, this is almost more of a contract law problem than a copyright problem.
I agree. And if anything, that's where this issue needs to be resolved.
However, bankruptcy in general ties up physical and financial assets, too: do you think the creditors who loaned that company money are any more deserving of being screwed than the authors are?
The real problem here is the bankruptcy system. It serves a vital purpose, but it also screws a lot of people along the way.
, this is almost more of a contract law problem than a copyright problem.
I agree. And if anything, that's where this issue needs to be resolved.
However, bankruptcy in general ties up physical and financial assets, too: do you think the creditors who loaned that company money are any more deserving of being screwed than the authors are?
The real problem here is the bankruptcy system. It serves a vital purpose, but it also screws a lot of people along the way.
It's a government-granted privilege intended to achieve the aim of societal good.
Right. By granting property rights to the creations of artists, the government preserves the ability of those artists to create.
As I said to the commenter who replied just before you, any time you take away the individual's rights in favor of "society's" good, you end up with Communism. Communism is great in theory, but it has never gone well in practice.
Only by creating a strong tradition of individual rights can we have a stable and productive society.
It's the foundation of our system of government, and it's the foundation of every system of government that isn't some sort of tyranny.
If I live alone in a big, is it better for "society" if you take my house from me and give it to a family of 5?
Sure, it's better for those 5 people. But you've also just enacted Communism, and that's worked so well everywhere it's been tried.
Taking away Copyright is no different.
Words on paper aren't some magic thing that has no value. Neither are bits on a hard drive or music on a recording. They're the result of my time and energy, exactly the same way my car is the result of the time and energy.
Everything that you build, buy, or create is the result of exactly two things: time and energy, and no expression of time or energy is inherently more valuable to society than another.
People who try to eliminate Copyright are basically saying that one of form of work is more valuable than another - that the work I put in to writing a book is less valuable than the work I put in to buying my car.
People who say that society's rights to my work are more important than my rights to my work are basically saying that all property belongs to everyone, since all property is the result of work.
We've seen that the only effective, long term system of economy is a well-regulated open market, one where individual rights are paramount, and even the government cannot take someone's property without due compensation.
So my point is that you have to protect the individual's rights first. When you take away one person's rights, you take away the rights of anyone and therefore everyone.
So "society" must protect the individual, only then can society itself be preserved.
You're missing the point of this article entirely. The purpose isn't to generate sympathy for authors who signed bad deals, but to show how copyright can tie up rights and prevent new works from coming into being, and how the major beneficiaries of copyright aren't "artists" but gatekeeping institutions who use it in controlling ways to work against the interests of artists.
By the way, signing a bad contract in and of itself isn't ironclad. The law, contrary to popular belief, is flexible on this point: if you can show financial duress a one-sided or exploitative contract is invalid.
Oh, I agree on both points.
The model espoused by the publishing, video, and music industries has long been flawed, and it is definitely exploitative. It's a good thing that independent publishing is now becoming a viable alternative.
In this particular example, I still have to say, basically, As to the second point: this is EXACTLY my argument when it comes to "clickwrap" agreements. Those are never an agreement among equals, and I don't think that anything other than pure Copyright should be allowed to govern the use of any sort of media purchased in a retail channel: this goes for movies, books, music, or computer software. The ONLY time I think a license agreement should be valid is for the use of an on-line service or contracted work, such as custom software development or works for hire.
It should be noted that the problems in this case are not really Copyright issues, though. They're contract issues and issues with how bankruptcy court apparently sees Copyrights.
I have been on the receiving end of this, and it sucks: I worked for a business that got screwed by the BK court when a client went belly up. The court took our last 90 days of invoice payments from the client and treated us as a creditor.
IMO, as much as it sucks, I don't see that authors should get different treatment than any other creditor in this agreement. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but I'm also not sure there's really a better answer here.
Now don't get me wrong: coming in and offering basically nothing (if I understand correctly, a "net" contract means that they can easily fudge the numbers and end up paying you Zero) is dirty pool. But that's apparently how this company has done business for a while, based on other threads in this post. Again, not Copyright issues.
Labels wield this unwelcome sword because they have many vulnerable, desperate and/or naive artists to exploit. This is disgraceful. The ability to strip an artist of his deserved natural rights would be impossible if copyright did not exist to begin with.
If Copyright did not exist, then the instant I wrote a book, anyone could copy it and give it to whomever they want.
How would I make a living if I could not charge for my work?
Now things like crowdfunding may work in today's market, where we can actually exchange money instantly, but that would have been impractical 20 years ago, when the Internet was still basically a government and university toy.
Copyright is certainly necessary, and I believe that the ownership of one's work IS a natural right. If you want to discuss how to fix the problem within the bounds of a healthy Copyright system, I'm all ears, but if you try to tell me that we should eliminate Intellectual Property rights, there's simply no room for conversation.
I'm not sure what a facet is, but I fix my faucets as soon as they start leaking.
Like I said, if Hollywood needs consultants from the FBI, I think they should be paying for it.
But if I had to choose between the FBI spending a million dollars a year on "public relations" or having wildly inaccurate TV shows that skew the public's opinion and make law enforcement's job harder, I'll take the $1 million expense.
That doesn't mean I don't want to see Hollywood pay for it. It just means that I see the value to the public in having TV reflect reality.
People actually go to court thinking that CSI is real...and juries acquit criminals because the lawyers can't present a case that's as cut and dried as what they see on television.
People go to court thinking that because they watch Boston Legal, they know the law. Then they get laughed out of the courtroom by the judge and the other guy's lawyer.
So there's value in making sure that the public sees more realistic legal and police procedures. I don't call that a leaky faucet. I call that a necessary public service.
If the BK court is not honoring the length of a license's term, I have a problem with that. If the license expires after 5 years, and the BK starts 4 years in, then that asset only exists for one more year. After that, the lease is up.
However, I can see why BK reversion clauses would be worthless. An aspect of bankruptcy is that you specifically cannot dump assets prior to or during the bankruptcy process. In fact, the court can go back and seize money paid out by the debtor just prior to the debtor declaring bankruptcy. This rule is designed to protect creditors from being ripped off by the debtor paying one creditor off and hanging the rest out to dry. By reverting a copyright license automatically, you're essentially dumping an asset. Since that asset is worth money, you can't dispose of it once the bankruptcy has been filed (or for 90 days before that, actually.)
So yeah... I feel bad for these authors, but that's part of the business. The only defense here is to make sure your terms are short enough that you can recover your rights regardless of what happens in a drawn out fight.
If I make something, physical or virtual, I own it. Nobody should have the power to take it away from me.
Do I think Copryights should be perpetual? No. But do I think I should have the exclusive right to use it while I'm still alive? Yes.
Is that good for society? I don't really care. Lots of rights are good for the individual and not so much for society as a whole when the individual's rights don't line up with society's needs.
I am sitting here thinking of the next big technology.
Imagine when we get the Star Trek style replicator in our homes. Instead of going to the market for a gallon of milk, we can push a button and just get what we need out of a magic box.
Picture the massive unemployment as retail stores everywhere basically shutter their businesses overnight. Picture the mass riots as the people who can't afford to pay their rent demand that government "Do something."
Local stores going out of business is not a problem. It's simply one visible effect of a fundamental shift in our society. In other words, it's a growing pain.
Instead of fearing this, what local governments should do is anticipate it. Look at it not as a disaster, but as a sign of the next stage of society's evolution. Be ready to convert those abandoned storefronts for some other use.
And be ready to adjust society's expectations of employment. We're quickly reaching the point where fewer people are producing the goods we need. This WILL result in unemployment, so we simply need to find a way to either funnel those people in to new types of work or find a way for a larger part of our society to *not* work in the conventional sense.
Actually, you're late on the draw. Skyhorse has already apparently raised its bid to something that sounds more like industry standard, and the SFWA has already put their stamp of approval on it.
I've heard people in the industry talking about this kind of thing, and their conclusion? Don't sign a contract that doesn't give you the ability to recover your Copyright.
No one forced these authors to sign a bad contract.
Now should the industry make changes to prevent this kind of problem in the future? I can see a few ways to make that happen, but it really relies on the creative types being smarter about what they sign.
Of course, I think this will become less and less relevant in the digital age. By the time this bankruptcy clears, I'm betting conventional publishing will be all but dead anyway.
Use it or lose it is simplistic, but I think that's the right general idea.
In the case of orphaned works, then the work should enter public domain after a waiting period of not more than 1 year.
However, this specific case isn't that. It's a case of the current rightsholders being difficult. The current holder exists, and the works aren't going out of print because they're being orphaned. In this particular place, I unfortunately have to point to the Superman Copyright battle and say, "Sorry. You signed a bad deal. Do better next time."
The problem with "use it or lose it" or even mandatory recovery of Copyright is that this system could be gamed just as much as the current system is.
The real solution to this particular problem is just better contracts. A relatively short time limit on the publishing rights would have prevented this from being much more than a nuisance.
While I do sympathize with these authors, I have a hard time building up any outrage.
Scott Kurtz, an independent comic artist, has said quite clearly and repeatedly that when you sell out, any problems you have with your copyrights down the road are your own fault.
These people are not in this situation because of problems with Copyright. They're in this situation because they signed bad contracts. It's really that simple.
I would think that a good publishing contract would have had stipulations for an event like bankruptcy or some sort of limit on the time frame of the contract. Simply giving away your publishing rights forever is a bad idea... unless you don't believe in yourself, and you're thinking that the advance is all the money you're ever going to get.
What's stopping these authors from writing new books? I realize sequels are a problem, but I can't see what's stopping them from starting new series and either self-publishing them or going to another publishing house. If they're quality authors, I imagine other publishers would be chomping at the bit for their contracts.
Honestly, I think the domain seizures are going too far... someone should have to be convicted of a crime before the government can seize their assets - domain names included.
As to the government being the Copyright Police... isn't providing law enforcement part of the government's job? I'll agree that DOJ should not be treating Hollywood any differntly than any other group of citizens, but let's face it: what are the biggest targets of IP theft? I'm betting it's Hollywood and Microsoft.
Now when it comes to liasing with TV studios, I am down with that, provided TV studios are willing to pay a consultation fee.
When I was in for Jury duty recently, the prosecutor and defense attorney both brought up CSI. Essentially, their comments were "You realize we're not going to provide you with a cut and dried case like on CSI, right?"
I think it's important that TV get law enforcement right, but I also think it's important that the studios pay for that.
But really, $1.5 million a year? That's chicken feed when you consider the overall Federal budget... and if I had to choose between Hollywood getting that service for free or not having that service at all, I'd rather the taxpayer spend the money.
At least it's not paying for another bridge to nowhere.
That's the real issue here: free software isn't always or even usually as good as the paid-for alternatives, yet people use free stuff because it's good enough.
I fail to see any issue with this.
It's an issue when a loss leader is used to crowd out competitors with better products, and then that "special deal" is taken away when the competition disappears.
To be fair, I don't think that's actually happening here: Android is a quality product that can stand on its own. I have seen this happen in the past, though: one company manages to get in to the OEM market, and their competition dries up for lack of sales.
Actually, without Copyright, there is no "trade" when it comes to IP. It's just "take," and I don't agree at all with the idea that every bit of writing, music, or software should be public domain.
A large part of what the US produces these days is IP of some sort: movies, music, television shows, video games, computer software.
How could a trade agreement NOT cover the responsibilities of signatories to respect the rights of the people that created those items?
Again, I don't want to see an international agreement saying what kinds of Copyright terms a US-made product will have in the US. What I want to see is something that essentially says that Copyright will be protected based on the country where the product was created.
So a Hollywood movie would have US Copyright protection in Spain, and a BBC production would have English Copyright protection in the US.
The only other way is to have local Copyright protecting foreign products, and I'm not willing to live with the idea that I can write a computer program that may be worth a lot of money, and then have some country say "We don't honor foreign Copyright" and decide that my stuff is free to pirate.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: It's all about bargaining power
I agree. And if anything, that's where this issue needs to be resolved.
However, bankruptcy in general ties up physical and financial assets, too: do you think the creditors who loaned that company money are any more deserving of being screwed than the authors are?
The real problem here is the bankruptcy system. It serves a vital purpose, but it also screws a lot of people along the way.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: It's all about bargaining power
I agree. And if anything, that's where this issue needs to be resolved.
However, bankruptcy in general ties up physical and financial assets, too: do you think the creditors who loaned that company money are any more deserving of being screwed than the authors are?
The real problem here is the bankruptcy system. It serves a vital purpose, but it also screws a lot of people along the way.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2013 @ 8:51am
True, but we also would have no music, books, or movies, because no one would be able to raise the capital to produce them.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. By granting property rights to the creations of artists, the government preserves the ability of those artists to create.
As I said to the commenter who replied just before you, any time you take away the individual's rights in favor of "society's" good, you end up with Communism. Communism is great in theory, but it has never gone well in practice.
Only by creating a strong tradition of individual rights can we have a stable and productive society.
It's the foundation of our system of government, and it's the foundation of every system of government that isn't some sort of tyranny.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, it's better for those 5 people. But you've also just enacted Communism, and that's worked so well everywhere it's been tried.
Taking away Copyright is no different.
Words on paper aren't some magic thing that has no value. Neither are bits on a hard drive or music on a recording. They're the result of my time and energy, exactly the same way my car is the result of the time and energy.
Everything that you build, buy, or create is the result of exactly two things: time and energy, and no expression of time or energy is inherently more valuable to society than another.
People who try to eliminate Copyright are basically saying that one of form of work is more valuable than another - that the work I put in to writing a book is less valuable than the work I put in to buying my car.
People who say that society's rights to my work are more important than my rights to my work are basically saying that all property belongs to everyone, since all property is the result of work.
We've seen that the only effective, long term system of economy is a well-regulated open market, one where individual rights are paramount, and even the government cannot take someone's property without due compensation.
So my point is that you have to protect the individual's rights first. When you take away one person's rights, you take away the rights of anyone and therefore everyone.
So "society" must protect the individual, only then can society itself be preserved.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re:
Oh, I agree on both points.
The model espoused by the publishing, video, and music industries has long been flawed, and it is definitely exploitative. It's a good thing that independent publishing is now becoming a viable alternative.
In this particular example, I still have to say, basically, As to the second point: this is EXACTLY my argument when it comes to "clickwrap" agreements. Those are never an agreement among equals, and I don't think that anything other than pure Copyright should be allowed to govern the use of any sort of media purchased in a retail channel: this goes for movies, books, music, or computer software. The ONLY time I think a license agreement should be valid is for the use of an on-line service or contracted work, such as custom software development or works for hire.
It should be noted that the problems in this case are not really Copyright issues, though. They're contract issues and issues with how bankruptcy court apparently sees Copyrights.
I have been on the receiving end of this, and it sucks: I worked for a business that got screwed by the BK court when a client went belly up. The court took our last 90 days of invoice payments from the client and treated us as a creditor.
IMO, as much as it sucks, I don't see that authors should get different treatment than any other creditor in this agreement. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but I'm also not sure there's really a better answer here.
Now don't get me wrong: coming in and offering basically nothing (if I understand correctly, a "net" contract means that they can easily fudge the numbers and end up paying you Zero) is dirty pool. But that's apparently how this company has done business for a while, based on other threads in this post. Again, not Copyright issues.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re:
If Copyright did not exist, then the instant I wrote a book, anyone could copy it and give it to whomever they want.
How would I make a living if I could not charge for my work?
Now things like crowdfunding may work in today's market, where we can actually exchange money instantly, but that would have been impractical 20 years ago, when the Internet was still basically a government and university toy.
Copyright is certainly necessary, and I believe that the ownership of one's work IS a natural right. If you want to discuss how to fix the problem within the bounds of a healthy Copyright system, I'm all ears, but if you try to tell me that we should eliminate Intellectual Property rights, there's simply no room for conversation.
On the post: Surprise: Rep. Bob Goodlatte Thinks The Justice Department Is Too Cozy With Hollywood
Re: Re:
Like I said, if Hollywood needs consultants from the FBI, I think they should be paying for it.
But if I had to choose between the FBI spending a million dollars a year on "public relations" or having wildly inaccurate TV shows that skew the public's opinion and make law enforcement's job harder, I'll take the $1 million expense.
That doesn't mean I don't want to see Hollywood pay for it. It just means that I see the value to the public in having TV reflect reality.
People actually go to court thinking that CSI is real...and juries acquit criminals because the lawyers can't present a case that's as cut and dried as what they see on television.
People go to court thinking that because they watch Boston Legal, they know the law. Then they get laughed out of the courtroom by the judge and the other guy's lawyer.
So there's value in making sure that the public sees more realistic legal and police procedures. I don't call that a leaky faucet. I call that a necessary public service.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re:
However, I can see why BK reversion clauses would be worthless. An aspect of bankruptcy is that you specifically cannot dump assets prior to or during the bankruptcy process. In fact, the court can go back and seize money paid out by the debtor just prior to the debtor declaring bankruptcy. This rule is designed to protect creditors from being ripped off by the debtor paying one creditor off and hanging the rest out to dry. By reverting a copyright license automatically, you're essentially dumping an asset. Since that asset is worth money, you can't dispose of it once the bankruptcy has been filed (or for 90 days before that, actually.)
So yeah... I feel bad for these authors, but that's part of the business. The only defense here is to make sure your terms are short enough that you can recover your rights regardless of what happens in a drawn out fight.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I make something, physical or virtual, I own it. Nobody should have the power to take it away from me.
Do I think Copryights should be perpetual? No. But do I think I should have the exclusive right to use it while I'm still alive? Yes.
Is that good for society? I don't really care. Lots of rights are good for the individual and not so much for society as a whole when the individual's rights don't line up with society's needs.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
What happens when the next tech...
Imagine when we get the Star Trek style replicator in our homes. Instead of going to the market for a gallon of milk, we can push a button and just get what we need out of a magic box.
Picture the massive unemployment as retail stores everywhere basically shutter their businesses overnight. Picture the mass riots as the people who can't afford to pay their rent demand that government "Do something."
Local stores going out of business is not a problem. It's simply one visible effect of a fundamental shift in our society. In other words, it's a growing pain.
Instead of fearing this, what local governments should do is anticipate it. Look at it not as a disaster, but as a sign of the next stage of society's evolution. Be ready to convert those abandoned storefronts for some other use.
And be ready to adjust society's expectations of employment. We're quickly reaching the point where fewer people are producing the goods we need. This WILL result in unemployment, so we simply need to find a way to either funnel those people in to new types of work or find a way for a larger part of our society to *not* work in the conventional sense.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re:
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Story Update
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re:
No one forced these authors to sign a bad contract.
Now should the industry make changes to prevent this kind of problem in the future? I can see a few ways to make that happen, but it really relies on the creative types being smarter about what they sign.
Of course, I think this will become less and less relevant in the digital age. By the time this bankruptcy clears, I'm betting conventional publishing will be all but dead anyway.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re:
In the case of orphaned works, then the work should enter public domain after a waiting period of not more than 1 year.
However, this specific case isn't that. It's a case of the current rightsholders being difficult. The current holder exists, and the works aren't going out of print because they're being orphaned. In this particular place, I unfortunately have to point to the Superman Copyright battle and say, "Sorry. You signed a bad deal. Do better next time."
The problem with "use it or lose it" or even mandatory recovery of Copyright is that this system could be gamed just as much as the current system is.
The real solution to this particular problem is just better contracts. A relatively short time limit on the publishing rights would have prevented this from being much more than a nuisance.
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Scott Kurtz, an independent comic artist, has said quite clearly and repeatedly that when you sell out, any problems you have with your copyrights down the road are your own fault.
These people are not in this situation because of problems with Copyright. They're in this situation because they signed bad contracts. It's really that simple.
I would think that a good publishing contract would have had stipulations for an event like bankruptcy or some sort of limit on the time frame of the contract. Simply giving away your publishing rights forever is a bad idea... unless you don't believe in yourself, and you're thinking that the advance is all the money you're ever going to get.
What's stopping these authors from writing new books? I realize sequels are a problem, but I can't see what's stopping them from starting new series and either self-publishing them or going to another publishing house. If they're quality authors, I imagine other publishers would be chomping at the bit for their contracts.
On the post: Surprise: Rep. Bob Goodlatte Thinks The Justice Department Is Too Cozy With Hollywood
As to the government being the Copyright Police... isn't providing law enforcement part of the government's job? I'll agree that DOJ should not be treating Hollywood any differntly than any other group of citizens, but let's face it: what are the biggest targets of IP theft? I'm betting it's Hollywood and Microsoft.
Now when it comes to liasing with TV studios, I am down with that, provided TV studios are willing to pay a consultation fee.
When I was in for Jury duty recently, the prosecutor and defense attorney both brought up CSI. Essentially, their comments were "You realize we're not going to provide you with a cut and dried case like on CSI, right?"
I think it's important that TV get law enforcement right, but I also think it's important that the studios pay for that.
But really, $1.5 million a year? That's chicken feed when you consider the overall Federal budget... and if I had to choose between Hollywood getting that service for free or not having that service at all, I'd rather the taxpayer spend the money.
At least it's not paying for another bridge to nowhere.
On the post: Google Competitors File Ridiculous EU Complaint Arguing That 'Free' Android Is Anti-Competitive
Re: Re:
It's an issue when a loss leader is used to crowd out competitors with better products, and then that "special deal" is taken away when the competition disappears.
To be fair, I don't think that's actually happening here: Android is a quality product that can stand on its own. I have seen this happen in the past, though: one company manages to get in to the OEM market, and their competition dries up for lack of sales.
On the post: Patents, Trademarks And Copyrights Have No Place In Trade Agreements
Re: Re: Copyright is important, though
A large part of what the US produces these days is IP of some sort: movies, music, television shows, video games, computer software.
How could a trade agreement NOT cover the responsibilities of signatories to respect the rights of the people that created those items?
Again, I don't want to see an international agreement saying what kinds of Copyright terms a US-made product will have in the US. What I want to see is something that essentially says that Copyright will be protected based on the country where the product was created.
So a Hollywood movie would have US Copyright protection in Spain, and a BBC production would have English Copyright protection in the US.
The only other way is to have local Copyright protecting foreign products, and I'm not willing to live with the idea that I can write a computer program that may be worth a lot of money, and then have some country say "We don't honor foreign Copyright" and decide that my stuff is free to pirate.
On the post: Patents, Trademarks And Copyrights Have No Place In Trade Agreements
Re: Re: Copyright is important, though
Next >>