By allowing the original author to make a profit, thus encouraging the creation of the works which will enrich the public domain.
The "making profit" part is a side effect, not an objective.
Breaking even does not pay the rent. It doesn't feed you or your family.
Actually, by definition, it does as those costs are part of those that have to be met to "break even".
As with patents, the idea behind copyright is to give authors a special privilege to earn money on their works for some limited time so that they can earn a living AS ARTISTS.
You put that wrong. Nobody has a right to a profit. On the other hand, a right to MAKE a profit(ie, to earn it if possible,) all of us certainly have.
Ignoring for a second that this is simply pointless semantics on your part, I'd disagree anyone has a right to make a profit. But, I simply think the word "right" gets thrown around far too liberally anyway, so I can understand if we don't see eye to eye on that one.
Incidentally, you don't need to make a *profit* to live happily or "survive".
Which is why, of course, commercial BSD companies always prosper, right?
There's no shortage of successful companies using BSD code. Apple is a name you might recognise.
Oh wait... actually, they CAN'T prosper unless they attach things to the system they're selling that are NOT freely available.
Or if they are selling services and the software is incidental.
Regardless, how they add value is not important, the simple fact is they *do* add value.
So for instance, I suppose I could write some new songs and put them on an album with old ones. But then, did I need the old ones? No, not really, because nobody with internet access would buy the CD for those songs.
Why not ? People buy CDs today for only a few tracks. Heck, people pay money for many things they can get for free every day.
The most obvious example is prints of a painting. Once one freely duplicatable example exists somewhere, the market for copies that cost money quickly goes very close to zero, as does the price they'll fetch. Prints of something brand new? Expensive. Prints of some 17th century painting? With a nice frame, they can be had at the mall for a couple of dollars more than the frame is worth. Maybe enough to pay the cost of maintaining the storefront. Which is fine, given that the author is long dead, but your proposal would do the same thing to LIVING artists.
What ? Make their new stuff expensive and their old stuff practically free ?
Sounds exactly how the system should work to me. Older, less popular works should be valued less than new, more popular works.
You seem not to understand. The fact that the present system screws him over does not mean that someone proposing to FIX the system should be allowed to create a new system that screws him over just as much.
You are labouring under the impression that my interest is in changing the situation only as it pertains to artists. It's not, because no matter *how* you change the system, the same results will occur - a lucky, chosen few will be rich and famous and the vast majority will not. I *am* quite interested in not making the situation any worse, however, but I've little interest in specifically trying to make it substantially better for just one part of the equation.
I am interested in changing copyright to improve the situation of the (supposed) primary benefactor of copyright, the public domain - ie: society as a whole. (Shutting down and disabling corporate abuse would be a nice side effect, as well.)
Without him, there IS no culture, so I'd say he's entitled to as comfortable a living as he can earn at his craft.
Ah, someone else who thinks that artists will suddenly stop creating if copyright disappears, everything of cultural value was created in the last few hundred years and no more will be created without the possibility of becoming filthy, stinking rich.
Tell me, on what foundation do you base these beliefs ?
The very notion that you would think otherwise makes me wonder why you don't choose to live in a place where such 'ideals' are more firmly entrenched. North Korea comes to mind, or maybe Cuba.
I believe in allowing artists the opportunity to earn decent returns on good, hard work, the same as everyone else.
You seem not to understand how the industry works. Most touring bands don't make much money. Why? Because the money to pay for the tour was fronted by the record company, which takes its money back out of ALL earnings on record sales AND the live shows.
My understanding is that live shows are one of the few places that bands actually get to keep a significant proportion of the money earned. Everything I've ever read has supported this and, quite frankly, you're one of the few people who have suggested otherwise. So, what evidence do you have to support your assertion ?
Yes, tiny little bands eke out a living playing small venues, but guess what? They can't get bigger venues. To get those, they need very expensive gear and so on to enable them to play in those venues. They can't afford it. Who can? A record company, of course. Only THE MOST successful of these guys make enough money to make it really worth their while.
I'm confused. What makes you think this situation would be any different ? It's not like 150-year copyrights - or even the complete lack of copyrights - would have a huge bearing on how much money is earned from *live shows*.
Most of them are broke a year after they quit touring, even as they're working on their next album.
Yeah, I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with lifestyle choices...
Who are you trying to kid ? A million - hell, even half a million - dollars will set up anyone remotely competent and fiscally responsible *for life*. You're going to try and tell me touring rock stars aren't making *at least* that sort of money from a tour ?
If you want to pull on heartstrings regarding poor, starving artists, don't try and use anyone whose been on any sort of large-scale music tour as a credible example. If they're living "hand to mouth", they've got no-one to blame but themselves.
Maybe you think working hard for a hand to mouth existence is acceptable, but 99% of those who have experienced it and who know there is an alternative would disagree.
"Hand to mouth" existance for a famous artist is a lifestyle most people out in the real world can barely dream of. If you're going to try and convince me even relatively unheard of "famous" artists are living anything within cooee of a "hand to mouth existance", you may as well stop replying right now.
The idea was that doing so should be PROFITABLE, that being the ENCOURAGEMENT. Yes, 150+ years is ridiculous. Shorten it. That said, deliberately preventing any profit from being made is a LOT more than just shortening a 150+ year term.
I agree, which is why I suggested nothing of the sort.
It seems to me that 25 years would be a good number, but this might require some debate to work out.
Still far too long. If you really can't think outside the fixed-term-regardless box, consider that initially, copyright terms in the US lasted 14 years. Since then, production, reproduction and distribution costs have plummeted while advertising effectiveness, consumer buying power, product availability and product range have skyrocketed.
In short, it's orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to "make a profit" because there's vastly more stuff and vastly more people who can/will buy it. Copyright terms should have been getting *shorter* over time to reflect this, not longer.
BUT, it is stupidity beyond belief to claim that artists shouldn't be allowed protection to make some profit on their work.
I agree, which is why I haven't suggested anything of the sort.
Personally, since I'm more interested in people than in "the public," I find the public domain to be totally uninteresting anyway. People who create things are because of that creation important people. People who merely appropriate those things are worse than merely unimportant - they are parasites. If they take them to create something else, that's different. Of these three groups, who would benefit under your scheme? Certainly not creators of new or derived works.
You forgot a fairly large and important category - consumers who pay to acquire works.
In any event, everyone would be better off. The "parasites" wouldn't have to worry about being bundled off to gaol for making an insignificant dent in corporate bottom lines and more opportunity to turn into derivative producers, the consumers would have a more diverse range of cheaper material to buy, good and/or popular new artists would still become rich and famous and people creating derivative works wouldn't have to worry about whether or not what they were doing was "different enough".
Popular works would enter the public domain quicker (as they would exit protection quicker). The people who created them - supposedly the best and brightest - would have "incentive" to continually create more and/or better works because that would be the only way to make a living from it. (much like everyone else has to keep working to make a living).
In short, everybody who matters is a winner.
You seem to think they should work as some sort of indentured servants, to be freed upon their death, for the good of "the public."
I think nothing of the sort. I just don't think giving "artists" the obscenely disproportionate advantage they enjoy today over other types of workers is fair, in the best interests of society or resembles anything like a free, competitive market.
[ Parent ]