I'll be honest and tell you the "how" from coming up with 25 years was actually trying to think of an amount of years long enough for all concerned to benefit from their work, yet not too long so that all (well, most) people who were around at the time it is released would still be around to be able to enjoy any benefits from the work being in the public domain.
One of your points raised is, to paraphrase you, to define "work" - and whilst clearly "work" involves somebody such as a singer being either in the studio or onstage, a song writer would be "at work" whenever they are writing. Hence why there is no actual "hourly wage" for creators: There simply could not possibly be - even the creative people in advertising who 'work 9 to 5' could have that billion dollar idea at 2:30 in the morning. This is why although I made the point that a regular worker gets paid once,I didn't say the same should apply to creativity.
So how to determine how much a creator should be paid? I could honestly never answer that as I am a consumer and not generally a creator. I, personally, as a consumer, would be happy to pay for some things and not others, with the price varying. For example, for a rock concert, I would expect to pay at least $50 for a ticket, depending on who it was and how badly I wanted to see them - and, assuming that $50 per person would also be enough to properly pay all those involved. I paid $150 to see Simon and Garfunkel in 2009. At the time I was hesitant to spend that much, even knowing that they would probably never be in Australia again. I did decide, in the end, that it was worth the "splash out" and, indeed, it was (although I heard them more than saw them as the Acer Arena in Sydney is HUGE!) ~ But from my $150 I hope at least $100 of that went to Simon, Garfunkel, their band, the sound and lighting crew, etc.
The publisher wishes to advise that the opinions posted in this comment may not necessarily reflect those of the publisher. They might, but not necessarily.
OK, let's have a serious discussion here and try to look at it from all sides.
The big content industries, such as the major Hollywood studios, major recording labels (and, let's face it, they are major because they are big and they got big by starting early in the game and eating up the competition) and large publishers such as, but not limited to, Random House or Harper Collins... They see the products they make or sell or publish as investments with never ending returns. The fact that there's a lot that is out of circulation not withstanding, once they spend any money on it, they want money back for it forever. And if they can never spend money on it again (such as royalties) and still get money for it, they would consider that to be even better.
The actual creators - writers, actors, singers, songwriters, authors, photographers - they want to be able to earn a living doing what they love. The average person works at their job and they get paid for that day's work, or that week's work, and never get paid for the same work again. To continue getting paid, they must keep working. Whilst I am not against a creator earning money from their old works, especially as the content companies are getting money from the creator's works still as well, it should end somewhere.
The pubic just wants the books, comics, movies, TV shows and music.
Now, let's take the fact that copyright exists not as a means of a perpetual return on an investment but as a means of encouraging creativity, we should apply the fact that most people get paid for their work once. Now if you extend that to writing, singing, acting, etc, well, they can either get paid once (work for hire) or they can get paid whenever money is made from their work (royalties) but if you only need to make one successful work and then you can retire from it, what good is that? It has destroyed your desire to create more, which is contrary to why copyright exists.
Let's take TechDirt. Mike writes an article. People read the article, for "free" - with ads popping up on the page down the right hand side (seriously, sometimes the home page of TD takes ages to load because of this, thus annoying me, thus I am spending my time waiting to read the "free" content) and that is where Mike earns money. I can comment. I comment for free: Nobody pays me for my comment. Mike makes no money from my comment other than the money he would make from the ads on the side of the page, which would be there anyway even if I didn't comment. Is it fair that Mike makes money from my comment? I don't know but I don't care, I am still making my comment which I did not get paid money for and am spending my time posting and you are spending your time reading.
I think I've side-tracked here (I usually do, maybe I should hire an editor!) my point of the above paragraph being that I am getting no financial payment or any other kind of payment for posting this comment and yet I am still posting this comment, thus creativity, in the form of my thought processes and ideas, are flowing.
Now, public domain. I am of the opinion that copyright should be for around 25 years. Why 25 years? Easy: That is a lot longer than most people have to earn money from their work. If, for example, The Beatles got an hourly wage, they would not have made much money. But with the number of copies and subsequent royalties made over 25 years from 1967 to 1992, they would have made a lot, and a lot more than on an hourly wage. However, after 25 years, the majority of people who bought the album would still be around to enjoy any derivative works made from it. Assuming the price drops slightly one the copyright expires (from royalties no longer having to be paid) more people could afford to buy a copy of the album and hear it. This in turn would generate more interest, not just in The Beatles, but also in the four members, two of which are still alive and, on occasion, actively recording.
Using TV shows as an example now, there would still be a call for new TV shows to be produced. However, with less money needing to be paid, reruns of old shows could take the place of the endless parade of cheaply produced shock documentaries and reality shows. DVD's of these shows could be released, with the big companies applying restoration to make the "official" edition worth paying a bit extra for. There'd be no need to replace the music in shows like "Happy Days" and there'd be no need to cut out any scenes just because some two-bit actor, who's only leading role was in some late-night telemovie made in 1972, objects to them being seen in a bit part.
There is a huge stack of money able to be made from public domain works for those who are willing to invest. Just ask any publisher who prints Jane Austin or Charles Dickens or Shakespeare. Movies could be available for cheap but only those companies who invest the time, money and effort to keep the print quality good will earn money. TV shows, likewise. Music could be remastered by people who don't believe that all music should be made at full blast. And in many cases, there is now no need for physical media, meaning a startup company could invest in the restoration (if needed) of their selected item... let's say one company wants to release the movie "Psycho 2" from 1982 and another wishes to release "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield. They could invest the money, time and effort to restore, digitize and master these works to make them look and sound as if they were recorded yesterday, then distribute them at almost zero cost. A low retail price would ensure higher sales so it should not take long, even at only $2 to $3 per copy, to recoup the costs of restoration and have the profits start to roll in.
But where is the benefit for the creators? Well they've had 25 years to reap the benefits, which is a lot longer than most people get. They could, also, take their own work once the copyright has expired and release it themselves. A long established musician, for example, such as Jon Bon Jovi, who is still touring, could sell CD's at his concerts and not have to worry about forking over 95% of the profits back to the record company who is supposed to pay him and doesn't (by the 25 year standard I am suggesting, the first three Bon Jovi albums are public domain, with two more due in the next three years)
The cultural benefits of all of this, even if nobody ever bothered with derivative works, are enormous. Things you saw or heard or read as a kid would be a lot more readily available to show to your kids. You could write a sequel to your favourite book and nobody could say you shouldn't.
There IS money to be made and creativity to be had with public domain material. You just need to invest the time and effort in the first place to get it out there for people to consume it.
"In the US, reason number one -[snip]- was a key driving force behind the last copyright extension, and likely will be used in a few years when Disney leads the fight for yet another copyright extension"
Who's the reason
trademark law's
extended constantly
M-I-C, K-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E
Seriously, first the networks screw over Hulu and now the studios are screwing over Netflix? Where's the alternative? Will we have to subscribe separately to see content from Fox and Universal and Sony and Disney and Warner and Viacom? Maybe that's the plan. Make us subscribe to a different service for each studio. That'll work.... in their dreams.
We can bitch and moan all we like, though. They won't listen. Why should they? They hold the rights to do whatever they wish and they reserve all rights. They reserve them in the vault until they corrode beyond use. So I give up. Won't you join me in giving up? :P
I believe he is referring to the story of the wisdom of King Solomon.
Two women claiming a baby is theirs. King Solomon orders the baby to be cut in half so each woman can half half the baby. First woman says "Fine!" second woman says "No! Give her the baby, but don't cut it in half! That'll kill it!" and thus it was worked out that the second woman was the baby's mother because of how much she cared about it.
If I remember correctly, weren't screwups from Citigroup a major contributing factor the the Global (except Australia) Economic Crisis of 2009? Think about it: If they can't handle numbers, why should we listen if they say anything like this?
Look, seriously, everything is in place except the green light. The infrastructure exists to have all TV and movies and musical content online (you could say it already exists online but I digress), the market is there, the market is willing to pay a reasonable price, the profits are there to be made between subscription fees and advertising, so what's stopping it?
Now I've known for about 15 years now (maybe longer) that ideas are nothing without execution. I've had many ideas in my life, all based within the entertainment industry, but I've never had the money to do any of them nor anybody to share my ideas with to try to raise the money. End result? I have nothing. DUH! How hard was that to work out?
You know, I don't think I'll post any more comments here at TechDirt if the topic is about copyright. If I don't have the first comment then my comments tend to get buried under a hundred comments/replies of people squabbling over whether or not copying something is right or wrong (which is pointless because I'm yet to see a TechDirt article that says copying is right!)
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: I Say 25 Years
I'll be honest and tell you the "how" from coming up with 25 years was actually trying to think of an amount of years long enough for all concerned to benefit from their work, yet not too long so that all (well, most) people who were around at the time it is released would still be around to be able to enjoy any benefits from the work being in the public domain.
One of your points raised is, to paraphrase you, to define "work" - and whilst clearly "work" involves somebody such as a singer being either in the studio or onstage, a song writer would be "at work" whenever they are writing. Hence why there is no actual "hourly wage" for creators: There simply could not possibly be - even the creative people in advertising who 'work 9 to 5' could have that billion dollar idea at 2:30 in the morning. This is why although I made the point that a regular worker gets paid once,I didn't say the same should apply to creativity.
So how to determine how much a creator should be paid? I could honestly never answer that as I am a consumer and not generally a creator. I, personally, as a consumer, would be happy to pay for some things and not others, with the price varying. For example, for a rock concert, I would expect to pay at least $50 for a ticket, depending on who it was and how badly I wanted to see them - and, assuming that $50 per person would also be enough to properly pay all those involved. I paid $150 to see Simon and Garfunkel in 2009. At the time I was hesitant to spend that much, even knowing that they would probably never be in Australia again. I did decide, in the end, that it was worth the "splash out" and, indeed, it was (although I heard them more than saw them as the Acer Arena in Sydney is HUGE!) ~ But from my $150 I hope at least $100 of that went to Simon, Garfunkel, their band, the sound and lighting crew, etc.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: I Say 25 Years
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: I Say 25 Years
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: I Say 25 Years
On the post: Sometimes It's Better To Just Let People Copy Your Content Than Deal With Licensing
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: I Say 25 Years
(I meant to add that to the end of my comment but forgot to!)
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
I Say 25 Years
The big content industries, such as the major Hollywood studios, major recording labels (and, let's face it, they are major because they are big and they got big by starting early in the game and eating up the competition) and large publishers such as, but not limited to, Random House or Harper Collins... They see the products they make or sell or publish as investments with never ending returns. The fact that there's a lot that is out of circulation not withstanding, once they spend any money on it, they want money back for it forever. And if they can never spend money on it again (such as royalties) and still get money for it, they would consider that to be even better.
The actual creators - writers, actors, singers, songwriters, authors, photographers - they want to be able to earn a living doing what they love. The average person works at their job and they get paid for that day's work, or that week's work, and never get paid for the same work again. To continue getting paid, they must keep working. Whilst I am not against a creator earning money from their old works, especially as the content companies are getting money from the creator's works still as well, it should end somewhere.
The pubic just wants the books, comics, movies, TV shows and music.
Now, let's take the fact that copyright exists not as a means of a perpetual return on an investment but as a means of encouraging creativity, we should apply the fact that most people get paid for their work once. Now if you extend that to writing, singing, acting, etc, well, they can either get paid once (work for hire) or they can get paid whenever money is made from their work (royalties) but if you only need to make one successful work and then you can retire from it, what good is that? It has destroyed your desire to create more, which is contrary to why copyright exists.
Let's take TechDirt. Mike writes an article. People read the article, for "free" - with ads popping up on the page down the right hand side (seriously, sometimes the home page of TD takes ages to load because of this, thus annoying me, thus I am spending my time waiting to read the "free" content) and that is where Mike earns money. I can comment. I comment for free: Nobody pays me for my comment. Mike makes no money from my comment other than the money he would make from the ads on the side of the page, which would be there anyway even if I didn't comment. Is it fair that Mike makes money from my comment? I don't know but I don't care, I am still making my comment which I did not get paid money for and am spending my time posting and you are spending your time reading.
I think I've side-tracked here (I usually do, maybe I should hire an editor!) my point of the above paragraph being that I am getting no financial payment or any other kind of payment for posting this comment and yet I am still posting this comment, thus creativity, in the form of my thought processes and ideas, are flowing.
Now, public domain. I am of the opinion that copyright should be for around 25 years. Why 25 years? Easy: That is a lot longer than most people have to earn money from their work. If, for example, The Beatles got an hourly wage, they would not have made much money. But with the number of copies and subsequent royalties made over 25 years from 1967 to 1992, they would have made a lot, and a lot more than on an hourly wage. However, after 25 years, the majority of people who bought the album would still be around to enjoy any derivative works made from it. Assuming the price drops slightly one the copyright expires (from royalties no longer having to be paid) more people could afford to buy a copy of the album and hear it. This in turn would generate more interest, not just in The Beatles, but also in the four members, two of which are still alive and, on occasion, actively recording.
Using TV shows as an example now, there would still be a call for new TV shows to be produced. However, with less money needing to be paid, reruns of old shows could take the place of the endless parade of cheaply produced shock documentaries and reality shows. DVD's of these shows could be released, with the big companies applying restoration to make the "official" edition worth paying a bit extra for. There'd be no need to replace the music in shows like "Happy Days" and there'd be no need to cut out any scenes just because some two-bit actor, who's only leading role was in some late-night telemovie made in 1972, objects to them being seen in a bit part.
There is a huge stack of money able to be made from public domain works for those who are willing to invest. Just ask any publisher who prints Jane Austin or Charles Dickens or Shakespeare. Movies could be available for cheap but only those companies who invest the time, money and effort to keep the print quality good will earn money. TV shows, likewise. Music could be remastered by people who don't believe that all music should be made at full blast. And in many cases, there is now no need for physical media, meaning a startup company could invest in the restoration (if needed) of their selected item... let's say one company wants to release the movie "Psycho 2" from 1982 and another wishes to release "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield. They could invest the money, time and effort to restore, digitize and master these works to make them look and sound as if they were recorded yesterday, then distribute them at almost zero cost. A low retail price would ensure higher sales so it should not take long, even at only $2 to $3 per copy, to recoup the costs of restoration and have the profits start to roll in.
But where is the benefit for the creators? Well they've had 25 years to reap the benefits, which is a lot longer than most people get. They could, also, take their own work once the copyright has expired and release it themselves. A long established musician, for example, such as Jon Bon Jovi, who is still touring, could sell CD's at his concerts and not have to worry about forking over 95% of the profits back to the record company who is supposed to pay him and doesn't (by the 25 year standard I am suggesting, the first three Bon Jovi albums are public domain, with two more due in the next three years)
The cultural benefits of all of this, even if nobody ever bothered with derivative works, are enormous. Things you saw or heard or read as a kid would be a lot more readily available to show to your kids. You could write a sequel to your favourite book and nobody could say you shouldn't.
There IS money to be made and creativity to be had with public domain material. You just need to invest the time and effort in the first place to get it out there for people to consume it.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
The following comment is a repeat
Who's the reason
trademark law's
extended constantly
M-I-C, K-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E
On the post: Hollywood Continues Its Plan To Kill Netflix
I've given up on them myself
We can bitch and moan all we like, though. They won't listen. Why should they? They hold the rights to do whatever they wish and they reserve all rights. They reserve them in the vault until they corrode beyond use. So I give up. Won't you join me in giving up? :P
On the post: Heirs Of Superman Creators Appeal To Try To Get The Half Of The Baby The Judge Didn't Give Them
Re: Baby-splicing?
Two women claiming a baby is theirs. King Solomon orders the baby to be cut in half so each woman can half half the baby. First woman says "Fine!" second woman says "No! Give her the baby, but don't cut it in half! That'll kill it!" and thus it was worked out that the second woman was the baby's mother because of how much she cared about it.
On the post: Heirs Of Superman Creators Appeal To Try To Get The Half Of The Baby The Judge Didn't Give Them
Re: The better question:
"HA!" I replied, with a capital H, a capital A and a capital exclamation mark.
(Yes, I know you are joking, Jay, but I've had this little joke reply in my head all evening and I've been dying to find an excuse to use it!)
On the post: Heirs Of Superman Creators Appeal To Try To Get The Half Of The Baby The Judge Didn't Give Them
Parody is Fair Use right?
Sing along, boys and girls
Who's the reason
trademark law's
extended constantly?
M-I-C, K-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E!
On the post: Some In The Press Realizing That Copyright Industry Claims Of 'Losses' From 'Piracy' Are Bunk
SMH Vs The Australian
On the post: On NYT Paywall, Citigroup says 'Good Buy'; Techdirt says 'Hello!?!'
If My Memory Serves Me
On the post: Capitalist Lion Tamer's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
I enjoyed that :)
On the post: If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
Video On Demand (again)
Seriously, what is stopping it from happening?
On the post: If Remote DVRs Are Legal... What About Remote DVD Players?
Re: Re: And this is why...
On the post: Felix Dennis: Ideas Without Execution Are Nothing
On the post: Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected
Re: Piracy?
On the post: Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected
Re: A FACT or two
Next >>