sure we do. After the author has been dead for many years. Not before.



........ said:


> What the copyright maximalists want is infinite copyright. Nothing ever goes to the public domain. They argue this with trying to claim there are all these authors out there who desperately need the royalty checks all the years later.


But literally no one here is advocating for infinite copyright. Just longer than what you want it to be.



........ said:


> But it's just not true. Most authors see their work out of print within five years. Most eBooks make no sales at all. This is the reality.


You're really hammering that wiki article. Yes, it said that most authors see their work out of print in a few years. But it doesn't matter if it's reality. It doesn't give anyone else the right to take what doesn't belong to them.



........ said:


> Saying that someone should get $500 because they have a moral right to it means valuing that money over what could be gained for society by putting the work into the public domain.


The only benefit to putting it in the public domain is to other authors who want to use it for themselves. I believe the actual argument in the article was so that things which had gone out of print would still be able to be made available to people who wanted to read them. But with ebooks those things will never have to go out of print. So it's a moot argument.



........ said:


> And again, we take patents away at the twenty-year mark. Patents worth millions expire.
> 
> Somehow that's okay but that book making the author $110 in royalties for that year? Can't touch that! They have a moral right to the money!


And again, patents aren't copyrights.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> That's what you think. That's what you say. But you can't prove it. You don't know what all those people made. Not to mention, ebooks haven't been around for twenty years yet, so there's no way of knowing how much money authors will be making from their ebooks after they've been published for twenty years.
> 
> It doesn't matter if they need it or not. It's their right to have it.
> 
> ...


Look, I'm sorry but if you're not going to read anything then I can't talk about this with you. If you can't articulate why economists were fighting against longer copyright terms, then I'm sorry but you don't understand the common ground enough for any meaningful conversation to take place. I'm simply not going to waste my time on it. You can keep saying patents aren't copyright but until you understand the common origin in the law there's no way to speak with you. You're lost, cannot be communicated with. Like the person who said why have copyright - they're so disconnected from the issue that they can't meaningfully contribute.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

........ said:


> The thing is, when you're talking about people who are still making money after twenty or thirty years, it is a vanishingly small group compared to the total work published.
> 
> You know it wasn't ten thousand authors saying yes I make money and I need it.
> 
> It's a handful. Next to nothing.


Completely unsupported conjecture.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Look, I'm sorry but if you're not going to read anything then I can't talk about this with you. If you can't articulate why economists were fighting against longer copyright terms, then I'm sorry but you don't understand the common ground enough for any meaningful conversation to take place. I'm simply not going to waste my time on it. You can keep saying patents aren't copyright but until you understand the common origin in the law there's no way to speak with you. You're lost, cannot be communicated with. Like the person who said why have copyright - they're so disconnected from the issue that they can't meaningfully contribute.


I’m sorry that you’re unable to comprehend the fact that I’ve said I read it, and have read it. And considering I practically quoted several parts from it, I’m starting to wonder if you’ve not read all of it. I could articulate why they’re fighting against longer copyrights, but I chose to articulate why I disagree with their positions instead. Could you not make that connection?

Continuing to claim that I haven’t read something when it’s very clear that I have makes it seem as if you’re the one who can’t be communicated with.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

........ said:


> I don't believe this to be a genuine question. If you really are asking it I suggest you do some research about the creation and benefits of copyright.


It is indeed a genuine question. You have stated at length that the present day copyright term doesn't benefit me, but only benefits Disney.

If your own argument is indeed serious then explain to me why -- if only Disney benefits, as you have pointed out at length -- there should be any copyright at all.

Why stop at 20 years? Why not ten? Why not five? And, if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, why not zero? It's a fair enough question.

Creators can still make money without copyright. A lot of indies -- according to what I've read in KB here -- don't bother registering copyright, hence denying themselves legal protections, but they figure that the chances of them getting ripped off (with all the competition out there) are slim to none, and even at that, the chances of winning a copyright infringement case are also slim to none for most small authors who do not have the wealth amassed to afford a floor full of lawyers.

So, once again, why bother with copyright if it only benefits Disney?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Completely unsupported conjecture.


It has been studied but hey what is the point of linking to evidence when people won't read or even acknowledge it exists?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> It is indeed a genuine question. You have stated at length that the present day copyright term doesn't benefit me, but only benefits Disney.
> 
> If your own argument is indeed serious then explain to me why -- if only Disney benefits, as you have pointed out at length -- there should be any copyright at all.
> 
> ...


Copyright doesn't only benefit Disney and I can't believe I have to say this.

I'm sorry but I feel like you're being disingenuous on this point. I have to answer to a strawman now?

You can't work out why copyright isn't five years? Or why it exists at all?

Be serious, please. This isn't no copyright vs eternal copyright. It's about how long it should be and why.

Sadly those against any change can't articulate a position beyond saying entitled over and again.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I’m sorry that you’re unable to comprehend the fact that I’ve said I read it, and have read it. And considering I practically quoted several parts from it, I’m starting to wonder if you’ve not read all of it. I could articulate why they’re fighting against longer copyrights, but I chose to articulate why I disagree with their positions instead. Could you not make that connection?
> 
> Continuing to claim that I haven’t read something when it’s very clear that I have makes it seem as if you’re the one who can’t be communicated with.


Cool. There's no point here. I'm not here for argument but discussion and you've shown your position when you say you don't care about the issue and keep repeating personal insults. Please feel free to cease writing to me. Good luck.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Lots of fallacy of the excluded middle here. Both sides seem to be setting up straw-men (straw-mans?). It's not one way or the other. the choice is not 20 years, or else Life+70. It can be somewhere in the middle. That's the discussion--what makes sense. Not simply one or the other. 

Also, intellectual properties created for the purpose of entertainment or even high culture are quite different from inventions or trademarks. Anything can get a copyright. There is no review process. Trademarks and patents get reviewed, however, and have to comply with certain rules. Each item is different--apples and oranges and pears. Trying to copy-paste rules for one to another will inevitably fail.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

........ said:


> It has been studied but hey what is the point of linking to evidence when people won't read or even acknowledge it exists?


Go ahead and post a "study" proving that the number of writers still drawing some form of income from their backlist is "next to nothing."


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Matt Yglesias, who wrote the original brain fart tweet the sparked the Twitter furore, has written his longer piece on why he thinks copyright should be reduced if anybody cares to read it:









Oh, the intellectual property rights you'll extend


Dr. Seuss as a policy issue




www.slowboring.com





I won't bother to pick it apart in detail but I think it's a well-meaning piece which fundamentally approaches the issue from an entirely different mindset than most actual writers, namely in the way it considers copyright to exist primarily as an "incentive" to artists to create more work. I think there is something deeply, depressingly telling about that kind of attitude: it's not about valuing art, it's not about valuing the artist or the artist's labour - it's about hypothesising how to extract the maximum amount of productivity as efficiently as possible. People can debate the ins and outs of copyright history and the influence of companies like Disney all they want, but if we're approaching it from an objective standpoint today, the argument to me should not be about "incentivisation" but whether we believe people have a right to maintain creative control and a monopoly on profits (however meagre) that might come from the fruits of their imagination.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

Oh, and the other extremely dumb thing about Yglesias' piece is pointing to history and how ~The Founders~ envisioned a much shorter copyright period. They also thought it was okay to own a human being so excuse me for not giving a flying fig about their opinion on property rights.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Cool. There's no point here. I'm not here for argument but discussion and you've shown your position when you say you don't care about the issue and keep repeating personal insults. Please feel free to cease writing to me. Good luck.


No, you're here to throw around ridiculous claims and continually assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you hasn't read your 'proof'. I've never thrown around personal insults. Entitled is a perfectly good word that applies perfectly well to someone who insists they should have something when they have no right to it. Do you not realize that this discussion would have gone a whole lot better if you hadn't started it off by stating in no uncertain terms that you 'want more stuff' that you have no right to?

I don't care about the fact that you think authors are entitled to other authors IP, just because you want it to be so. I do care very much about the idea that many works might disappear and never be available again for people to read. But I don't think it's really a big problem, either, given that literally anyone can publish a book nowadays and keep it published for as long as they want. The bigger issue there is that there are so many things published it makes it difficult to find a lot of it. The other issue I have is that it feels as if you're using the argument that supports things going into the public domain for the sake of the public good -- stories going into the public domain so that the stories themselves are not lost - so you can justify your desire to play in those sandboxes. It comes off that you want copyright to be so short so that you can have a crack at playing in those worlds. Because there's no danger of Harry Potter (or Sherlock Holmes or Snow White, for that matter) becoming lost to the public any time soon. One day, sure. But not soon. Which basically nullifies the argument that the public good will benefit from having copyright stolen from it's author after only twenty years. So there's no reason at all that Harry Potter should be kicked over into the public domain while it's still hugely popular. Unless the person making the argument has personal motives for making it.

If you wanted to discuss a reasonable amount of time for copyright to last, I'd be totally up for that. Personally, I like life of the author + at least 50 years. I could see an argument being made for less than 50 years, but would never agree to anything that would remove copyright from the author during their lifetime. I haven't published much so far, but what I have published I have no intention of giving away, nor do I have any intention of removing it from publication. So for as long as I'm around, it will be available for people to read. Which should do just fine for the public good, assuming that my writing is in any way beneficial to the people who read it.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Go ahead and post a "study" proving that the number of writers still drawing some form of income from their backlist is "next to nothing."


Sure: Australian Government Productivity Commission report

Comes in at 766 pages and is full of reference to studies and evidence. Given some on here can't even read a wikipedia page I'm not hopeful but hey, it's evidence.

Let's have a look:

For example, the addition of twenty years of protection many years in the future, such as occurred when Australia increased term from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years (a requirement introduced with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement) only increases average revenue by 0.33 per cent (Akerlof et al. 2002). Such a small increase in revenue ‘offers at most a very small additional incentive for an economically minded author of a new work’ (Akerlof et al. 2002, p. 2). But it brings a long tail of costly access to commercially unavailable or orphan works for users.

and

And among countries that are significant producers of copyright material, there is scepticism about the term of copyright applying 70 years posthumously. Comparing the main economic benefits and costs of the CTEA [The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998], it is difficult to understand term extension for both existing and new works as an efficiency-enhancing measure. Term extension in existing works provides no additional incentive to create new works and imposes several kinds of additional costs. Term extension for new works induces new costs and benefits that are too small in present-value terms to have much economic effect. As a policy to promote consumer welfare, the CTEA fares even worse, given the large transfer of resources from consumers to copyright holders. (Akerlof et al. 2002, p. 15) (United States) In conclusion, the [Gowers] Review finds the arguments in favour of term extension unconvincing. The evidence suggests that extending the term of protection for sound recordings or performers’ rights prospectively would not increase the incentives to invest, would not increase the number of works created or made available, and would negatively impact upon consumers and industry. Furthermore, by increasing the period of protection, future creators would have to wait an additional length of time to build upon past works to create new products and those wishing to revive protected but forgotten material would be unable to do so for a longer period of time. (Gowers 2006, p. 56) (United Kingdom)

and

… [the] public is not getting a good deal in return for its generous grant of above-incentive rights. Current terms are neither optimized to maximize continued investment in existing works nor to recognise and reward creators, and they cause knowledge and culture to languish underused, or even vanish altogether. (Giblin 2015, p. 21)

Let's check out how long copyrighted materials make money for:

How long is long enough? While it is increasingly accepted that the optimal, or ideal copyright term has been exceeded, there is far more contention about where the optimal term might lie. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of works do not make commercial returns from copyright beyond their first couple of years on the market.4 For example, the ABS estimates: • the average commercial life of music is between 2 and 5 years.
Around 70 per cent of musical originals provide a return in the first 2 years, with the remaining 30 per cent providing a return fairly evenly over the next 3 years
• most original visual artistic works no longer yield an income within 2 years, but the distribution is highly skewed and a small proportion of works receive income over a longer period. These works represent the majority of income received • the average commercial life of a film is between 3.3 and 6 years. This estimate is benchmarked against similar international markets including the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. Very few films make money in their sixth year
• literary works provide returns for between 1.4 and 5 years on average. Three quarters of original titles are retired after one year and by 2 years, 90 per cent of originals are out of print (ABS 2015b, pp. 374–376).
This latter result is consistent with the Commission’s own analysis of the top 5000 books sold in Australia in the 12 months up to 31 May 2016 (detailed in appendix E). The results show that less than 2 per cent of the titles sold were published prior to the year 2000, and only 12 per cent were published more than 5 years ago.

Numerous studies have attempted to estimate the ‘optimal’ duration of copyright protection. Landes and Posner (2002) argue a term of around 25 years enables rights holders to generate revenue comparable to what they would receive in perpetuity (in present value terms), without imposing onerous costs on consumers and suggests that a term of around 25 years is sufficient to incentivise creative effort.5

Pollock (2007) uses an alternative, more comprehensive, methodology to estimate the optimal length of copyright protection. Using data from the US copyright register, Pollock estimates the additional number of creative works produced when copyright protection is increased and the cost that is paid by the community. His work suggests a copyright term around 15 years after creation balances the benefits and costs of the system.

***
You can start reading from about page 104 to find all this. The report also references studies that you can find.

I'd also like to add that this is just one copyright reform review from Australia, referencing multiple studies and evidence from Australia and around the world.

If you bother to go looking you find copyright review papers from all over the world, including the US.

You'll find the "optimal" copyright length suggested by evidence is between 15-25 years.

Hence why I land on twenty years.

You know, backed by evidence.

But I don't have much hope for this mass of evidence. I'm sure the response to a 766 page report will just be someone posting "entitled" again because hey, facts and evidence don't matter, do they?

So, will you read and understand or is it going to be the trite reply?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> No, you're here to throw around ridiculous claims and continually assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you hasn't read your 'proof'. I've never thrown around personal insults. Entitled is a perfectly good word that applies perfectly well to someone who insists they should have something when they have no right to it. Do you not realize that this discussion would have gone a whole lot better if you hadn't started it off by stating in no uncertain terms that you 'want more stuff' that you have no right to?
> 
> I don't care about the fact that you think authors are entitled to other authors IP, just because you want it to be so. I do care very much about the idea that many works might disappear and never be available again for people to read. But I don't think it's really a big problem, either, given that literally anyone can publish a book nowadays and keep it published for as long as they want. The bigger issue there is that there are so many things published it makes it difficult to find a lot of it. The other issue I have is that it feels as if you're using the argument that supports things going into the public domain for the sake of the public good -- stories going into the public domain so that the stories themselves are not lost - so you can justify your desire to play in those sandboxes. It comes off that you want copyright to be so short so that you can have a crack at playing in those worlds. Because there's no danger of Harry Potter (or Sherlock Holmes or Snow White, for that matter) becoming lost to the public any time soon. One day, sure. But not soon. Which basically nullifies the argument that the public good will benefit from having copyright stolen from it's author after only twenty years. So there's no reason at all that Harry Potter should be kicked over into the public domain while it's still hugely popular. Unless the person making the argument has personal motives for making it.
> 
> If you wanted to discuss a reasonable amount of time for copyright to last, I'd be totally up for that. Personally, I like life of the author + at least 50 years. I could see an argument being made for less than 50 years, but would never agree to anything that would remove copyright from the author during their lifetime. I haven't published much so far, but what I have published I have no intention of giving away, nor do I have any intention of removing it from publication. So for as long as I'm around, it will be available for people to read. Which should do just fine for the public good, assuming that my writing is in any way beneficial to the people who read it.


There's a 766-page report here about copyright reform. It's from Australia but includes multiple references to global studies and evidence.

It refers to studies showing the optimal length of copyright to be between 15-25 years.

So, where's your extensive referenced evidence?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Here is an article talking about Pollock (2007) paper

And here's where you can find the paper itself

And another from Pollack

"Using the estimates for these variables derived from the available empirical data we obtained a point estimate for optimal copyright term of approximately 15 years (with a 99% confidence interval extending up to 38 years)."

Of course there are plenty more papers around the place. Plenty more evidence from reputable sources.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Matt Yglesias, who wrote the original brain fart tweet the sparked the Twitter furore, has written his longer piece on why he thinks copyright should be reduced if anybody cares to read it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How we balance the rights of creators with the rights of the public comes down to costs and benefits. And these can be worked out quite literally. I mean, I linked a 766-page paper from Australia that goes into incredible detail. There are papers all over the place that study copyright, cost, benefit, what to do with orphan works and many other aspects of this issue. 

Let's go to the mindset of the author you talk about. We want to create. We'd like the Government to extend copyright protection to our works to enable us to make money.

This right is extended to writers and was done so with the understanding that the public domain exists and that the people deprive benefit from things entering the public domain. 

There are extensive papers on this too. 

In fact, the article you linked has studies in it. 

I think it’s hard to specify the exact right number (Rufus Pollock tries with some fancy math and comes up with 15 to 38 years), but these two points from Hal Varian’s paper on copyright terms seem relevant:

“Fewer than 11 percent of the copyrights registered between 1883 and 1964 were renewed after 28 years.”
“Of the 10,027 books published in 1930, only 174 were still in print in 2001.”
It's not depressing at all to work out the value of our work. This is the argument.

And right now, every single bit of evidence shows that longer copyright terms do not produce any new work. They find that extending the copyright term harms consumers and adds a cost-burden to other creatives. You can look at lawsuits and the nonsense that these "estates" get up to. 

It's incredible all this evidence abounds and the opposing argument is just "entitled!" repeated again and again.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> There's a 766-page report here about copyright reform. It's from Australia but includes multiple references to global studies and evidence.
> 
> It refers to studies showing the optimal length of copyright to be between 15-25 years.
> 
> So, where's your extensive referenced evidence?


We’re any of the people saying 15 - 20 years is optimal actually creators? I’m betting not. 

I don’t need extensive referenced evidence. It’s a simple fact. If the argument for shortening copyright is to prevent works of fiction from being lost to the public, that’s no longer a concern, because virtually anything can be published by anyone with an account on Amazon, Kobo, etc. And if the argument for shortening copyright is that it incentivizes new work, that’s a ridiculous argument, because there are literally thousands of authors creating new works every day that don’t require someone’s copyright being stolen from them. We don’t need stuff to be in the public domain in order to be inspired to create new things.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> We’re any of the people saying 15 - 20 years is optimal actually creators? I’m betting not.
> 
> I don’t need extensive referenced evidence. It’s a simple fact. If the argument for shortening copyright is to prevent works of fiction from being lost to the public, that’s no longer a concern, because virtually anything can be published by anyone with an account on Amazon, Kobo, etc. And if the argument for shortening copyright is that it incentivizes new work, that’s a ridiculous argument, because there are literally thousands of authors creating new works every day that don’t require someone’s copyright being stolen from them. We don’t need stuff to be in the public domain in order to be inspired to create new things.


Cool, glad you digested a 766-page report so quickly, then looked at other papers so you understood the evidence and landscape and then just dismissed the whole lot!

See, what a waste of time. I was right before. Don't read, won't read, won't learn anything about this issue.

It's depressing that so many authors have so little knowledge about copyright. Even that I get called some random person on the internet, like I came up with the idea of shorter copyright terms.

The evidence for them is overwhelming and credible. You however have not provided any evidence at all. Not a paper, not a study, nothing.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> They find that extending the copyright term harms consumers and adds a cost-burden to other creatives.
> 
> It's incredible all this evidence abounds and the opposing argument is just "entitled!" repeated again and again.


I don’t feel the slightest bit burdened by the idea that JK Rowling or the Conan Doyle estate might keep hold of their copyrights for a while longer.

And again, I’m really not sure what other word you think should be used. If I, or someone else, creates something, and someone else comes along and demands that we should have our rights as creators taken away from us, what should that be called? What is an appropriate word for someone who thinks they have more right to someone else’s creation than the creator of it?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I don’t feel the slightest bit burdened by the idea that JK Rowling or the Conan Doyle estate might keep hold of their copyrights for a while longer.
> 
> And again, I’m really not sure what other word you think should be used. If I, or someone else, creates something, and someone else comes along and demands that we should have our rights as creators taken away from us, what should that be called? What is an appropriate word for someone who thinks they have more right to someone else’s creation than the creator of it?


Look, if you can't show up with evidence, this can't really progress. I've come with sources and studies and proof.

You have... what? 

If you can't be bothered to engage in this in good faith then nothing more can be done. I mean, now you're trying personal insults again? You think the mods will let you keep doing that? Just stop please. 

Read the papers, read the evidence, read the article linked above. Learn some things. It's not the narrow view you're taking.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Cool, glad you digested a 766-page report so quickly, then looked at other papers so you understood the evidence and landscape and then just dismissed the whole lot!
> 
> See, what a waste of time. I was right before. Don't read, won't read, won't learn anything about this issue.
> 
> ...


I have other things to be doing than reading a 766-page report. I don’t need to read the whole thing to know that the crux of it boils down to ‘shorter copyright is better for the public, so creators should have their copyrights stripped from them after 15 - 38 years’. I know that because you’ve been hammering away at it for ages. But what it boils down to for me is that regardless of how much benefit the public might get from shorter copyright, I am never going to be down with someone taking away my right to something that I created while I’m still alive. I could read every one of those 766 pages and my feeling about that will never change. And it’s not because I can’t understand the argument being made, it’s because there is no argument that will make me believe that someone else has more right to what I created than I do. And it’s not even about the money, either. It’s simply about the principle of the thing. I created it, it’s mine, and no one gets to tell me that someone else is more entitled to it than I am.


I’m fairly sure that if you took a poll, most of the authors here would not be quick to give up their copyrights, either.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I have other things to be doing than reading a 766-page report. I don’t need to read the whole thing to know that the crux of it boils down to ‘shorter copyright is better for the public, so creators should have their copyrights stripped from them after 15 - 38 years’. I know that because you’ve been hammering away at it for ages. But what it boils down to for me is that regardless of how much benefit the public might get from shorter copyright, I am never going to be down with someone taking away my right to something that I created while I’m still alive. I could read every one of those 766 pages and my feeling about that will never change. And it’s not because I can’t understand the argument being made, it’s because there is no argument that will make me believe that someone else has more right to what I created than I do. And it’s not even about the money, either. It’s simply about the principle of the thing. I created it, it’s mine, and no one gets to tell me that someone else is more entitled to it than I am.
> 
> 
> I’m fairly sure that if you took a poll, most of the authors here would not be quick to give up their copyrights, either.


Cool, evidence doesn't change your position. Got it. You can stop writing to me now. I now understand that no matter how much evidence you're presented with, you won't change your position.

Given your books are linked in your sig, and I can see the ranks, it's hard to believe you think they'll be earning money seventy years after you're dead when they're not earning anything today.

But that's how it goes - people who aren't millionaires arguing on behalf of millionaires and refusing to read any studies or papers.

Good luck with it all.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Look, if you can't show up with evidence, this can't really progress. I've come with sources and studies and proof.
> 
> You have... what?
> 
> ...


Entitled is not an insult. It’s the very definition of what’s being described. Someone who feels they have a right to something they don’t. If you can give me a better word, I’m all ears.

I don’t need to read the papers. No amount of reading will convince me that my copyright should be taken away from me and placed into the public domain while I’m still alive. What argument do you think should convince me otherwise? I created something and you want to make it PD so that other people can publish a version of it, or write their own series based on it. What do I get out of that that would ever make me think it was a good idea? Can you give me one reason, as the person on the losing end of your proposition, that would make me say yes?

You’re pushing all this ‘evidence’, but for most people it’s not going to be about evidence. It’s going to be about the fact that they created something and you want to take it away from them before they’re ready to give it up. Can you not see that? Are you really so shocked that people would rather protect what they’ve created than give it away?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Cool, evidence doesn't change your position. Got it. You can stop writing to me now. I now understand that no matter how much evidence you're presented with, you won't change your position.
> 
> Given your books are linked in your sig, and I can see the ranks, it's hard to believe you think they'll be earning money seventy years after you're dead when they're not earning anything today.
> 
> ...


You’re missing my point entirely. I don’t care if they’re earning money 70 years from now. They’re mine, and I’m not down with someone thinking they’re more entitled to them than I am. And I’m not arguing on behalf of millionaires, I’m arguing on behalf of myself and every other person on this board or anywhere else who doesn’t want people taking away our rights to what we created.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

........ said:


> Given your books are linked in your sig, and I can see the ranks, it's hard to believe you think they'll be earning money seventy years after you're dead when they're not earning anything today.


I was going to respond in good faith to your "evidence" from the Productivity Commission (John Howard's panel of neoliberal economists whose job is to evaluate every aspect of Australian society in terms of its dollar value) but this was such a petty and childish thing to say that I'll be muting you now.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShaneCarrow said:


> I was going to respond in good faith to your "evidence" from the Productivity Commission (John Howard's panel of neoliberal economists whose job is to evaluate every aspect of Australian society in terms of its dollar value) but this was such a petty and childish thing to say that I'll be muting you now.


Gotta love this. Get called entitled and all sorts of things, the lack of creativity, etc, and for a moment point out the person arguing isn't making any money from eBooks but wants to defend millionaires... and whoops, that was too far!

All that piled up evidence and now you have a convenient out. How wonderful. That's what happens of course when you arrive with sources and proof - suddenly the conversation must be over based on a tone instead. 

Anyway, hopefully others will read the evidence and be swayed and eventually we can globally reform copyright.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

This guy isn't arguing in good faith. It's a waste of time to keep arguing with him.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

Yeah, I was willing to have an open mind about it but that took a hard left. Cheap shots do not win friends or influence people.

I haven't heard anything that's convinced me authors should lose their rights in their lifetime, and the only babies I plan on making are book babies, so I don't feel like it's my place to tell people they can't pass along their legacy to their children.

I was momentarily tempted because writing about LGBTQ+ wizards at Hogworts sounds fun, and selfishly I'd love to print money on the back of a world I adore but didn't create. But I know I have no right to her world, and in the end Hogwarts-set fiction would be just as flooded as everything else and we'd be back in the same boat, right?

Even though I'm still open to hearing arguments on copyright, and I definitely see some problematic trends with lawsuits, corporate overreach, and attempts to undermine fair use, I don't think our opinions are going to affect the outcome, so why can't we have this discussion respectfully?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I was momentarily tempted because writing about LGBTQ+ wizards at Hogworts sounds fun, and selfishly I'd love to print money on the back of a world I adore but didn't create. But I know I have no right to her world, and in the end Hogwarts-set fiction would be just as flooded as everything else and we'd be back in the same boat, right?


This is my feeling, too. Would I love to have a chance to play in the Hogwarts sandbox if it was allowed? Totally. And with some LGBT+ characters? Oh hell yes! But it's not, and I don't begrudge JK Rowling for not allowing it. So if I want to write stories about gay wizards, I guess I'll just have to create my own world to set them in.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> This guy isn't arguing in good faith. It's a waste of time to keep arguing with him.


Post easy to understand wikipedia article
get called entitled, just want to take things from other people, arrogant etc
you're good with that
post 766-page report into IP. Spend time to cut out and paste relevant quotes to make it easy
get called entitled again
ask them to stop, they don't stop
you're good with that
dig into the source material to post multiple papers and links from credible researchers
get called entitled again
you're good with that
point out that user doing that is an example of a non-millionaire defending millionaires and megacorporations
This guy isn't arguing in good faith
mfw

Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother much with this site I guess. Evidence? Links? Nah. Entitled? Call them that again! It's all good!


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Yeah, I was willing to have an open mind about it but that took a hard left. Cheap shots do not win friends or influence people.
> 
> I haven't heard anything that's convinced me authors should lose their rights in their lifetime, and the only babies I plan on making are book babies, so I don't feel like it's my place to tell people they can't pass along their legacy to their children.
> 
> ...


Referenced papers from credible researchers, and a massive report that goes into explicit detail doesn't convince you at all?


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

ShayneRutherford said:


> This is my feeling, too. Would I love to have a chance to play in the Hogwarts sandbox if it was allowed? Totally. And with some LGBT+ characters?


Well now you've got the head ball rolling. Gay Dumbledore? Played by Sir Ian MacLellan? I kind of want to write this fanfic now.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

NikOK said:


> Well now you've got the head ball rolling. Gay Dumbledore? Played by Sir Ian MacLellan? I kind of want to write this fanfic now.


Yaaasss! Dooo eeeet! I'm all about gay Snape, myself. Poor Severus.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

ShayneRutherford said:


> This is my feeling, too. Would I love to have a chance to play in the Hogwarts sandbox if it was allowed? Totally. And with some LGBT+ characters? Oh hell yes! But it's not, and I don't begrudge JK Rowling for not allowing it. So if I want to write stories about gay wizards, I guess I'll just have to create my own world to set them in.


I begrudge her a little lol, but yeah, we just have to create our own.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I begrudge her a little lol, but yeah, we just have to create our own.


 

I'm just bummed that I didn't think it up first.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

........ said:


> Referenced papers from credible researchers, and a massive report that goes into explicit detail doesn't convince you at all?


No, I'm another of those pesky "won't read" people. I have a job, student loans to worry about, and I'm treating writing as another part time job. If I have no reason to believe my opinion on copyright affects the legal outcome, why would I spend my time reading a document that long? I probably shouldn't even be following as closely as I am, and I'm going off of what you've argued in this thread, but I'm open to more summary or thoughts if you have more to share.

I'm curious to know when the data was collected that led to the profit averages/years. The publishing landscape is different, and I'm curious how or if the data changes, and what averages of recent years would suggest. Basically, does the "when" matter?

What do you think about long series? It's awkward to imagine what would happen when a twenty year window meets a series like Agatha Raisin, for instance. M. C. Beaton is no longer with us, sadly, but when she was, she wrote 30ish books over 30ish years. The idea that at around book 20 anyone who felt like it would have the right to pick up her characters and write their own story just doesn't sit well.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> No, I'm another of those pesky "won't read" people. I have a job, student loans to worry about, and I'm treating writing as another part time job. If I have no reason to believe my opinion on copyright affects the legal outcome, why would I spend my time reading a document that long? I probably shouldn't even be following as closely as I am, and I'm going off of what you've argued in this thread, but I'm open to more summary or thoughts if you have more to share.
> 
> I'm curious to know when the data was collected that led to the profit averages/years. The publishing landscape is different, and I'm curious how or if the data changes, and what averages of recent years would suggest. Basically, does the "when" matter?
> 
> What do you think about long series? It's awkward to imagine what would happen when a twenty year window meets a series like Agatha Raisin, for instance. M. C. Beaton is no longer with us, sadly, but when she was, she wrote 30ish books over 30ish years. The idea that at around book 20 anyone who felt like it would have the right to pick up her characters and write their own story just doesn't sit well.


I suppose the position is this: do you trust credible experts? Do you trust credible researchers? If so, then why not trust the conclusions?

Because those arguing against it don't put up any papers or studies or anything really. And their positions come straight from the lobbyists that work for Disney et al. 

As for long series - still good to hit public domain at twenty years. Having it longer doesn't get MC Beaton to create faster. It doesn't benefit the common good. 

Edge cases are always used to fight progress. MC Beaton did just fine and if they were still writing at 20 years then I doubt new titles by others would have done much compared to the original author. 

In the end it's talking about a tiny handful of people who are these edge cases. In most cases they're multimillionaires.


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Yaaasss! Dooo eeeet! I'm all about gay Snape, myself. Poor Severus.


That would definitely be pretty good. My only hang up is that I feel like Alan Rickman was so good in the role and now the character is just Alan Rickman in my head. Same with Dr. Lazarus, Hans Gruber, and Metatron. Alan Rickman just owned the spirit of too many of his characters


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

........ said:


> I suppose the position is this: do you trust credible experts? Do you trust credible researchers? If so, then why not trust the conclusions?
> 
> Because those arguing against it don't put up any papers or studies or anything really. And their positions come straight from the lobbyists that work for Disney et al.
> 
> ...


I guess that's the hitch then. I care about the common good of all, but that's not all I care about, I also care about myself and my fellow authors as individuals.

I'm not saying there's no value in expert opinions, of course, but studies involve people, and people are biased, people have agendas, and I wouldn't blindly take anyone's word for it even if a study is attached. If they're right, I hope they argue this to the death in front of Congress and win, but usually stuff isn't that uncomplicated.

Beaton did do just fine with copyright as it is, she even passed the mantle voluntarily over to a friend before she died, and said friend is continuing the series. But if new titles by others wouldn't have done much compared to hers, why have the market confusion? Why subject her to competition within her own worlds? It just doesn't sit right. It takes me to a my body, my choice place in my head.

It's not an edge case, it's the thoughts of a fellow author, the first questions or scenarios that come to mind. I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I'm just not interested in dismissing all of the complexity because scholarly people say so.

And it's a reach to say Disney lobbyists are in our ears when what's much more likely is basic, ordinary self-interest.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I suppose the position is this: do you trust credible experts? Do you trust credible researchers? If so, then why not trust the conclusions?


Here's the thing. Those researchers may be credible, but they have a bias, and an agenda. An agenda that I disagree with. If they get their way, they want to take something away from me, and all other authors, and regardless of how much money may or may not be involved, I personally want to keep what's mine. I would imagine most other authors feel the same way. So it's not about trust, it's about not wanting them to get what they want.



........ said:


> Because those arguing against it don't put up any papers or studies or anything really. And their positions come straight from the lobbyists that work for Disney et al.


We don't need studies. And our opinions don't come from lobbyists. Our opinions come from wanting to keep what belongs to us. You don't need studies to understand that when we say "we're more interested in keeping our rights than seeing them taken away from us", that's exactly what we mean. There's no papers to support that opinion. You just have to take us at our word that we're saying what we mean.



........ said:


> As for long series - still good to hit public domain at twenty years. Having it longer doesn't get MC Beaton to create faster. It doesn't benefit the common good.


No, it doesn't benefit the common good. But I daresay that most authors are more interested in keeping our rights to things we created (and benefiting people by giving them cool stories to read) than we are in allowing our rights to be taken away from us because some people think we shouldn't be allowed to keep them.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Beaton did do just fine with copyright as it is, she even passed the mantle voluntarily over to a friend before she died, and said friend is continuing the series. But if new titles by others wouldn't have done much compared to hers, why have the market confusion? Why subject her to competition within her own worlds? It just doesn't sit right. It takes me to a my body, my choice place in my head.
> 
> And it's a reach to say Disney lobbyists are in our ears when what's much more likely is basic, ordinary self-interest.


All of this. ^


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I guess that's the hitch then. I care about the common good of all, but that's not all I care about, I also care about myself and my fellow authors as individuals.
> 
> I'm not saying there's no value in expert opinions, of course, but studies involve people, and people are biased, people have agendas, and I wouldn't blindly take anyone's word for it even if a study is attached. If they're right, I hope they argue this to the death in front of Congress and win, but usually stuff isn't that uncomplicated.
> 
> ...


When you look at a scenario that shows 99% of the people in it are unaffected, the tiny percentage of the 1% are ultrarich, the benefits are clear... you don't go in to bat for the tiny percentage. Especially when the evidence is overwhelming and credible.

This is unfortunately a situation that can't change unless you're willing to read. I gave extracts. The papers aren't that long. The section of the long report isn't that long either.

Because right now it's imaginings and stories and what-ifs that never were vs actual hard evidence.

If you dismiss evidence entirely then there's nothing more that can be said to you.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> We don't need studies.


I'm sorry but if you're not willing to read and you dismiss all evidence then I can't talk with you at all. There's no point. Evidence means nothing to you - unless suddenly you find some story that fits your position and then you're all about it.

The papers aren't long, nor is the section of the report. 

But if you are unwilling to read and flatly deny evidence, then I'm sorry you'll have to join the flat-earthers in being excluded from any rational discussion.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I'm sorry but if you're not willing to read and you dismiss all evidence then I can't talk with you at all. There's no point. Evidence means nothing to you - unless suddenly you find some story that fits your position and then you're all about it.
> 
> The papers aren't long, nor is the section of the report.
> 
> But if you are unwilling to read and flatly deny evidence, then I'm sorry you'll have to join the flat-earthers in being excluded from any rational discussion.


Did you actually read all of what I said? Because the reason I said 'we don't need studies' is because there are no studies to prove that authors want to keep their rights. We want to keep our rights. You don't need studies to prove that, all you need to do is ask us and most of us will tell you straight up, we want to keep our rights. We don't want to give them away or have them taken away by people who think other people deserve them more than we do.

For heaven's sake, I'm not denying the evidence. I *do not agree* with the conclusion. There is a huge difference between those two things, and if you can't understand that there's not a lot I can do to help you. 

I'll say it one more time. I do not want these over-reaching researchers to get their way and take my rights away from me. It has nothing to do with money. It has to do with me wanting to keep what's mine. Is that really so hard to understand?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> When you look at a scenario that shows 99% of the people in it are unaffected, the tiny percentage of the 1% are ultrarich, the benefits are clear... you don't go in to bad for the tiny percentage. Especially when the evidence is overwhelming and credible.


It's very simple: all of the evidence in the world won't change the fact that I want to keep what's mine. No matter how much evidence you throw at me, I'm never going to say, "oh, okay, go ahead and take my rights away from me because other people deserve those rights more than I do". (I assume most other authors feel this way, too.)


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> there are no studies to prove that authors want to keep their rights.


There quite literally are. They are in the studies posted. They address this point explicitly.

Which is why you need to actually spend some time reading if you want to take part in this discussion. You unfortunately are coming off like you're ignorant because you literally won't read. 

None of the points you make are new or a surprise. They're not ignored by the studies and papers on this topic. 

Please read and stop writing to me until you do. You're just so far out of your depth here right now it's not funny. I've read that entire 766-page report. I've read other papers. I used to work in publishing and licensing and have an active interest in this topic. 

You're turning up arguing with nothing behind you and keep saying things that just are explicitly addressed in studies on this topic.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> There quite literally are. They are in the studies posted. They address this point explicitly.
> 
> Which is why you need to actually spend some time reading if you want to take part in this discussion. You unfortunately are coming off like you're ignorant because you literally won't read.
> 
> ...


Like I said, I have better things to do than read a 766-page report. I have no intention of doing it just to satisfy you.

If none of the points I'm making are coming off as a surprise, why do you continue to act so surprised that people feel that way? Why do you expect people to change their minds? Those are legitimate questions. Why are you so surprised? And why do you continue to pound away at the same things when no one is buying into what you're selling?

By all means, keep insulting my intelligence. It could not possibly care less what you think about me.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Like I said, I have better things to do than read a 766-page report. I have no intention of doing it just to satisfy you.
> 
> If none of the points I'm making are coming off as a surprise, why do you continue to act so surprised that people feel that way? Why do you expect people to change their minds? Those are legitimate questions. Why are you so surprised? And why do you continue to pound away at the same things when no one is buying into what you're selling?
> 
> By all means, keep insulting my intelligence. It could not possibly care less what you think about me.


This is like having a conversation with an anti-vaxxer who rejects science absolutely.

Like, okay, you want to do that. Good for you. But you're not going to get far trying to talk about things you know next-to-nothing about. 

You don't need a read a 766-page report. But you do have to read, which I figure as a writer, you can do. 

I'm not surprised at all by your comments. They parrot the copyright maximalist position. Propaganda is very successful and the best success is when you see people saying it totally unaware of how they formed that view. 

Also, I'm very aware this isn't for you. I'm writing for everyone else who does actually read. Whether you decide to move your position doesn't matter one bit. I mean, flatly stating you won't read and putting evidence in quotation marks? It's just making me look better.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

........ said:


> When you look at a scenario that shows 99% of the people in it are unaffected, the tiny percentage of the 1% are ultrarich, the benefits are clear... you don't go in to bat for the tiny percentage. Especially when the evidence is overwhelming and credible.
> 
> This is unfortunately a situation that can't change unless you're willing to read. I gave extracts. The papers aren't that long. The section of the long report isn't that long either.
> 
> ...


I'm not dismissing anything. Like I said, I'm open to hearing arguments for shorter copyright terms, but if after reading all those 700+ pages you can't articulate it persuasively, or answer basic questions about the data set, I'm definitely not motivated to spend my time on it.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> This is like having a conversation with an anti-vaxxer who rejects science absolutely.
> 
> Like, okay, you want to do that. Good for you. But you're not going to get far trying to talk about things you know next-to-nothing about.
> 
> ...


Um... it wasn't evidence in quotation marks. Did you really not realize that?

Okay, which is it? Either I didn't read it, or I'm parroting it. You can't have it both ways. And for the record, I'm not parroting anything. I'm stating my own opinion. I didn't need to read anything to know what that is. I want what is mine. So do most other people.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I'm not dismissing anything. Like I said, I'm open to hearing arguments for shorter copyright terms, but if after reading all those 700+ pages you can't articulate it persuasively, or answer basic questions about the data set, I'm definitely not motivated to spend my time on it.


I did answer?

I cut sections of it out that talked about optimal copyright length. I also cut sections showing the commercial lifespan of books.

I also directly answered you about long series. What more do you want? There's only so far I can go if you won't read even a wikipedia article.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Um... it wasn't evidence in quotation marks. Did you really not realize that?
> 
> Okay, which is it? Either I didn't read it, or I'm parroting it. You can't have it both ways. And for the record, I'm not parroting anything. I'm stating my own opinion. I didn't need to read anything to know what that is. I want what is mine. So do most other people.


It was doing this: "evidence".

But whatever. 

And if you don't read, how do you know where your opinion came from? You really think propaganda works on everyone else but not you?

I'm glad people like you aren't in control of patent law regarding medicines.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

........ said:


> This is like having a conversation with an anti-vaxxer who rejects science absolutely.
> 
> Like, okay, you want to do that. Good for you. But you're not going to get far trying to talk about things you know next-to-nothing about.
> 
> ...


People ain't buying your argument, no matter what. They don't like it, they don't agree with it. Seems pretty universal. Why keep beating a dead horse?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crayola said:


> People ain't buying your argument, no matter what. They don't like it, they don't agree with it. Seems pretty universal. Why keep beating a dead horse?


Does this comment add something to the discussion? Plenty of other threads if you don't want to read this one. 

Also, "seems pretty universal"... yeah, just because an noisy uninformed few who won't even read a wikipedia article want to keep going doesn't mean it's universal.

Talk the topic or play somewhere else I think.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I did answer?
> 
> I cut sections of it out that talked about optimal copyright length. I also cut sections showing the commercial lifespan of books.
> 
> I also directly answered you about long series. What more do you want? There's only so far I can go if you won't read even a wikipedia article.


You cut out sections that keep hammering what you want people to agree with, but nothing that will convince people to change their minds. "Here, this is what these researchers think." Okay, but we don't agree with it. We don't want it. Quoting the same stuff over and over isn't going to make us agree with you.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

........ said:


> Does this comment add something to the discussion? Plenty of other threads if you don't want to read this one.
> 
> Also, "seems pretty universal"... yeah, just because an noisy uninformed few who won't even read a wikipedia article want to keep going doesn't mean it's universal.
> 
> Talk the topic or play somewhere else I think.


I'll play where I like, not much you can do about it. So... Deal with it. There. I added to the conversation... and wikipedia as a source? Please.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crayola said:


> I'll play where I like, not much you can do about it. So... Deal with it. There. I added to the conversation... and wikipedia as a source? Please.


Wikipedia covers the topic, is heavily referenced.

You don't like it? Cool, I posted a 700+ page report, and multiple source papers. Maybe go read them if you want to contribute.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> You cut out sections that keep hammering what you want people to agree with, but nothing that will convince people to change their minds. "Here, this is what these researchers think." Okay, but we don't agree with it. We don't want it. Quoting the same stuff over and over isn't going to make us agree with you.


You keep saying "we" like you're part of some large group. Lol. 

You're up over 5400 posts on this site but don't have time to read? Not even a little? 

Where is your referenced credible evidence by the way?


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

........ said:


> Wikipedia covers the topic, is heavily referenced.
> 
> You don't like it? Cool, I posted a 700+ page report, and multiple source papers. Maybe go read them if you want to contribute.


I'm contributing right now. I'm telling you what's obvious to everyone else but you. You have an opinion. So does your 700 page wikipedia report thingy. 

Nobody else agrees. 

You aren't changing anybodies opinion, winning over their hearts and minds... you are not making friends and influencing people. Just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

Anyway, it's getting late and I have Pinky and the Brain type of stuff to do, before I go to bed. Have fun ya'll.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> You cut out sections that keep hammering what you want people to agree with, but nothing that will convince people to change their minds. "Here, this is what these researchers think." Okay, but we don't agree with it. We don't want it. Quoting the same stuff over and over isn't going to make us agree with you.


You aren't making any money ePublishing so why does this matter so much to you? Why defend these millionaires when it's not you and won't be?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crayola said:


> I'm contributing right now. I'm telling you what's obvious to everyone else but you. You have an opinion. So does your 700 page wikipedia report thingy.
> 
> Nobody else agrees.
> 
> You aren't changing anybodies opinion, winning over their hearts and minds... you are not making friends and influencing people. Just pointing out the obvious.


I didn't link a 700 page report from wikipedia. I linked multiple source papers plus a long report from a Government body into IP. 

Which you'd know if you took a moment to look at it.

It astounds me that people refuse to read and then decide to wade into a discussion anyway.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> It was doing this: "evidence".
> 
> But whatever.
> 
> ...


No, it was not doing that. It was me, separating out something I was saying as a piece of dialogue. Speech, not evidence. Which goes in quotation marks.

Um... My opinion came from how I feel about the subject. I don't need someone else to tell me that I want to keep what's mine. It's mine, and I want it. That's one of the most universal and basic feelings in the world. Babies want what's theirs, they don't need someone to tell them. It's pretty simple.

I agree with the length of patents regarding medicines. If anything, I'd prefer they be a little shorter, but I get why they're not. And I am so very glad that you're not in control of the length of copyright.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> You keep saying "we" like you're part of some large group. Lol.
> 
> You're up over 5400 posts on this site but don't have time to read? Not even a little?
> 
> Where is your referenced credible evidence by the way?


I am part of some large group. A group of the many thousands and thousands of authors who, like me, want to keep their copyright.

I didn't say I have no time to read. I said I have better things to do than read a 766-page report just because you think I should. I read what I want, not what you want me to.

How many times do I have to say, I don't have any evidence. I don't need evidence. I have my opinion. Which is that I want what is mine and I'm not down with it being taken from me. Do you really not understand that?


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

........ said:


> I did answer?
> 
> I cut sections of it out that talked about optimal copyright length. I also cut sections showing the commercial lifespan of books.
> 
> I also directly answered you about long series. What more do you want? There's only so far I can go if you won't read even a wikipedia article.


I asked: When? The data set includes data from when to when? And does it include recent data/independent publishers or just trad? Even if it does include recent data, has independent publishing been around long enough to draw conclusions that take us into account?

Someone that comes to mind is Amanda M. Lee. She's still writing a series she began in 2012. There's 17 full length books in that series with more on the way. She might stop, but I could totally see her writing the series at the 20 year mark, and I don't assume that the series wouldn't be picking up new readers who devour the whole thing. That's what happened with me and Beaton, I discovered the series a few years ago and rocketed through. That's money. When the issue has a face, a name you might recognize, do you still default to she's made her money, she's had her time, who cares? You might, but can you at least understand why some of us might pause at that?

It's easy to talk big picture, and I don't even mind it, I just like to get in the weeds with the nuances. And I really am down to discuss and hear your thoughts, but I get the distinct impression you don't want a discussion. It seems like you're more interested in appointing yourself arbiter of who's qualified to have an opinion and dismissing people who disagree because they don't have time or interest in reading your sources.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> I asked: When? The data set includes data from when to when? And does it include recent data/independent publishers or just trad? Even if it does include recent data, has independent publishing been around long enough to draw conclusions that take us into account?
> 
> Someone that comes to mind is Amanda M. Lee. She's still writing a series she began in 2012. There's 17 full length books in that series with more on the way. She might stop, but I could totally see her writing the series at the 20 year mark, and I don't assume that the series wouldn't be picking up new readers who devour the whole thing. That's what happened with me and Beaton, I discovered the series a few years ago and rocketed through. That's money. When the issue has a face, a name you might recognize, do you still default to she's made her money, she's had her time, who cares? You might, but can you at least understand why some of us might pause at that?
> 
> It's easy to talk big picture, and I don't even mind it, I just like to get in the weeds with the nuances. And I really am down to discuss and hear your thoughts, but I get the distinct impression you don't want a discussion. It seems like you're more interested in appointing yourself arbiter of who's qualified to have an opinion and dismissing people who disagree because they don't have time or interest in reading your sources.


Look, I'm sorry, I'm willing to talk a little but I'm not doing your homework for you. I linked the report and the studies. It's faster for you to look at them than to write back to me asking for me to do it for you.

I'm happy to discuss but you gotta put in just a little effort to understand the ground.

And as for sources - this is what evidence is. This is how facts work. This isn't a fact-free conversations. We're not anti-vaxxers. I can't be the only one here who cares about actual facts like 95% of earnings are made in the first five years of a book's life.

If we can't even share common facts because someone won't read for ten minutes then there's not much point talking.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I am part of some large group. A group of the many thousands and thousands of authors who, like me, want to keep their copyright.
> 
> I didn't say I have no time to read. I said I have better things to do than read a 766-page report just because you think I should. I read what I want, not what you want me to.
> 
> How many times do I have to say, I don't have any evidence. I don't need evidence. I have my opinion. Which is that I want what is mine and I'm not down with it being taken from me. Do you really not understand that?


Cool, you don't need evidence. Excellent comment. thanks


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Look, I'm sorry, I'm willing to talk a little but I'm not doing your homework for you. I linked the report and the studies. It's faster for you to look at them than to write back to me asking for me to do it for you.
> 
> I'm happy to discuss but you gotta put in just a little effort to understand the ground.
> 
> ...


This is an axe that you want to grind. You don't get to assign homework.

No, but you seem to be the only one who thinks that someone should come along and take all of our copyrights away from us. You say you're not surprised that people feel this way, and you say that if we won't do what you want there's no point in talking, so why do you continue beating a dead horse?


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

It's a sign of a weak af argument that you keep going for Shayne's neck. If you're so sure you're right, why are you so bothered? I changed my mind, I'm good not discussing copyright terms with you being condescended to.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> This is an axe that you want to grind. You don't get to assign homework.
> 
> No, but you seem to be the only one who thinks that someone should come along and take all of our copyrights away from us. You say you're not surprised that people feel this way, and you say that if we won't do what you want there's no point in talking, so why do you continue beating a dead horse?


Excellent comment. thanks


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Cool, you don't need evidence. Excellent comment. thanks


No, I don't need evidence to tell me what I think, because no amount of evidence in the world is going to trump my own self-interest in this particular case.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> It's a sign of a weak af argument that you keep going for Shayne's neck. If you're so sure you're right, why are you so bothered? I changed my mind, I'm good not discussing copyright terms with you being condescended to.


You don't want to talk then cool but I'm free to discuss the topic. Plenty of other threads for you to visit. thanks


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> No, I don't need evidence to tell me what I think, because no amount of evidence in the world is going to trump my own self-interest in this particular case.


Excellent comment. Thanks.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> You don't want to talk then cool but I'm free to discuss the topic. Plenty of other threads for you to visit. thanks


It's not up to you to tell other people they can't post in this thread or any other. It's not even your thread.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

........ said:


> Excellent comment. Thanks.


Always trying to get in the last word. It's amusing. 

PS- Pinky and the Brain stuff finished.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> It's not up to you to tell other people they can't post in this thread or any other. It's not even your thread.


k


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crayola said:


> Always trying to get in the last word. It's amusing.
> 
> PS- Pinky and the Brain stuff finished.


k


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Bite the Dusty said:


> It's a sign of a weak af argument that you keep going for Shayne's neck. If you're so sure you're right, why are you so bothered? I changed my mind, I'm good not discussing copyright terms with you being condescended to.


I'm not good with being condescended to, either, but I'm even less good with being told to post elsewhere by someone who isn't in charge.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

Crayola said:


> Always trying to get in the last word. It's amusing.
> 
> PS- Pinky and the Brain stuff finished.





........ said:


> k


hahahaha


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crayola said:


> hahahaha


I think Jean-Paul Sartre said it best:

*“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”*

― Jean-Paul Sartre

Of course this isn't saying you're anti-semites but clearly by the way this thread has gone I guess we're in the part where you abruptly fall silent after being pressed too closely and now are loftily indicating the time for argument is past.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

........ said:


> Copyright doesn't only benefit Disney and I can't believe I have to say this.
> 
> I'm sorry but I feel like you're being disingenuous on this point. I have to answer to a strawman now?
> 
> ...


I don't need to work anything out. The present system is fair and good. 

I personally know musicians who presently benefit from streaming (and sales) of songs they released over 20 years ago. These musicians are not mega-corporations. They are the little guy. And they appreciate the fact they can still get a check for what they created in 1991 or 1998 or 2000. 

You'd like to deny them that right. 

You'd rather that a megacorporation like Disney or Universal use their music and make all the money off it, at their expense. And that's somehow caring about the little guy.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I think Jean-Paul Sartre said it best:
> 
> *“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”*
> 
> ...


Oh no. I was just waiting for you to come back. But really, the horse is long since dead. No one here seems likely to change their mind in either direction, so is there really any point in continuing?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Oh no. I was just waiting for you to come back. But really, the horse is long since dead. No one here seems likely to change their mind in either direction, so is there really any point in continuing?


Hey, I have a cool idea - you just ignore me and go off to bother someone else. 

Writing back to literally every post, even when they weren't conversations with you? Now I know why you have more than 5400 posts on here. 

Just leave me alone.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Hey, I have a cool idea - you just ignore me and go off to bother someone else.
> 
> Writing back to literally every post, even when they weren't conversations with you? Now I know why you have more than 5400 posts on here.
> 
> Just leave me alone.


Why don't you leave me alone. I'm not the only one who can go and post in another thread.


----------



## Midnight Rain (Oct 8, 2020)

I cannot believe that this thread has devolved into comparisons to flat earthers and anti-semites. WTH?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Why don't you leave me alone. I'm not the only one who can go and post in another thread.


I've asked you to stop repeatedly writing to me. There's nothing more to discuss. Please stop. When I write to someone else, please feel free to ignore that and not jump on every post. Leave me alone, please.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> I've asked you to stop repeatedly writing to me. There's nothing more to discuss. Please stop. When I write to someone else, please feel free to ignore that and not jump on every post. Leave me alone, please.


This is a discussion board. If I have something to say, I'll say it. But you can totally feel free to ignore what I say. And if you don't want to see what I say, please feel free to put me on mute.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> This is a discussion board. If I have something to say, I'll say it. But you can totally feel free to ignore what I say. And if you don't want to see what I say, please feel free to put me on mute.


"I won't stop being abusive and the only way to stop it is to block me".

Please just stop


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> "I won't stop being abusive and the only way to stop it is to block me".
> 
> Please just stop


Feel free to lead by example. Just, you know, don't reply to this comment, and I'll never say anything to you again.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Feel free to lead by example. Just, you know, don't reply to this comment, and I'll never say anything to you again.


Please stop. You're post-stalking - writing back with harrassment no matter who I'm talking to. Please stop now.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

........ said:


> Please stop. You're post-stalking - writing back with harrassment no matter who I'm talking to. Please stop now.


You keep replying to me. I said in my post above this one, if you don't reply to me any more, I won't ever say another word to you again. And you immediately replied to me. Just don't speak to me again, and I will not speak to you. Walk away.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

It would benefit 99.9% of people if all media was totally free. It's only the .1% creators who would suffer. That's not a very good argument.

It gets a little more complicated when you look at big, expensive, job-creating industries like film and TV, of course. But even if we only look at cheaper mediums, like books, it would benefit most people if all books were free. That doesn't mean they should be free.

Economics is complicated, with a lot of unintended consequences. It's also theoretical. Economists can't say what will happen, only what has happened in the past. (This is true of all science, technically speaking, but more so with "soft sciences" like economics).


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

What an insane diatribe.

Anti-Vaxxers
Flat-Earthers
Anti-Semites
Indie Authors wanting to retain their rights and profit from their hard work.

Yeah, that tracks. Really, one of these things is not like the others and anyone who can't see that isn't well.



Bite the Dusty said:


> And I really am down to discuss and hear your thoughts, but I get the distinct impression you don't want a discussion. *It seems like you're more interested in appointing yourself arbiter of who's qualified to have an opinion* and dismissing people who disagree because they don't have time or interest in reading your sources.


You hit the nail right on the head.


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

What I specifically know to be a fact (being of the age to know this) is that an author who is making any money at all, be it through self-publishing or trade, deserves every blessed cent coming to her and her heirs and _their_ heirs. In fact, given the current state of the economy for middle-income earners, I think 70 years after death is too short. In my area, housing is now so astronomical that my adult children will never be able to afford to buy into the market. The only equity they'll have is my copyright. All they'll have to leave _their_ children is my copyright. Would this even be a discussion if we were talking about the legacy fortunes that are passed down from one generation to the next? All that wealth tied up in one family because somebody's great-great-great granddaddy invented baby food or frozen TV dinners? Our IP is our capital. We went without so we could create stories. Our kids went without so we could create stories. It belongs to us. If you want your own IP, invent it. 

Whoever said a book makes the bulk of its money in its first five years is just being ridiculous. By that reasoning Dan Brown's publishers could've kissed his backlist goodbye before Da Vinci Code hit the shelves. His backlist became valuable_ after_ he produced a hit. The same backlist his publisher invested in with little return until then.

So that's a hard no from me on "books that are 30 years old should be in the public domain."


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

doolittle03 said:


> What I specifically know to be a fact (being of the age to know this) is that an author who is making any money at all, be it through self-publishing or trade, deserves every blessed cent coming to her and her heirs and _their_ heirs. In fact, given the current state of the economy for middle-income earners, I think 70 years after death is too short. In my area, housing is now so astronomical that my adult children will never be able to afford to buy into the market. The only equity they'll have is my copyright. All they'll have to leave _their_ children is my copyright. Would this even be a discussion if we were talking about the legacy fortunes that are passed down from one generation to the next? All that wealth tied up in one family because somebody's great-great-great granddaddy invented baby food or frozen TV dinners? Our IP is our capital. We went without so we could create stories. Our kids went without so we could create stories. It belongs to us. If you want your own IP, invent it.
> 
> Whoever said a book makes the bulk of its money in its first five years is just being ridiculous. By that reasoning Dan Brown's publishers could've kissed his backlist goodbye before Da Vinci Code hit the shelves. His backlist became valuable_ after_ he produced a hit. The same backlist his publisher invested in with little return until then.
> 
> So that's a hard no from me on "books that are 30 years old should be in the public domain."


Using the current price of Canadian housing as a reason to not change copyright term lengths doesn't really track.

When I say a book makes the bulk of its money in the first five years - that's a fact. Studied by credible researchers. I've linked papers. You can find more. It's not conjecture but actual fact. 

It also does not mean the strawman you put up that now copyright is five years. No. 

When we decide how long copyright should be, how should we do it? The start place is to ask people who it affects. So we ask authors and musicians and Disney and everyone else with a stake. This is what those studies do. They gather all the reasons, including some great-great-grandchildren I'll never meet should be able to earn money from my copyright.

But they don't stop there. We don't just go on what pharma companies what for patent law. They want infinite. We don't worry too much about what Disney wants. 

So we turn to economics and study the facts. We find that most books are out of print in five years. We find that most eBooks, although still available, don't make money after five years. We find most books that do make money, make it within five years. 

We get credible researchers with complicated equations that are used all the time to determine value to work on the problem. They study the area and produce well-researched credible papers.

This happens all the time by the way. If you ever wondered why you can own land but the mineral rights can be exploited by someone else, this is one of the reasons. The costs and benefits to individuals vs private vs society. 

This is how we end up with patent law sitting at twenty years. Long enough to encourage innovation, short enough to greatly benefit the world when it expires.

There is this thing called deadweight loss. It's essentially the cost of that IP not going into the public domain. This is actually measured and quantified. If you look at some of the papers and links I posted you'll find stuff like the millions of books missing from publication because they are still in copyright, orphaned but unable to be put into the public domain. These are books that we now only have the paper copies of - and we better hope forty years from now someone still has a copy to put in the public domain.

Another thing we look at is the value of work over time. Essentially this is the idea that a dollar today is more incentivizing and more useful to you than a dollar thirty years from now. All the studies in this area show that extended copyright does not encourage new creation at all. In fact, it just incurs deadweight loss and harm to consumers in general.

So we gather all this, and it's backed by credible researchers and evidence and it produces things like the massive report I linked. This isn't the only report by the way - many countries have investigated copyright terms, working out how long they should be. 

And after all that, the study, the years of effort to produce such things, someone just says "it's mine, I don't care about studies, it's mine!"

Now if someone wants to abandon the scientific method and evidence and even reading to understand the basic concepts, they can and will. But we don't really end up listening to such people. 

We should choose to listen to credible experts. Even when we have feelings about things being a certain way, we should listen to credible experts.

Many things in life are compromise between competing parties. You can't build your house to a certain height because you have neighbors. They can't do certain things. If the Government decides your child can't attend school without vaccinations then that's what happens. 

On copyright, the evidence is overwhelming and clear: shorter terms provide the maximal benefit. The creators (us) still get many years to make money. We're incentivized to create. We are incentivized to exploit our work (like pushing it into graphic novels or audio etc before the term is up). Then it goes public domain and the world receives the common good. 

Because this is really what it is about. We want cool things. We want artists to keep making cool things. We want inventions and stories and songs and movies and we want sequels and reworkings and new things built on old things and yes, I want a hundred books with orcs in them thanks. 

So we make copyright law to enable all of this. Sadly, the existing law has been horribly distorted by megacorporations that will likely outlive us all. Bad law from the US then got pushed into trade agreements and it's great news some of these failed because it results in more horrible things.

We don't do only what music execs think we should do. Otherwise streaming wouldn't exist. We don't ask book publishers to make the rules otherwise libraries wouldn't exist. We don't ask Disney to make the rules... but unfortunately they were allowed to.

There is no harm to you and to most authors by a 20-year copyright term. There are far greater riches to be had by making sure things enter the public domain. 

I mean, have a look at this list of books published in 2000. Many are movies, most of the authors are millionaires for the really big ones and once you get past about fifty or so it's full of books I've never heard of. 

Imagine all this entering the public domain this year. The movies, the rewrites, the sequels, the new things that would exist! The mass publication of these titles. They'd be free for everyone. 

The outpouring of creativity would be amazing. The good to the world immense.


----------



## Clay (Apr 17, 2020)

........ said:


> Please stop. You're post-stalking - writing back with harrassment no matter who I'm talking to. Please stop now.


Shayne is an argumentative COVER ARTIST who gets into big fights every couple weeks with a different person. It was pointed out a while back by another poster how it reflects poorly on Shayne's business to constantly get into fights on the forums, but I believe Shayne already knows this, which is why she has those short stories listed in her sig (and put a pen-name on them) and removed her real business website which she carried in her sig for years.

Why are you getting into a heated argument with a cover artist who like to argue and ignoring the more reasonable posts written by authors who make a living from their books?


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Clay said:


> Shayne is an argumentative COVER ARTIST who gets into big fights every couple weeks with a different person. It was pointed out a while back by another poster how it reflects poorly on Shayne's business to constantly get into fights on the forums, but I believe Shayne already knows this, which is why she has those short stories listed in her sig (and put a pen-name on them) and removed her real business website which she carried in her sig for years.
> 
> Why are you getting into a heated argument with a cover artist who like to argue and ignoring the more reasonable posts written by authors who make a living from their books?


I didn't know this. Thanks for telling me.

I didn't want to get into it with them really. They started doing that thing where no matter who I was talking with they'd write back with their shouty answer. And doing that multiquote parsing thing to destroy context. Just over and over. Like me writing back to you now would get them stomping back again on anything they could say. 

I asked them to stop but they refused. I'd have to block them because they wouldn't stop. Which was nuts. 

Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Hopefully the longer post with more info in it sparks some more productive discussion.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

........ said:


> I didn't know this. Thanks for telling me.
> 
> I didn't want to get into it with them really. They started doing that thing where no matter who I was talking with they'd write back with their shouty answer. And doing that multiquote parsing thing to destroy context. Just over and over. Like me writing back to you now would get them stomping back again on anything they could say.
> 
> ...


or perhaps, authors who write books, and make their living at it, disagree with you... and you assign homework... that nobody cares about or wants to read... because they don't agree with your opinions n stuff.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Clay said:


> Shayne is an argumentative COVER ARTIST who gets into big fights every couple weeks with a different person. It was pointed out a while back by another poster how it reflects poorly on Shayne's business to constantly get into fights on the forums, but I believe Shayne already knows this, which is why she has those short stories listed in her sig (and put a pen-name on them) and removed her real business website which she carried in her sig for years.
> 
> Why are you getting into a heated argument with a cover artist who like to argue and ignoring the more reasonable posts written by authors who make a living from their books?


I didn't remove the banner to my website. It disappeared when the forum changed over to the new software and I couldn't be bothered to put it back.

And I'm also an author, but thanks for the speculation.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crayola said:


> or perhaps, authors who write books, and make their living at it, disagree with you... and you assign homework... that nobody cares about or wants to read... because they don't agree with your opinions n stuff.


Kinda funny (and sad) how coming with well-referenced multiple sources from credible researchers is now "assigning homework"...


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

I don't need to read your cherry picked reference materials to change my personal opinions.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

........ said:


> If you look at some of the papers and links I posted you'll find stuff like the millions of books missing from publication because they are still in copyright, orphaned but unable to be put into the public domain. These are books that we now only have the paper copies of - and we better hope forty years from now someone still has a copy to put in the public domain.


Why do these "orphans" matter? What makes these copyrighted works any more valuable to readers in the here and now than something written five minutes ago?



> We're incentivized to create. We are incentivized to exploit our work (like pushing it into graphic novels or audio etc before the term is up). Then it goes public domain and the world receives the common good.


What difference does it make to 'the world' whether a given author's characters, world, etc are in the public domain or remain protected under copyright?

Put another way: what 'common good' is achieved by Harry Potter becoming public domain?



> Because this is really what it is about. We want cool things. We want artists to keep making cool things. We want inventions and stories and songs and movies and we want sequels and reworkings and new things built on old things and yes, I want a hundred books with orcs in them thanks.


We can do that, we can keep pumping out cool things, new inventions, new stories. Human creativity is endless. Even if you had infinite copyright of the fictional characters and worlds any individual creates, human creativity would not stop.

Given that fact, who cares if Stephanie Meyer and her descendants get paid forever for Twilight? As a society we can move on and create other things.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Corvid said:


> Why do these "orphans" matter? What makes these copyrighted works any more valuable to readers in the here and now than something written five minutes ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This has been the head scratcher to me all along. I did see the original Twitter post on another platform and wondered the same thing. Is everyone really dying to read fanfiction? So much so that the world suffers a loss because people can’t sell fanfiction? (They can still publish it for free.) Beyond the obvious hell, no, as far as giving up your copyright—why?? Mystery to me. 

If something isn’t available, readers will read other things, no? All those readers apparently dying to dive into what would basically be pale, ghostwritten versions of a beloved author’s work will have to instead seek out novel creations. I thought the big worry was AI writing books. Now people want to make books MORE derivative? Huh?

In any case, like topics such as, “How Amazon should handle reviews,” this falls for me into the category of, “I have no power to influence this. Stop procrastinating and write your book.” Because that is how I actually do earn my family’s living. Seeing as I own all my copyrights.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Corvid said:


> Why do these "orphans" matter? What makes these copyrighted works any more valuable to readers in the here and now than something written five minutes ago?


Orphan works are important for a few reasons. Here's some of the material from the report I linked:

The existence of orphan works has become a greater issue as libraries and archives have sought to make their collections available online. The Australian National Film and Sound Archive estimated as much as 20 per cent of its collection is orphaned or abandoned and highlighted examples of projects that have been shelved, and opportunities to celebrate Australia’s heritage foregone, due to the time and expense of identifying the relevant rights holders. 

In the case of orphan works, flexible exceptions that improve access are conservatively estimated to generate new economic activity worth between $10 million and $20 million per year. 

depending on the collection, orphan works make up anywhere between 10 and 70 per cent of their holdings (ADA, sub. 10. The National Film and Sound Archive (2010) estimated that around 20 per cent of its national audiovisual collection is orphaned or abandoned. T 

In the case of unpublished works, which remain in copyright in perpetuity, copyright owners must be identified and located potentially hundreds of years after the work was created. In a survey conducted in 2015, 14 universities (covering 20 collections), reported that their collections included over 12.9 km of unpublished works, or approximately 103 904 000 pages 

Excessively long copyright protection increases the likelihood works will become commercially unavailable or orphaned (where rights holders can no longer be identified). 

For example, the British Library has estimated 40 per cent of all copyright material is orphaned, and that it holds around a million hours of broadcasts in its archives that cannot be used because no one knows who holds the rights (Dawes 2010; Menand 2014). 

That a vast existing cultural patrimony, already paid for and amortized, sits locked behind legal walls, hostage to outmoded notions of property, when at the flick of a switch it could belong to all humanity — that is little short of grotesque. (Baldwin 2014, p. 409)

--- This is just a little on why fixing the situation with orphan works is important.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Corvid said:


> What difference does it make to 'the world' whether a given author's characters, world, etc are in the public domain or remain protected under copyright?
> 
> Put another way: what 'common good' is achieved by Harry Potter becoming public domain?


This is detailed in the report I linked and other studies. Just fixing orphan works just for Australia is like $10-20 million per year of extra economic activity. 

You can find plenty of studies (with lots of calculations) on the value of works entering the public domain.

Essentially you get a very large return as people create new things based on the material entering the public domain. So, let's take Tolkien for example. Right now, rights locked up. Public domain, you can make that Tolkien TV show without having to bow and scrape to the heirs. You can make it the way you want. So Netflix does. Or someone writes a different version that is amazing. Someone makes a graphic novel from the view of the Orcs. 

All these things, apart from producing jobs, money, economic activity, make more cool things. 

The common good is actually quantified in some of the papers. Even conservatively it's worth billions for the public domain to be enriched. 

If you think someone should be able to make Wicked without permission from some estate or money-hungry great-grandchild then support shorter copyright terms. If you think someone should be able to make a trans black Sherlock, support shorter copyright. 

If you think a rework of Lord of the Rings should exist in the world even if you won't read it - support shorter copyright terms.

The sums are in the papers (and around the place). There's no harm to authors et al. Almost all the money that will ever be made, is made quickly. The benefit from freedom is quite immense, even if you were only looking at the money to be made.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

........ said:


> This is detailed in the report I linked and other studies. Just fixing orphan works just for Australia is like $10-20 million per year of extra economic activity.
> 
> You can find plenty of studies (with lots of calculations) on the value of works entering the public domain.
> 
> ...


I don’t think any of the above works should exist in the world, not when the originals are under copyright. And I fail to see the harm to society that they don’t. Really—so what?

ETA: What I’m excited by? New work. What is of benefit to the world? New work. An exciting new vision or perspective.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I don’t think any of the above works should exist in the world, not when the originals are under copyright. And I fail to see the harm to society that they don’t. Really—so what?
> 
> ETA: What I’m excited by? New work. What is of benefit to the world? New work. An exciting new vision or perspective.


The harm to society is calculated in the papers. They put monetary figures to it. Plus they talk about all the problems of long copyright, such as works become orphan works, which is an immense problem. 

So it fixes at least those two problems very quickly. More money being made globally, more cool things that get to exist that currently don't, no lawsuits from angry heirs who want money, and fewer works becoming orphans.

Personally I want access to millions of hours of footage held in the UK. And I'd like access to all the unpublished diaries sitting in libraries. Everyone should have access to these things.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

........ said:


> In the case of unpublished works, which remain in copyright in perpetuity, copyright owners must be identified and located potentially hundreds of years after the work was created. In a survey conducted in 2015, 14 universities (covering 20 collections), reported that their collections included over 12.9 km of unpublished works, or approximately 103 904 000 pages


Why does this matter? Why should fiction authors care about this?



> Excessively long copyright protection increases the likelihood works will become commercially unavailable or orphaned (where rights holders can no longer be identified).


Why is this a problem?



> For example, the British Library has estimated 40 per cent of all copyright material is orphaned, and that it holds around a million hours of broadcasts in its archives that cannot be used because no one knows who holds the rights (Dawes 2010; Menand 2014).


And, the KDPs of the world go brrrrrrrrrrrrr... Seriously, a million writers are on a million laptops writing next week's, next month's, next year's novels as we speak. They keep doing it, day in, day out. Everything can't exist forever. It's the inevitable churn that comes from existing.



> That a vast existing cultural patrimony, already paid for and amortized, sits locked behind legal walls, hostage to outmoded notions of property, when at the flick of a switch it could belong to all humanity — that is little short of grotesque. (Baldwin 2014, p. 409)


It can belong to humanity, so long as the creator or their estate gets paid. If there's not enough financial incentive within a given jurisdiction to figure out a way to get the creation out into the world, while also ensuring payment to the creator or their descendants, then perhaps the world is better off without. There's another amazing work of fiction being written every minute of every day. We are not deprived.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Shayne has been posting here for years and years and their signature has been the same this whole time. The only writing they do is on the forum.

Usedtoposthere has been using that username for years...while continuing to post. Okay...


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Corvid said:


> Why does this matter? Why should fiction authors care about this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't you understand why orphan works are a problem we need to fix?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

......~...... said:


> Shayne has been posting here for years and years and their signature has been the same this whole time. The only writing they do is on the forum.
> 
> Usedtoposthere has been using that username for years...while continuing to post. Okay...


What possible reason could I have to add more to my signature? So anonymous randos can come along and rank-shame my work and give me drive-by one-star reviews? That sounds like a great incentive.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

........ said:


> Don't you understand why orphan works are a problem


I am genuinely asking you: Why are 'orphan works' a problem?



> we need to fix?


Who's "we"?


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

........ said:


> When I say a book makes the bulk of its money in the first five years - that's a fact. Studied by credible researchers. I've linked papers. You can find more. It's not conjecture but actual fact.


"A book" is meaningless. _My_ book, that I wrote 5 years ago and still sells every month, is just as important now as it was five years ago, because it is part of my back library, which still sells.

What some 'credible researcher' thinks about it is immaterial. I don't see these researchers ponying up the bucks to pay my rent. And just because "a book" maxes its earnings in five years doesn't make it any less valuable a commodity to its creator. Some of my older books probably have made as much in revenue as newer works. I would lay money down I'm not the only author here who has that experience with their older works.


----------



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

Having a sizable backlist can also add legitimacy to an indie author in the eyes of a potential consumer; regardless how old a lot of those titles are, and whether or not anyone's actually read them. Perception of value.

Meaning, even a stack of decades old unread works currently populating your backlist can provide monetary value to your author business in the here and now.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Corvid said:


> I am genuinely asking you: Why are 'orphan works' a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "we"?


I've linked from quite a large report. Perhaps go have a read, search for "orphan". Or you can google it now.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> "A book" is meaningless. _My_ book, that I wrote 5 years ago and still sells every month, is just as important now as it was five years ago, because it is part of my back library, which still sells.
> 
> What some 'credible researcher' thinks about it is immaterial. I don't see these researchers ponying up the bucks to pay my rent. And just because "a book" maxes its earnings in five years doesn't make it any less valuable a commodity to its creator. Some of my older books probably have made as much in revenue as newer works. I would lay money down I'm not the only author here who has that experience with their older works.


I like how it's "credible researcher"... like that swipes at them and discredits them. All those years of study, the degrees, the money various Governments have put into studying this question and all it takes is someone on a forum who uses quotation marks...

The point of the research is to show that in fact the vast majority of books don't earn anything more past about five years. Even for those earning something, it's a trickle.

And at that point, as per the agreement we've struck balancing the needs of creators and society, we put those things into the public domain.

Your arguments can equally apply to medicine or technology. But we don't care how much more money there is to be extracted. We put them into the public domain. 

It's not just one "credible researcher" by the way. It's many. Multiple papers and researchers, and this issue has been examined all over the world. Most modern democracies have positions on copyright and IP and thus have research papers and evidence around them.

To pretend it's some small thing isn't reality. 

I make money too from old books. I own a lot of IP. It will be no stretch to say that within the next twenty years I'll add easily another sixty titles and likely far more. I have no doubt that some will make money for long periods of time. 

But the truth is that most money is made early. 

Which people would know if they only read the linked material rather than arguing with no facts behind them.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

You're the one holding those researchers out as if they know everything there is to know about how you, or I, personally conduct our own publishing business. 

You said you have a lot of older IP. When that first book hits year 21, are you going to give it up?


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> What possible reason could I have to add more to my signature? So anonymous randos can come along and rank-shame my work and give me drive-by one-star reviews? That sounds like a great incentive.


Some of us have figured out how to avoid that from happening. We don’t promote our work when we post. If you’re really worried, you can try that.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> You're the one holding those researchers out as if they know everything there is to know about how you, or I, personally conduct our own publishing business.
> 
> You said you have a lot of older IP. When that first book hits year 21, are you going to give it up?


I already distribute my work for free on torrent sites.

But yes, at the twenty year mark I'll put my work into the public domain.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShaneCarrow said:


> If I have to sit here looking at the worst opinions in the world and getting ridiculously mad about them, so do the rest of you.


Who is forcing you to read these tweets?

Yeah, it’s a terrible idea. That’s a no-brainer. Twitter is full of them. The question is why are you seeking them out and making yourself mad for no reason?


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

........ said:


> But yes, at the twenty year mark I'll put my work into the public domain.


If you‘re willing to do that then your work must not be worth much.

Those of us that actually make money from our writing would like to continue to do so for as long as possible.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

......~...... said:


> Some of us have figured out how to avoid that from happening. We don’t promote our work when we post. If you’re really worried, you can try that.


I'm not worried about it. But I have no intention of giving anonymous cowards more targets to drop their one-stars on, either.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I'm not worried about it. But I have no intention of giving anonymous cowards more targets to drop their one-stars on, either.


From my experience, it’s not the “anonymous cowards” anyone should be worrying about.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

......~...... said:


> From my experience, it’s not the “anonymous cowards” anyone should be worrying about.


Well it certainly wasn't someone who actually goes by their own name here that dropped those one-stars on my and other people's books.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

......~...... said:


> If you‘re willing to do that then your work must not be worth much.
> 
> Those of us that actually make money from our writing would like to continue to do so for as long as possible.


About $100K a year at the moment. By the twenty year mark I'll be retired so why not give it away?


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

cest la vie said:


> What an insane diatribe.
> 
> Anti-Vaxxers
> Flat-Earthers
> ...


Lol thank you for confirming that my decision to mute our friend the ellipsis was the right one.



Usedtoposthere said:


> This has been the head scratcher to me all along. I did see the original Twitter post on another platform and wondered the same thing. Is everyone really dying to read fanfiction? So much so that the world suffers a loss because people can’t sell fanfiction? (They can still publish it for free.) Beyond the obvious hell, no, as far as giving up your copyright—why?? Mystery to me.
> 
> If something isn’t available, readers will read other things, no? All those readers apparently dying to dive into what would basically be pale, ghostwritten versions of a beloved author’s work will have to instead seek out novel creations. I thought the big worry was AI writing books. Now people want to make books MORE derivative? Huh?


100%. I don't think it's a coincidence it started as a flippant idea from a policy wonk and was then really taken up by the tech bro crowd. This is from a negative review of Armada (the sequel to the book Ready Player One) which I think reflects quite deeply on an aspect of contemporary pop culture and which I think about a lot:

_Our fantasies can tell us a great deal about ourselves, and the fact that Cline’s work has often been trumpeted as the ultimate “nerdgasm” or some sort of apotheosis of nerd culture should be troubling to anyone who identifies with the label. There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia, on its own; our love for the media of our youth—and more importantly, for the qualities that made us love it in the first place—is not only worth remembering, but also capable of sparking new and wonderful creations, so long as we are able to distinguish inspiration from imitation.

It’s a valuable question for gaming culture—and “nerd culture” more generally—to ask itself: Do we want to tell stories that make sense of the things we used to love, that help us remember the reasons we were so drawn to them, and create new works that inspire that level of devotion? Or do we simply want to hear the litany of our childhood repeated back to us like an endless lullaby for the rest of our lives?_









Ernest Cline’s Follow-Up to Ready Player One Embodies Everything Wrong With Gaming Culture


Armada is a story about how gamers are the most important people in the world. This is not a new story; it's served as the inspiration for countless...




slate.com


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Well it certainly wasn't someone who actually goes by their own name here that dropped those one-stars on my and other people's books.


Most books have one star reviews, at least the ones that are widely read. Yours don’t. I’m glad you were able to get them removed.

Have you written much besides the two works linked in your signature? Or is graphic design your main focus?



........ said:


> About $100K a year at the moment. By the twenty year mark I'll be retired so why not give it away?


That’s very generous of you, but it’s not something that should be forced on others. Twenty years is a very short time and most writers won’t be retiring after that time has passed. Even if they did, they might want the income to keep coming in into their old age. Or, they might want to leave something for their families. Etc.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

......~...... said:


> Most books have one star reviews, at least the ones that are widely read. Yours don’t. I’m glad you were able to get them removed.
> 
> Have you written much besides the two works linked in your signature? Or is graphic design your main focus?
> 
> ...


I didn't get them removed. They dropped the one-stars on Goodreads. I can only assume they hadn't spent enough on Amazon to leave reviews there. And my work isn't widely read - I haven't bothered to advertise, there's not much point until I get more stuff finished - so no doubt that's why I don't have any one-stars yet on Amazon. =D

I've had a few shorts accepted, and published a couple of other things myself under a different pen name. And I've started lots of stuff, but I have a really hard time finishing things because I usually second guess myself too much. When KDP first got going, I was seeing a lot of people here complaining that they'd been ghosted by their cover designers and I decided I didn't want to deal with that, so I learned graphic design for myself, and then suddenly other people wanted me to do some for them. So it grew from there. Currently it's my day job, but the goal is for it to end up being half the day job, and writing be the other half.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I didn't get them removed. They dropped the one-stars on Goodreads. I can only assume they hadn't spent enough on Amazon to leave reviews there. And my work isn't widely read - I haven't bothered to advertise, there's not much point until I get more stuff finished - so no doubt that's why I don't have any one-stars yet on Amazon. =D
> 
> I've had a few shorts accepted, and published a couple of other things myself under a different pen name. And I've started lots of stuff, but I have a really hard time finishing things because I usually second guess myself too much. When KDP first got going, I was seeing a lot of people here complaining that they'd been ghosted by their cover designers and I decided I didn't want to deal with that, so I learned graphic design for myself, and then suddenly other people wanted me to do some for them. So it grew from there. Currently it's my day job, but the goal is for it to end up being half the day job, and writing be the other half.


I haven’t checked my Goodreads page in years and I ignore Amazon reviews now as well. I write what I write and reading reviews (whether good or bad) won’t change anything so it’s easier to not read them at all. As long as the average rating is good, there’s no need to worry about the specifics, at least for me.

Advertising definitely gets things moving. It was crickets before I ran my first free promo. Reviews and sales started coming in after that.

The hardest part of writing for me is pushing through the parts where I’d rather give up. If you can do that and finish what you start, you’ll show yourself that it can be done. I get this with every book I write, so none of them are a breeze. If perfectionism is your problem, I’d leave that for the editing stage. Just push through and finish what you start. Most likely, that first draft will turn out better than you thought it would.

Good luck with your writing!


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

......~...... said:


> If perfectionism is your problem, I’d leave that for the editing stage. Just push through and finish what you start. Most likely, that first draft will turn out better than you thought it would.
> 
> Good luck with your writing!


I really like this advice. A lot of the time I get worked up about fixing stuff that just takes a few minutes in the edit. Learning to delegate tasks to my editing self and knowing what can wait is something I'm working on. But, personally, I've been really lucky to have an editor who is actually interested in the books, so she can correct things but also give me new ideas to go back with or give me notes about things she though about adding. Finding someone who will do that has relaxed my writing phase a lot because I know that she's got my back. So, I don't know what point I'm getting at. Maybe that it's been a game changer to have an editor who is into the story and interested in working on it with me rather than just telling me where I screwed up


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

......~...... said:


> I haven’t checked my Goodreads page in years and I ignore Amazon reviews now as well. I write what I write and reading reviews (whether good or bad) won’t change anything so it’s easier to not read them at all. As long as the average rating is good, there’s no need to worry about the specifics, at least for me.
> 
> Advertising definitely gets things moving. It was crickets before I ran my first free promo. Reviews and sales started coming in after that.
> 
> ...


I don't usually go to Goodreads, either. Or pay much attention to reviews.* So normally I wouldn't have even noticed that there was a new review. But a kind KBoarder noticed it because he had been hit too, and messaged me to bring it to my attention. Because I sell so few books it was easy to see that no one had bought them or read any pages in months. And despite how a couple of people seem to think I'm in here mixing it up with everyone every other day, I'm not. (I will admit that my temper has been a lot shorter than usual in the last while, thanks to being locked down with no human company in my house for so long, and I'm finding it a lot harder to let it roll off when people take cheap shots at me or my profession.) It happens rarely, with only a few specific people, so the timing of the one-stars seemed a little too specific to be a coincidence.

*One-stars don't even really bother me that much. I know that not every book can be universally liked, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I mean, do I hope that I don't get too many? For sure. But getting them doesn't really bother me, when they're from actual readers. But now that I know people do stuff like this, I'm not inclined to give them any more easy targets, either.

That's good advice. And I know you're totally right. I just need to figure out a way to get my perfectionist brain to shut up long enough long enough to push through.

Thank you!


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Our fantasies can tell us a great deal about ourselves, and the fact that Cline’s work has often been trumpeted as the ultimate “nerdgasm” or some sort of apotheosis of nerd culture should be troubling to anyone who identifies with the label. There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia, on its own; our love for the media of our youth—and more importantly, for the qualities that made us love it in the first place—is not only worth remembering, but also capable of sparking new and wonderful creations, so long as we are able to distinguish inspiration from imitation.
> 
> It’s a valuable question for gaming culture—and “nerd culture” more generally—to ask itself: Do we want to tell stories that make sense of the things we used to love, that help us remember the reasons we were so drawn to them, and create new works that inspire that level of devotion? Or do we simply want to hear the litany of our childhood repeated back to us like an endless lullaby for the rest of our lives?


Oh, I love that. We have too much nostalgia content these days. We have too many remakes, reboots, movies appealing to nostalgia instead of something else. We all enjoy reminiscing sometimes. I enjoy the occasionally boot up the high school soundtrack, dance, and have some drinks night, especially during quarantine. I'm in my early 30s, so I'm starting to reach the age where people are cashing in on my generation's nostalgia.

It's possible to do that and offer something new. _Looking for Alaska_, the Hulu adaptation, is set the year I graduated from high school and OMG nostalgia, but it's also a great adaptation of the book, and still asking the same excellent questions the book does, while having a nice high school friend group vibe.

My husband is a game designer and the industry has a lot of the same issues romance does. People don't take it seriously. And it seems like people within the industry are determined to keep it that way. Can you imagine being a game designer who actually wants to discuss mechanics? And people mostly knowing games from their refusal to put women in appropriate gear? I still think of Quiet from MGS4 when I think of games. Really, she's in a bikini because of photosynthesis.

Games have gotten better at this, but fans of games seem determined to prove they are obnoxious bros. It's not everyone. It might not be a majority. But it's a very vocal group, who still can't take criticism, and act like people are taking away their toys when the smallest thing changes.

I would be embarrassed to call myself a gamer. Not because there's something wrong with games, but because the kinds of people who call themselves gamers are holding so tightly to their vision of how things were in the past, when it was just for them, and they never had to think of anyone else. I'm getting a little off topic here, but I haven't really thought of the comparison before, oddly enough.

I'm also embarrassed to tell people I write romance. Not because I find anything shameful about my books or romance in general but because of the behavior of many of my peers. Most people outside the industry don't know enough to know, say, that we're writing books romanticizing bullies at this very moment. Most people have memories of Fabio on covers and vaguely misogynistic ideas of "mommy porn." I do wish for the day when something overtakes 50SoG as the big romance everyone knows. I just hope it's a book that doesn't romanticize abuse & represents what romance can do in a positive light. Without all the icky s--- attached now.

It's misogyny (internalized or otherwise) all the way down, basically.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Oh, I love that. We have too much nostalgia content these days. We have too many remakes, reboots, movies appealing to nostalgia instead of something else. We all enjoy reminiscing sometimes. I enjoy the occasionally boot up the high school soundtrack, dance, and have some drinks night, especially during quarantine. I'm in my early 30s, so I'm starting to reach the age where people are cashing in on my generation's nostalgia.
> 
> It's possible to do that and offer something new. _Looking for Alaska_, the Hulu adaptation, is set the year I graduated from high school and OMG nostalgia, but it's also a great adaptation of the book, and still asking the same excellent questions the book does, while having a nice high school friend group vibe.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that, Crystal. Agree on all points.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

I do hope the nostalgia boom is starting to tail off a bit - I'm almost positive you could tie the '80s nostalgia boom in particular to a point where a lot of men born circa 1975 were roughly 30-40 years old and were having kids and looming mid-life crises.

I have at least noticed a welcome trend to doing direct sequels rather than the endless reboots and remakes that characterised the late 2000s/early 2010s - stuff like the new Star Wars movies, or the Cobra Kai TV series, or the Watchmen TV series. If you _are_ going to exploit the franchises of the past for new content, at least write something actually new instead of just telling us the same story again with a new cast of actors.


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Lol thank you for confirming that my decision to mute our friend the ellipsis was the right one.


You're very welcome. Long live the ignore feature.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Crystal_ said:


> Most people outside the industry don't know enough to know, say, that we're writing books romanticizing bullies at this very moment. Most people have memories of Fabio on covers and vaguely misogynistic ideas of "mommy porn." I do wish for the day when something overtakes 50SoG as the big romance everyone knows. I just hope it's a book that doesn't romanticize abuse & represents what romance can do in a positive light. Without all the icky s--- attached now.
> 
> It's misogyny (internalized or otherwise) all the way down, basically.


Well, you've also got that Twilight thing that is the _other_ big romance everyone knows, and like 50 Shades, it has its gazillion imitations / knockoffs... it happens. Things could be worse, though, you know. You could be an erotica writer. That is even less impressive.

As for nostalgia, it's always been around, and evoking the past can make for interesting settings or conversations between characters in books. I sometimes work it into mine, as it can be fun and I think it can deepen characters, but at the same time I don't overload the readers with it. If you're tailoring your books towards a wider demographic, placing nostalgia for the past in them could possibly backfire, because not everyone views a certain decade or era the same way.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

........ said:


> About $100K a year at the moment. By the twenty year mark I'll be retired so why not give it away?


I will hand it to you that at least you're consistent in adhering to your philosophy. Good on ya for that. 

But at the same time, you realize that most people -- much less authors and IP creators -- are not in your income range (in the US your income from IP alone places you just under the top 10%), and the present copyright term gives the mid-listers and those beneath them the chance to eke out a few more bucks from their IP.


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

If they're willing to throw their copyright to the masses and they're making that much money, those making peanuts aren't on their radar, let alone important. It's a greater good mindset that doesn't stress the individual hardships that will result.

Another way to put it, some people just don't understand how someone's life could be better with an extra $100 a year or whatever it is. Lucky them.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

ShaneCarrow said:


> Lol thank you for confirming that my decision to mute our friend the ellipsis was the right one.


Maybe refrain from starting discussions if you’re not mature enough to hear opposing viewpoints? 

If you just wanted likes or whatever, go post it on your social media or something.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

cest la vie said:


> If they're willing to throw their copyright to the masses and they're making that much money, those making peanuts aren't on their radar, let alone important. It's a greater good mindset that doesn't stress the individual hardships that will result.
> 
> Another way to put it, some people just don't understand how someone's life could be better with an extra $100 a year or whatever it is. Lucky them.


Oh I lied. I only make a dollar a year.

Of course, if your position on this topic is influenced by how much a random internet forum poster is making, I kindly suggest that perhaps you should choose to use evidence to form your position instead. Like reports and papers from credible researchers. 

Oh wait, I make a billion a year!

Quick, change your position and make a new excuse for why shorter copyright is wrong! 

Oh wait, it is actually $100K a year. It's all good. Suddenly I go back to someone who is making so much money that those who aren't "aren't on my radar, let alone important".

It's called _ad hominem _and it's so very stupid.

Wait, I checked it again - definitely a dollar a year. Sorry. That's right.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> I will hand it to you that at least you're consistent in adhering to your philosophy. Good on ya for that.
> 
> But at the same time, you realize that most people -- much less authors and IP creators -- are not in your income range (in the US your income from IP alone places you just under the top 10%), and the present copyright term gives the mid-listers and those beneath them the chance to eke out a few more bucks from their IP.


If you read the papers on this, those mid-listers will earn most (like 90-95%) of their money in the first five years. 

Here's the reality for authors:

Almost all will make no money or less than coffee money. Their books become orphan works and are lost to the world in most cases.

Of those who are making some money, even within five years or so, most won't be making money.

If an author is currently 35 and lives 35 more years then it's 105 years from today (so 2120) when their work enters the public domain.

If a generation is 35 years then at 70 their 35 year old child inherits. That child is meant to keep the material published until they die. Then their child inherits. That child keeps the material published. And so on until we reach 2120.

The fact is that you can find authors who have died only recently and their books are already gone. Heirs who don't agree or care or they can't find the files or whatever. 

If you live another forty years, you think Amazon will still be in business? The ePub files uploaded will still be for sale? 

For most authors their partner doesn't even know their log-in password. Let alone where the files are kept, whether they're backed up. 

The fate of the vast majority is orphan works and vanishing from publication. 

I have no doubt that in fifty years from now some academics will be arguing about pulling millions of orphaned Amazon eBooks into the public domain because their heirs can't be found. 

When you read the report about millions of pages of orphan works locked in archives and millions of hours of footage and so on, this is the reality. 

The people who are making money from books twenty years after publication in any significant amount are the very successful.

And not to put too fine a point on it again: we don't care how much more money could be made. We take things into the public domain anyway.

A long copyright term benefits only billionaire megacorporations and millionaire authors. No one else. In fact it harms everyone else, the deadweight loss.


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

Man, the members with punctuation for names sure like telling everyone else what to think and how to post.


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

........ said:


> Oh I lied. I only make a dollar a year.
> 
> Of course, if your position on this topic is influenced by how much a random internet forum poster is making, I kindly suggest that perhaps you should choose to use evidence to form your position instead. Like reports and papers from credible researchers.
> 
> ...


I don't have a position on this topic, except that your responses, insults, inappropriate comparisons, and general inability to fathom other people having their own opinions are cringeworthy.


----------



## Crayola (Dec 22, 2012)

very cringe


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

......~...... said:


> Maybe refrain from starting discussions if you’re not mature enough to hear opposing viewpoints?
> 
> If you just wanted likes or whatever, go post it on your social media or something.


Be honest. You skimmed the thread, didn't you? LOL


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> Be honest. You skimmed the thread, didn't you? LOL


Of course I did. I’m not reading 10 pages of this drivel! 😂


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

cest la vie said:


> I don't have a position on this topic, except that your responses, insults, inappropriate comparisons, and general inability to fathom other people having their own opinions are cringeworthy.


Yeah the person coming with sources is the one who's cringeworthy lol


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

........ said:


> Yeah the person coming with sources is the one who's cringeworthy lol


I cringed at your behavior, not the sources you keep bringing up but refuse to answer questions about. I know, I know, you're not doing our homework for us yada yada.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

cest la vie said:


> I cringed at your behavior, not the sources you keep bringing up but refuse to answer questions about. I know, I know, you're not doing our homework for us yada yada.


I did answer questions. Repeatedly. But at a certain point people have to read themselves. Plus some here outright said no matter what evidence existed, they refused to read it.

Which, on a forum of writers, is incredible.

So we end up with the dumb position of "answer every single thing I ask otherwise it's all wrong and I refuse to read anything myself".


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

......~...... said:


> Maybe refrain from starting discussions if you’re not mature enough to hear opposing viewpoints?
> 
> If you just wanted likes or whatever, go post it on your social media or something.


I gave him seven or eight pages of my time before muting him because it was like talking to a brick wall, and then apparently he went off on same tangent about anti-Semitism or whatever, so feeling fine about that.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Do most people not share passwords with spouses? Even if your spouse (kids, partner, whoever) doesn't know where stuff is, they can probably figure it out.

I think people would react to erotica in a different way that amounts to the same average level of respect. Some more (because unlike romance erotica is not perceived as only for women) and some less (because they see it as porn, though I think many would respect that. It depends on your circle. Erotica has a bit more edge in its public perception. It's not the thing at the grocery store for soccer moms).


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

One of the problems for erotica writers is the mostly negative general attitude towards porn, and towards most things involving anything sexual, which has to do with anything involving revenue. 

On the erotica writers' reddit there has been some talk about the difficulty some erotica eBook sites have had with payment processors -- financial institutions that don't want to be involved in processing payments to internet companies that sell sexual fiction literature, which they apparently consider is a form of pornography. 

It's just one example of the degree of stigma erotica receives, that I don't think romance -- even hot romance -- receives in the industry. Even on KB some erotica writers have stated they never tell their friends or family what they write.

It doesn't help things when some erotica writers trash their own chosen genre by referring to it in negative terms. But it's one of the trappings of writing in the genre, I guess.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

jb1111 said:


> One of the problems for erotica writers is the mostly negative general attitude towards porn, and towards most things involving anything sexual, which has to do with anything involving revenue.
> 
> On the erotica writers' reddit there has been some talk about the difficulty some erotica eBook sites have had with payment processors -- financial institutions that don't want to be involved in processing payments to internet companies that sell sexual fiction literature, which they apparently consider is a form of pornography.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think it really depends on your circle. There's a big cross over of sex-negative people hating on romance and hating on erotica. But a lot of younger and more sex-positive people would think it's cool to write erotica. At least, that's the vibe I get from many of my friends. Erotica is taboo and punk rock and edgy. Romance is Fabio on a cover at the grocery store.

My Catholic grandma? Maybe not so much (though maybe. I really don't know).

Overall, romance probably comes out ahead there, in terms of public perception, but I'm not sure the gulf is all that wide. Everyone called 50SoG mommy porn and everyone still brings up 50SoG if I don't lead them in another direction (pro tip: say you work in publishing if someone asks what you do. They'll already be primed to take you seriously, whatever genre you drop next. If they start asking about genre, mention new adult. They'll get confused, because they've never heard of new adult, and, again, won't ask if it's like 50SoG. What do they even mean by that? That it's explicit? High heat? Light kink? Billionaire? Trilogy? They don't even know... I will need a more specific question).


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

Crystal_ said:


> Yes, I think it really depends on your circle. There's a big cross over of sex-negative people hating on romance and hating on erotica. But a lot of younger and more sex-positive people would think it's cool to write erotica. At least, that's the vibe I get from many of my friends. Erotica is taboo and punk rock and edgy. Romance is Fabio on a cover at the grocery store.
> 
> My Catholic grandma? Maybe not so much (though maybe. I really don't know).
> 
> Overall, romance probably comes out ahead there, in terms of public perception, but I'm not sure the gulf is all that wide. Everyone called 50SoG mommy porn and everyone still brings up 50SoG if I don't lead them in another direction (pro tip: say you work in publishing if someone asks what you do. They'll already be primed to take you seriously, whatever genre you drop next. If they start asking about genre, mention new adult. They'll get confused, because they've never heard of new adult, and, again, won't ask if it's like 50SoG. What do they even mean by that? That it's explicit? High heat? Light kink? Billionaire? Trilogy? They don't even know... I will need a more specific question).


It's obviously better for erotica writers than it was 30 years ago, when all was paperback and such books were usually only found in porn video stores and the like. I think 50 Shades opened up things a bit also, in that it's difficult for someone to trash Joe or Jane Q Erotica Writer's tome when a book with graphic sex in it was one of the biggest sellers of the last decade.

As for your Catholic grandma, yeah, I've got some relatives who are fairly religious who would have a cow if they heard I wrote an erotica novel. My more open minded friends and relatives who have read 50 Shades probably wouldn't care one way or the other.

And since video porn became more 'mainstream' in the late 1990's the stigma has faded a little, but it makes me wonder why there still is one attached, where some smaller erotica eBook outlets find it difficult to get financial institutions to process payments. Society seems to progress rather slowly in these matters. At least the bigger retailers let erotica and super steamy romance be sold with very few qualms, as long as you stay within certain limits, which aren't that difficult to live with.

As for the original subject of this post, dot dot dot dot dot made their point clearer in their last post. But I'm still not convinced that the balance between a family being able to keep their parents' IP rights and the plight of all those orphan works needs to be tilted in favor of public domain. A lot of stuff in public domain never is touched despite its ready availability. I'm sure that in 1948, when Orwell's _1984_ was published, there were gazillions of other books published, yet I can't think of another title from that year, and doubt that if they were all in the public domain, anyone would really do anything more than the rights holders are doing with them now.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Isn't payment a credit card issue? Credit card companies don't want to be anywhere near sexual services, probably because so many providers skirt the line of what is or isn't legal. Porn is legal to make, but only if the performers are of legal age... but look at all those "barely legal" videos. The taboo is the point. But the taboo is on the line of legal/not legal. That tends to be the case with sex. With sex work, or pornography, the taboo is often what sells best, so it's easy to walk up to the line. And if you're already at the line, the other side looks mighty tempting...

We see the same thing with erotica authors and the Amazon ToS. Well, not exactly the same thing, since Amazon has a stupid, vague ToS that could mean anything! But we've seen many erotica authors walk up to what is "known" to be allowed, push against the line, hop over it, eventually pay the consequences.

Just speculation based on many years of watching erotica and short erom authors. Banking is known to be a slow moving, conservative industry as well.

I expect perception depends on you too. I'd rather people think I'm a depraved pervert than a bored housewife. But the grass is always greener.

I do think 50SoG helped with widening the perception of romance and explicit books being mainstream--it certainly put adult romance on my radar, at that point I'd only read YA romance--but it did its job. And now it's time to find a book that is a better example of what is good about romance. What if _The Kiss Quotient _was the book everyone knew? That would be 100x better.

Maybe it's only fair we have a book that shows off much of the bad--vague romanticizing of abuse, stalkerish hero, some questionable prose. The current trend is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy in that direction. Enough to where I'm thinking about taking a long break, after I'm vaccinated. I'm hoping to come back to a market without bully romances or everyone and their brother promoting authors who are bully themselves. I'm pretty sure the later is a no go, but the former might be possible...

As far as the main topic, a few have said this, but I'll repeat it anyway. You don't get to assign homework and then disqualify people for not doing homework. You're not our teacher. We didn't sign up for a class. If you make a post about the assigned reading, sure. But this is a post about generalities. Sum up the main points of reading or move on.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> As far as the main topic, a few have said this, but I'll repeat it anyway. You don't get to assign homework and then disqualify people for not doing homework. You're not our teacher. We didn't sign up for a class. If you make a post about the assigned reading, sure. But this is a post about generalities. Sum up the main points of reading or move on.


Post a report, multiple papers and take the time to post extracts of relevant passages to make it easy to read.
You: they're arguing in bad faith.
Talk about it in high level of detail, in long posts, to multiple people. A bullying poster tells me they don't care about evidence and won't read and I say I'm sorry but we can't talk any further on this.
You: You don't get to assign homework.

Gotta be the dumbest hot take I've seen in a while.


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

........ said:


> Gotta be the dumbest hot take I've seen in a while.


Yet again a person states their opinion respectfully.

Yet again you come back with an insult.

Stay classy messy.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

There's no point getting into it with a brick wall. Just saying.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

cest la vie said:


> Yet again a person states their opinion respectfully.
> 
> Yet again you come back with an insult.
> 
> Stay classy messy.


Ah huh. I posted multiple papers and sources and she said I was arguing in bad faith.

You didn't speak up then.

I got called entitled.

You didn't speak up then.

I answer that the narrative of sources being "you're giving us homework" is dumb.

Suddenly you're all offended! How DARE they!


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

Bite the Dusty said:


> There's no point getting into it with a brick wall. Just saying.


You're not wrong.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> Yet again a person states their opinion respectfully.
> 
> Yet again you come back with an insult.
> 
> Stay classy messy.





Bite the Dusty said:


> There's no point getting into it with a brick wall. Just saying.


You two add nothing to the discussion but insults, so it’s really rich to see you calling someone else out on calling others names. 😂😂😂


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

......~...... said:


> You two add nothing to the discussion but insults, so it’s really rich to see you calling someone else out on calling others names. 😂😂😂


Because you're adding so much. You didn't even read the thread.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> Because you're adding so much. You didn't even read the thread.


And yet I still managed to contribute more than you. 🤣

(I wonder if all these “new” members that like to start arguments are actually banned members from before? Sure wouldn’t surprise me...)


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)




----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Joined a month ago and all she does is insult other members.

Hmm, definitely a banned user or maybe even a mod letting off some steam now that she’s powerless. 😂


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

If you're going to make up stories about me, I'd prefer it if you could be a little more imaginative.









c'est la vie







www.kboards.com





Here's my original account, since you're so thirsty.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> If you're going to make up stories about me, I'd prefer it if you could be a little more imaginative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That account is barely over a year old.

Which account did you have before that one?


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

I guess more imagination was too much to ask.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Why so pressed then?

🧐


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

cest la vie said:


> View attachment 9517


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

......~...... said:


> (I wonder if all these “new” members that like to start arguments are actually banned members from before? Sure wouldn’t surprise me...)





......~...... said:


> Joined a month ago and all she does is insult other members.
> 
> Hmm, definitely a banned user or maybe even a mod letting off some steam now that she’s powerless. 😂





......~...... said:


> That account is barely over a year old.
> 
> Which account did you have before that one?


IME, the overconfident people who make baseless accusations are usually the ones who are doing the questionable things they're accusing others of.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Bite the Dusty said:


> IME, the overconfident people who make baseless accusations are usually the ones who are doing the questionable things they're accusing others of.


With me, what you see is what you get. I have a low tolerance for BS, hence why I called you and your little friend out. Anyone can see I joined the site in 2015. And everyone can see you joined this site seven months ago.

Since this website has been an utter failure for a couple of years at least, one does wonder where all these new members are coming from. And why do some of them act like such trolls?

Hmm. Something to think about. 🤔


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

......~...... said:


> With me, what you see is what you get.


What I see is a line of punctuation with an overconfident jerk attached, but I've been a member here for seven months so what I think doesn't matter, right? Where have I heard something like that before? Oh, right, the other line of punctuation that tells everyone they don't get to have an opinion on copyright until they read the assignment.

Goodnight, whoever(s) you are.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Bite the Dusty said:


> What I see is a line of punctuation with an overconfident jerk attached, but I've been a member here for seven months so what I think doesn't matter, right? Where have I heard something like that before? Oh, right, the other line of punctuation that tells everyone they don't get to have an opinion on copyright until they read the assignment.
> 
> Goodnight, whoever(s) you are.


Someone with the username BITE THE DUSTY and a BtVS avatar lecturing others about their usernames?

😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😆😆😆😆😆😂🤣😂🤣😅😅😅

Are you being serious right now? Yeah, it’s definitely time for you to have a little time out from trolling, that’s for sure.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

Bite the Dusty said:


> What I see is a line of punctuation with an overconfident jerk attached, but I've been a member here for seven months so what I think doesn't matter, right? Where have I heard something like that before? Oh, right, the other line of punctuation that tells everyone they don't get to have an opinion on copyright until they read the assignment.
> 
> Goodnight, whoever(s) you are.


You can have an opinion. What I said was that I can't talk more with people who refuse to read and keep asking dumb questions literally answered by the linked papers. People who spend a few hours angrily sitting at their keyboard to froth fury but won't spend ten minutes to even understand the landscape of what they're discussing.

It ain't homework. But if you want to discuss it with me, who takes this topic seriously, you can't just keep demanding I answer you and refuse to read yourself.

Which, as I said, on a forum of supposed authors is astonishing behavior.


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

......~...... said:


> Someone with the username BITE THE DUSTY and a BtVS avatar lecturing others about their usernames?
> 
> 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😆😆😆😆😆😂🤣😂🤣😅😅😅
> 
> Are you being serious right now? Yeah, it’s definitely time for you to have a little time out from trolling, that’s for sure.


Use more emojis. It's so funny. Everybody thinks so. You're definitely not the troll here.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> Use more emojis. It's so funny. Everybody thinks so. You're definitely not the troll here.


When you resort to attacking poor emojis, you know you’ve got no leg to stand on. 

Go like some more of Bite the Dusty’s (or is that your own?) posts! We totally don’t think you’re the same person! 😎


----------



## NikOK (Jun 27, 2020)

......~...... said:


> Go like some more of Bite the Dusty’s (or is that your own?) posts! We totally don’t think you’re the same person! 😎


I mean, they're definitely different people though.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

NikOK said:


> I mean, they're definitely different people though.


It's okay. Let them think what they want to think. We're all on a floating rock paying bills... does it really matter?


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

NikOK said:


> I mean, they're definitely different people though.





Bite the Dusty said:


> It's okay. Let them think what they want to think. We're all on a floating rock paying bills... does it really matter?


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

You should come with popcorn and a tinfoil hat.


----------



## nail file (Sep 12, 2018)

How is it the mods haven't stepped in yet?


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

nail file said:


> How is it the mods haven't stepped in yet?


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

nail file said:


> How is it the mods haven't stepped in yet?


I have a sneaking suspicion they're not modding anymore.


----------



## Some Random Guy (Jan 16, 2016)

ShayneRutherford said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion they're not modding anymore.


_Looks around_

You mean it's a free for all now?

_Crawls under his bridge and starts scheming_


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

nail file said:


> How is it the mods haven't stepped in yet?


What @ShayneRutherford said. I'd welcome them back, even if it meant a few slaps on my own wrist.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> What @ShayneRutherford said. I'd welcome them back, even if it meant a few slaps on my own wrist.


A few slaps? If there were proper mods here, you would have been banned long ago! 😂


----------



## cest la vie (Feb 4, 2021)

......~...... said:


> A few slaps? If there were proper mods here, you would have been banned long ago! 😂


I'm not feeding you anymore.

If people don't see you for the pathetic bully you are at this point, me continuing to call you out is pointless.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

cest la vie said:


> I'm not feeding you anymore.
> 
> If people don't see you for the pathetic bully you are at this point, me continuing to call you out is pointless.


----------



## Bite the Dusty (Aug 9, 2020)

cest la vie said:


> I'm not feeding you anymore.


Good idea.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Bite the Dusty said:


> Good idea.


----------



## jb1111 (Apr 6, 2018)

........ said:


> You can have an opinion. What I said was that I can't talk more with people who refuse to read and keep asking dumb questions literally answered by the linked papers. People who spend a few hours angrily sitting at their keyboard to froth fury but won't spend ten minutes to even understand the landscape of what they're discussing.
> 
> It ain't homework. But if you want to discuss it with me, who takes this topic seriously, you can't just keep demanding I answer you and refuse to read yourself.
> 
> Which, as I said, on a forum of supposed authors is astonishing behavior.


Your point that this is supposed to be a forum of authors is spot on. 

That means that you, as an author, should be well able to express yourself sufficiently without expecting others to wade through 200-odd pages of Australian government documents to determine whether your point is valid. 

You care about orphan works. Most people, and most publishers, simply don't. They do care about their family's IP. It doesn't matter if books pass the moneymaking pull date after five years. They care about their family's IP. Governmental research doesn't, and can't, change that.


----------



## ........ (May 4, 2013)

jb1111 said:


> Your point that this is supposed to be a forum of authors is spot on.
> 
> That means that you, as an author, should be well able to express yourself sufficiently without expecting others to wade through 200-odd pages of Australian government documents to determine whether your point is valid.
> 
> You care about orphan works. Most people, and most publishers, simply don't. They do care about their family's IP. It doesn't matter if books pass the moneymaking pull date after five years. They care about their family's IP. Governmental research doesn't, and can't, change that.


I did express myself clearly. I pasted relevant sections. I gave a page reference. The part of the documents would take maybe 15min to get a reasonable understanding. So no, it's not on me that I have to answer questions from people who've already told me they refuse to read.

It's a common forum tactic: you MUST answer ALL my questions or you're wrong and la la la I can't hear you! 

It's so incredibly stupid.


----------



## ShaneCarrow (Jul 26, 2017)

jb1111 said:


> That means that you, as an author, should be well able to express yourself sufficiently without expecting others to wade through 200-odd pages of Australian government documents to determine whether your point is valid.


Even within an Australian context: the Productivity Commission was established under the Australian prime minister who was our equivalent of Thatcher or Reagan. Its raison d'etre is in its name. One of its more recent memorable recommendations was to slash people's Sunday overtime rates to "bring them in line" with Saturday overtime rates, because they were "inconsistent" - though of course there was no consideration of raising Saturday rates to match Sunday rates, if inconsistency was such an issue, because "flexibility" only ever favours the boss and not the employee. They are a neoliberal body whose job is to wring the maximum amount of cash out of the minimum amount of labour and I don't really give a flying **** what they recommend when it comes to copyright reform.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Locking this long thread so I have time to look through it and see what actions need to be taken.


----------

