One Writer's "Truth" About Copyright
from the say-what-now? dept
I'm a bit confused as to what's going through Thomas Greene's mind over at the Register, but he goes on quite a rant about the "truth" of copyright today. I'm not quite sure exactly how one anecdotal (and apparently completely made up) story proves any point whatsoever, but he seems to think it's conclusive. I also tend to wonder about any argument that starts with "I've always argued for this one thing, so you know I've got my street cred - and because of that, you should listen to me when I tell you you're full of crap on this other thing".
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greene makes a few good points
He does raise some interesting points in this article which I think are right on. For example, he clearly criticizes the DMCA where it tramples on fair use rights. And parts of Eldred & Lessig’s argument are based on flawed logic and perfect world ideals. They are overlooking the realities of printing and publishing and assuming that it’s the same as the internet. Eldred is going to lose and for reasons Greene points out in another article: the justices are afraid of invalidating all the other extensions and because the Constitution says “power to promote creative works,” not “to optimize production.” While the Mickey Mouse Act is wrong, and bad legislation, it’s not unconstitutional--in this case, the Constitution gives congress the power to be wrong.
That said, I disagree with him on a few points in this article (and others). I found his analogy of the imaginary writer to be somewhat convincing--if that were the way things really worked, it’s a somewhat compelling example of copyright working. But I really don’t think that it’s like that for most authors. My biggest problem with copyright is that it seems like the actual creators of the works are forced to practically give away their copyright to a publisher. As far as I’m concerned, once the copyright exchanges hands, the term should be cut down drastically. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage arts & science, then once a writer gives up his copyright to a book publisher, it is no longer an incentive. The second biggest issue I have with copyright is that it kills the availability of lower volume books that are out of print. In many cases, a publisher that owns the copyright on an out of print book will not print the book because it won’t sell enough to be worth printing. Combine that with the acid-based paper most books were printed on that will only last a few decades (best case scenario) and you have a recipe for works being completely lost--forever. If a copyright owner is not willing to publish their work in some manner, their copyright should be void. Finally, I’ve heard that something like 90% of the money generated from a copyright is made in the first few years. If there is true hard evidence of this, then the benefit to society of copyright ending after those few years (plus few years to be safe) vastly outweighs the benefit of the creator of a few extra dollars. Anybody know whether this statistic is true or just anecdotal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
truth copyright and the greene way
Dear Mr. Greene:
Are you ready for the Digital Age? Doesn't sound like it, from reading your fine article in the Register on the 18th.
My Magnum Opus One is up on the web. Viewers are reading it, downloading it, printing, sharing it, talking about it, and quoting it around the world. Twenty-three languages, and translations continue as-we-speak.
I'm beginning to see revenues, speaking engagements, travel ops, commissioned works offers, and best of all, merchandising opps coming in weekly. Why, I've even had three universities offer positions.
I worked hard on my research for Magnum Opus One, spending three years, researching and writing. Sort of equivalent to someone going to college to earn a degree. I managed to survive by using the Internet to plug my work, engage an audience of supporters through a weblog, and some creative merchandising campaigns. It wasn't easy, but every nickel comes to me, now, and I decide how to spend it. Nice having control, I think.
I just completed a contract with a traditional publisher to provide hard cover books. On my terms, mutually agreeable to all parties. The Internet let me run a campaign for orders up front. Pre-paid to the tune of 100,000. Imagine.
Welcome to the Digital Age, Thomas C. Greene. You'll like it! So will the publishers. All this because we have the Creative Commons Project where sanity and reality meet, protecting our Precious Public Domain.
Oh, and in case you're interested, marketing budget includes factoring "lost sales" as promotion, which is advantageous when calculating one's tax liabilities.
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
[ link to this | view in thread ]