No Public Domain

[jensaltmann]

I posted this as a note on Farcebook. I might as well repeat it here: my last word on what my problems with Public Domain are, and what I intend to do to make sure my characters won't end up there after my death.

* * *

With Disney getting their copyrights extended again and again, to make sure that Steamboat Willy never gets into the public domain, well, it's an ongoing discussion. And frankly, I side with those in favor of copyright.

That doesn't mean that I believe corporations should hold copyrights forever. No. Not corporations.

But the creators and their heirs.

Cue the Public Domain Brigade, who will scream about how Mickey Mouse and Superman need to become Public Domain so that they can finally make official Mickey Mouse and Superman stories.

To that, my response is, always was and always will be: Shut up and create something new instead.

My problem with Public Domain is that... Let's compare it to building a house.

Public Domain means to me that I buy a property, I build a house on that property. When I die, my children and their children to not get to own the house and property. Rather, anyone who wants to squat on/in it can do so, and all my children can hope for is to squat in one of the rooms of the house that I built.

I don't see why anyone who wants to should be able to profit off my work after my death. Sure, the argument goes that my children and grandchildren didn't contribute anything, so why should they get anything -- but neither did that squatter who sees the property, thinks he can make a quick buck with it, and proceeds to do so, which is money my heirs will never get.

That's a big part of why I'm going to arrange for the complete destruction upon my death of everything I've created during my lifetime. In theory, this won't concern me. I won't leave anyone behind when I die, no family, no children, nobody. It shouldn't bother me what becomes of my work afterwards. Besides, it's not as if anyone will care about Shaw or Made of Fail or the Mad Pulper Project after my death. But I'll still make as sure as I can that nobody makes a profit off my work after my death, out of general principle.

It's kind of like making sure that the house I built is burnt down and the ground it's built on is salted, so that no freeloaders can coast along on my efforts.

Because I don't know you, I don't care about you, and you should build your own goddam house.

[jkcarrier]

I have mixed feelings about this. But I am intrigued by the idea of, for instance, the various books of the Bible being controlled throughout history by the heirs of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, et. al...

[Mario Di Giacomo]

I can't say I agree, because I have a completely different view of PD.

It's all about MONEY. Who profits from a particular IP? Who gets to say "You can't reprint this story without my permission, giving me a share of your profits"?

It's not about derivative works at all. For the most part, that's actually trademark law, which is a different kettle of fish (and, in those cases, a trademark must be actively used to be maintained).

The reason perpetual copyrights are not used is that it means that (for example) every single descendant of Charles Dickens would have to be paid if someone wanted to publish a version of A Christmas Carol. Not a sequel, not an adaptation. Just the original text.

And, as time passes, the list of heirs grows larger. And larger. And will soon become completely untenable. So, the book will never be reprinted. And then, after all the copies have decayed, it will never be seen again.

Not a good idea, IMO.

[jensaltmann]

Jun 2, 2011 7:42:25 GMT -8 Mario Di Giacomo said:

I can't say I agree, because I have a completely different view of PD.

It's all about MONEY. Who profits from a particular IP? Who gets to say "You can't reprint this story without my permission, giving me a share of your profits?"

Yes, it's all about the money. Who gets to profit?

The proponents of PD say that the creators' grandchildren or great-grandchildren have no right to profit off the creators' work because they didn't contribute anything, so why should they profit from it simply because they're blood relatives.

Simple. Because they are blood relatives. I for one am far more interested in the welfare of my offspring (or would be if I had any) than of any random person who figures they can use my work to make money. I believe that because of the blood connection, those great-great-great grandchildren have a right to profit off my work. And that everyone else doesn't.

Simple as that.

That is where the proponents of PD and I part company. Now, if PD were to say, when copyright lapses, the work can be reprinted BUT ONLY IF nobody earns money with it, I might see the point of it. But PD says that anyone can make money with it.

That part, the money part, that's where I have the problem.

And that is why I will make as sure as I can that nothing I have created survives me. Or rather, me and my still-wife, because even when I'm gone, she'll still need the money. But we don't have children, I never will have children, so everything I am, and was, will vanish when I do.

Because I do not want anyone who never even knew me and who isn't even related to me to make money off my work.

[jensaltmann]

Jun 2, 2011 7:42:25 GMT -8 Mario Di Giacomo said:

The reason perpetual copyrights are not used is that it means that (for example) every single descendant of Charles Dickens would have to be paid if someone wanted to publish a version of A Christmas Carol. Not a sequel, not an adaptation. Just the original text.

And, as time passes, the list of heirs grows larger. And larger. And will soon become completely untenable. So, the book will never be reprinted. And then, after all the copies have decayed, it will never be seen again.

Not a good idea, IMO.

And no, not necessarily. If everyone of these heirs has the copyright, they can all produce their own reprints. As they all strive to make money with it, the quantity of A Christmas Carol alone might eventually crowd even Star Trek and Star Wars off the shelves.

[Mario Di Giacomo]

Jun 2, 2011 8:50:24 GMT -8 jensaltmann said:

And no, not necessarily. If everyone of these heirs has the copyright, they can all produce their own reprints. As they all strive to make money with it, the quantity of A Christmas Carol alone might eventually crowd even Star Trek and Star Wars off the shelves.

That's not entirely accurate. If there are 20 people who share a copyright (because their great grandfather wrote a book), then if ANY of the 20 publish a reprint, the other 19 get an even share of the profits, right off the top. So for every dollar made, everyone gets 5 cents.

And, if your comment about veto is correct (I'm still not sure), then any of the 20 could veto the reprint, simply because the one doing the reprint ate the last piece of cheesecake at the family reunion.

[jensaltmann]

I suspect that if maintaining an IP is viable, the creators' grandchildren at the latest will arrange for a business model that makes managing the IP fairly easy. Like hiring an agent for the estate. Unless they're idiots.

If they are stupid enough not to do something about it, frankly, there's so much stuff out there, nobody will miss it.

[michaelpaciocco]

I have mixed feelings as well.

First and foremost, I'm with Jens as far as "build your own house" is concerned. Creators should create freely and openly. And hell yes it shouldn't go to a corporation.

So for the most part, I'm with Jens...to a point.

The point is one of time. At exactly what point does being a blood relative cease to have a meaningful connection?

As an example, under Jens model, you couldn't do a book or a film using Arthurian lore with "Le Morte d'Arthur" as your basis without paying off the estate of Thomas Mallory who would then proceed to pay off his hundreds of descendants (figure is a wild guess).

And...at what point does a creation belong to a society or the world at large?

Part of my own musing comes from my own feelings on patents. I'm an engineer, and damn right I want to profit from anything I invent and provide to society. But the whole point is that it is for society as a whole - at some point the whole of humanity and my culture has to be a consideration, because after a certain point, my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids will have as much or as little knowledge of me as a stranger.

Now, I'm thinking maybe two to three centuries ahead, and maybe that's arrogant, but I wouldn't want to be the ancestor of some spoiled ignorant brat like Paris Hilton - the only reason I know here name is because her great ancestor created something, and her idle lifestyle is the product of that. Is that acceptable as well?

So yeah, I do think there is a cut-off point at which creations belong to public sphere - it is a matter of many generations (I would say at least 4), but it does exist in my mind.

[jensaltmann]

Jun 2, 2011 17:14:47 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

And...at what point does a creation belong to a society or the world at large?

For me, that depends on how charitable I feel at any given time. Usually -- not very much.

Jun 2, 2011 17:14:47 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

I wouldn't want to be the ancestor of some spoiled ignorant brat like Paris Hilton - the only reason I know here name is because her great ancestor created something, and her idle lifestyle is the product of that. Is that acceptable as well?

Moreso, I think than the following scenario: Paris Hilton gets hold of Le Morte D'Arthur (to stick with your example) and decides to republish it in order to establish her own publishing company -- which limits itself to public domain titles because that way it costs her next to nothing at all.

Is that better?

[Anders]

Jun 2, 2011 22:39:09 GMT -8 jensaltmann said:

Moreso, I think than the following scenario: Paris Hilton gets hold of Le Morte D'Arthur (to stick with your example) and decides to republish it in order to establish her own publishing company -- which limits itself to public domain titles because that way it costs her next to nothing at all.

Is that better?

Okay, you're going to have to explain to me what's wrong with that.

She's profiting from someone else's creation, yes. However, that someone has been dead for several hundred years, so that person isn't hurt by it in any way.

You could say that their descendants should have the rights, but seriously, why? They didn't create anything, and they've already inherited the profits from the creator's work. (And if he didn't make any profit, that's not really anyone else's problem IMO - or are we as a society obligated to compensate his descendants for his poor business sense?)

Furthermore, it gets the book in print, something that might not happen at all (and definitely wouldn't happen with obscure works that don't sell many copies) if the full costs of paying off the descendants separated from the creator by several dozen generations.

This is also completely ignoring that some of the most revered works are exactly this type of derivation that you're arguing against, including the goddamn Le Morte d'Arthur itself. It's an idiotic example, just like the Illiad, the Bible, the Eddas, the Mahabharata, or fucking Shakespeare. Stolen, rewritten and repackaged, all of them.

Furthermore, if Le Morte d'Arthur had been the only version of the Arthur mythos that could be published Arthur would have been completely forgotten today, excpet perhaps by the rights-holders and some dusty historians. Nobody would care who held the rights because nobody would be interested in reading the damn thing.

Yes, I'm all for creators, be they artists, writers or engineers, being able to profit from their creations, but I see no reason for the rest of us to be obligated to take care of their children. Let them create something of their own instead of nursing on daddy's and mummy's dead and rotting teat. (Yeah, that didn't end up where I meant to go, but it damn well fits.)

[Anders]

Let me also add that the analogy of the house is completely false. A house is a limited comodity which a creative work is not. The correct analogy would be that since you invented housebuilding, nobody should be allowed to build a house except for you or your descendants. If anyone wants a house, they'll have to buy it from your family.

Or, perhaps even more closely, that nobody else should be allowed a house, period.

[jensaltmann]

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

Jun 2, 2011 22:39:09 GMT -8 jensaltmann said:

Moreso, I think than the following scenario: Paris Hilton gets hold of Le Morte D'Arthur (to stick with your example) and decides to republish it in order to establish her own publishing company -- which limits itself to public domain titles because that way it costs her next to nothing at all.

Is that better?

Okay, you're going to have to explain to me what's wrong with that.

The PD defenders celebrate the exploiters for doing exactly what they condem the other side for: profiting from someone else's work. Put it the other way around: what's wrong with at least making the PD exploiters pay in order to exploit an IP? The PD exploiters will only exploit those properties that promise to be profitable anyway. So I say they should damn well pony up.

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

You could say that their descendants should have the rights, but seriously, why? They didn't create anything, and they've already inherited the profits from the creator's work. (And if he didn't make any profit, that's not really anyone else's problem IMO - or are we as a society obligated to compensate his descendants for his poor business sense?)

Neither did, in this example, Paris Hilton. She didn't create anything, she simply took a proven commodity in order to make an effortless profit. Why should she get the money, instead of Malory's descendants? Your side note about the original creator's bad business sense falls flat because it ignores the fact that if it wasn't successful the first time around, no PD exploiter will waste time on it. So those works will be forgotten and ignored anyway.

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

Furthermore, it gets the book in print, something that might not happen at all (and definitely wouldn't happen with obscure works that don't sell many copies) if the full costs of paying off the descendants separated from the creator by several dozen generations.

You mean it definitely WON'T happen with obscure works that nobody knows about anyway, that weren't profitable the first time around etc. The PD exploiters don't bother with those, they only bother with the stuff that is already beloved/popular/profitable. As Mario said, it's all about the money.

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

Yes, I'm all for creators, be they artists, writers or engineers, being able to profit from their creations, but I see no reason for the rest of us to be obligated to take care of their children.

You make it sound as if having to pay for exploiting an IP is an act of charity from the exploiter's side. It's not. The argument you present here might just as easily go: "Knowledge should be free for all, so it's immoral to financially compensate the creators and their families for the creator's creation. Let them do some actual work if they want money."

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

Let them create something of their own instead of nursing on daddy's and mummy's dead and rotting teat. (Yeah, that didn't end up where I meant to go, but it damn well fits.)

Funny, because that is exactly how I see the PD exploiters: as scavengers and vultures who do not create or produce anything, they only use what others already produced to earn themselves money.

And that fits damn better.

[jensaltmann]

Jun 2, 2011 23:39:30 GMT -8 Anders said:

Let me also add that the analogy of the house is completely false. A house is a limited comodity which a creative work is not. The correct analogy would be that since you invented housebuilding, nobody should be allowed to build a house except for you or your descendants. If anyone wants a house, they'll have to buy it from your family.

Actually, houses were invented long enough ago that by now, we're all related to the families that invented them, so we all own the rights to houses.

But, on the other hand: since I have to buy a house anyway, why should I as the buyer give the slightest fuck about whether I buy it from the descendants who invented housebuilding, or someone who simply waited until the knowledge entered PD and then took over the concept with no effort made by themselves?

For me as the buyer/consumer, it doesn't matter at all who gets the money I have to pay for the product.

[Anders]

Using language like "exploiters" really isn't helping your argument. Also, while the discussion is actually about two separate issues you're tilting it by only bringing up one.

There's a difference between reprinting an existing work wholesale and creating a new work based on an existing one. Your arguments pertain only to the former, while it's the latter that the PD crowd usually talk about (as far as I know; I don't follow the debate closely). I assume this is why you skipped the part about how Le Morte is itself a derivative work.

You're also ignoring Mario's argument about profit sharing. By now Mallory's descendants are likely into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, meaning any individual, descendant or not, will receive any measurable profit at all from reprinting Le Morte. The only way it would be reprinted would be through charity... and if we extend this to patents, it would be the same for everything.

If we take your argument about houses you have it completely backwards. Who would build a house when you would have to share the profit from selling it (or the house itself) with every single person on the planet? Since everyone is a descendant of the creator, everyone has equal rights to the house. That's how it would be with copyright if it was passed along indefinitely - after a few generations nothing would be reprinted, ever. It would, quite literally, be the death of history.

Furthermore, let's compare the "vulture" Paris Hilton to the Mallory descendants in the Le Morte scenario.

The descendant does nothing. He owns the rights and will take a share of the profits.

Paris Hilton has the book reprinted, meaning others can read it and the descendant gets profits. If she doesn't do it, nobody gets to read the book and the descendant gets nothing.

Who is really the scavenger here?

You make it sound as if having to pay for exploiting an IP is an act of charity from the exploiter's side. It's not. The argument you present here might just as easily go: "Knowledge should be free for all, so it's immoral to financially compensate the creators and their families for the creator's creation. Let them do some actual work if they want money."

Now you're intentionally twisting my words, despite quoting me on how I do want the creators compensated. So let me reiterate with a bit more detail:

I want creators to receive fair compensation for what they create (which will basically be "whatever they can get") during their lifetime, and for their descendants to hold the rights for a limited time after their deaths (say, 25 years - enough that any children born right before they die can grow up and get an education). After that I see no moral reason for their descendants to have more rights to their creation than any other member of humanity. If someone wants to reprint a popular book, fine, what's the problem? More people get to read it, the writer got fair compensation during his lifetime and his family had plenty of time to find some other way to make a living.

[jensaltmann]

Jun 3, 2011 1:00:12 GMT -8 Anders said:

Using language like "exploiters" really isn't helping your argument.

Can't help that, because that is how I see them: people who exploit the work of others.

[/quote]There's a difference between reprinting an existing work wholesale and creating a new work based on an existing one. Your arguments pertain only to the former, while it's the latter that the PD crowd usually talk about (as far as I know; I don't follow the debate closely). I assume this is why you skipped the part about how Le Morte is itself a derivative work.[/quote]

No, I skipped that part because I took that at face value, I don't know to which extent it is a derivative work. It's based on the Arthurian legends, yes, but beyond that I don't know enough to make a statement either way.

In any case, my ironclad stance remains firm: instead of doing something derivative, let them create something original.

[

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

]You're also ignoring Mario's argument about profit sharing. By now Mallory's descendants are likely into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, meaning any individual, descendant or not, will receive any measurable profit at all from reprinting Le Morte. The only way it would be reprinted would be through charity... and if we extend this to patents, it would be the same for everything.

Have you followed the debate (I don't know if it's a debate in Sweden, but it comes up on and off in both the anglophone countries and here in Germany) about doing away with copyright entirely? Not to the extent that they just take everything away from the creators, but rather, to make the government pay every creator a monthly stipend/salary, in return for which the creators give up all rights to their works. I know that on the surface, this sounds like something different entirely. But the concept is similar: governmental charity vs. the charity of the copyright owners.

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

If we take your argument about houses you have it completely backwards. Who would build a house when you would have to share the profit from selling it (or the house itself) with every single person on the planet? Since everyone is a descendant of the creator, everyone has equal rights to the house. That's how it would be with copyright if it was passed along indefinitely - after a few generations nothing would be reprinted, ever. It would, quite literally, be the death of history.

I disagree with that assessment.

Jun 2, 2011 23:35:50 GMT -8 Anders said:

Furthermore, let's compare the "vulture" Paris Hilton to the Mallory descendants in the Le Morte scenario.

The descendant does nothing. He owns the rights and will take a share of the profits.

Paris Hilton has the book reprinted, meaning others can read it and the descendant gets profits. If she doesn't do it, nobody gets to read the book and the descendant gets nothing.

Who is really the scavenger here?

Or rather, Paris Hilton won't bother reprinting it. In order to make money, the heirs will have to take action. They won't get money for nothing.

quote author=discordian board=life thread=444 post=5617 time=1307086550]I want creators to receive fair compensation for what they create (which will basically be "whatever they can get") during their lifetime, and for their descendants to hold the rights for a limited time after their deaths (say, 25 years - enough that any children born right before they die can grow up and get an education). After that I see no moral reason for their descendants to have more rights to their creation than any other member of humanity. If someone wants to reprint a popular book, fine, what's the problem? More people get to read it, the writer got fair compensation during his lifetime and his family had plenty of time to find some other way to make a living.[/quote]

If I were American, I'd argue that that is communism. It's not, but
it is unfair.

The only way to make that fair would be to make sure that nobody can inherit anything at all in the second or third generation. Take the Hilton hotels away from the Hiltons, because they didn't do anything to build them. Let them find their own way of making money!

Why should someone who created an IP be treated differently from someone who builds a hotel chain? Or a buggy whip factory? Those families get to perpetuate their family business for as long as the heir can manage to not go out of business. By limiting copyright, you're basically establishing that if your ancestor happened to be an artist of some kind, you do not deserve the same consideration.

Basically, by defending PD, you're saying that the descendants of creators should have fewer rights than Paris Hilton.

The one compromise that I would agree to would be to make the expiration of copyright dependent on the willingness of the heirs to pursue it. Make them renew it with every generation. If they fail to do so, it's like a company going out of business. Then it can be made available for any scavenger who thinks they can make a quick buck with it.