Posts
The previous post I wrote set out the basic copyright law in the UK and the US: copyright expires on a book 70 years after the death of the author. This seems to me to be ridiculous. Here’s why:
The main purpose of copyright law is to encourage the creation and sometimes dissemination of products which may have a high initial cost but whose marginal cost is very small. For example: to write Geoffrey Archer’s latest thriller requires his particular brain combined with the time to turn those brainwaves into words. However when the book is written it is very easy to make tens of thousands of extra copies – no thinking and very little time is required. Copyright law spreads that initial cost over all the copies of the book sold and so encourages Geoffrey Archer to continue writing.
I agree with this fundamental principle. However I don’t agree with extending the duration of copyright for 70 years after the author’s death.
But it provides income for Geoffrey’s children. Not giving his children money from book sales would not stop Geoffrey from writing the book in the first place. If Geoffrey wants his children to have money he can give it them, otherwise they can work for it like anybody else.
Okay – it encourages publishers to release books even if the expected sales are low (which may be the case a long time after the death of an author). If books were not printed and sold no-one would be able to read them. We rely on publishers to do this. Therefore if copyright profit on books is reduced we would only be able to read the “best sellers” because the incentive (profit) to print niche market books would not exist. However this argument assumes can only be valid when books have to printed and physically moved about. When the marginal cost of a book truly is zero, as is the case with an e-book, the only real cost is in the initial proof reading and formatting. When e-books become widespread paying publishers to disseminate books whose sales volumes have fallen will be a waste of money.
Well it does ensure a stable supply of books and fair payment for an author’s work. Because a publisher knows he/she will have the rights to a book for at least 70 years, it is easier for them to set up stable businesses with dependable incomes. This benefits the rest of us who will get a more stable supply of books. They will also be able to pay authors an amount consistent with the expected popularity of their work even if they suspect that their clogs will soon pop off. This makes sense in principle, but it is still hard to see why a period of 70 years is considered necessary.
So where does that leave us?
I can see the benefit of copyright law for society but think that a duration of lifetime + 70 years is not optimal. I would suggest instead a duration of lifetime + 10 years, with a single extension of 10 years which can be applied for if the author is still in the top 100 bestseller list (for example). In this way Geoffrey will still want to write his books and his publisher gets a certain stability of income. But if selling his books is no longer profitable 10 years after his death they are released into the public domain for whoever might be interested to peruse them, at no cost to the public, and at no cost in lost profits to the publisher.
The main purpose of copyright law is to encourage the creation and sometimes dissemination of products which may have a high initial cost but whose marginal cost is very small. For example: to write Geoffrey Archer’s latest thriller requires his particular brain combined with the time to turn those brainwaves into words. However when the book is written it is very easy to make tens of thousands of extra copies – no thinking and very little time is required. Copyright law spreads that initial cost over all the copies of the book sold and so encourages Geoffrey Archer to continue writing.
I agree with this fundamental principle. However I don’t agree with extending the duration of copyright for 70 years after the author’s death.
But it provides income for Geoffrey’s children. Not giving his children money from book sales would not stop Geoffrey from writing the book in the first place. If Geoffrey wants his children to have money he can give it them, otherwise they can work for it like anybody else.
Okay – it encourages publishers to release books even if the expected sales are low (which may be the case a long time after the death of an author). If books were not printed and sold no-one would be able to read them. We rely on publishers to do this. Therefore if copyright profit on books is reduced we would only be able to read the “best sellers” because the incentive (profit) to print niche market books would not exist. However this argument assumes can only be valid when books have to printed and physically moved about. When the marginal cost of a book truly is zero, as is the case with an e-book, the only real cost is in the initial proof reading and formatting. When e-books become widespread paying publishers to disseminate books whose sales volumes have fallen will be a waste of money.
Well it does ensure a stable supply of books and fair payment for an author’s work. Because a publisher knows he/she will have the rights to a book for at least 70 years, it is easier for them to set up stable businesses with dependable incomes. This benefits the rest of us who will get a more stable supply of books. They will also be able to pay authors an amount consistent with the expected popularity of their work even if they suspect that their clogs will soon pop off. This makes sense in principle, but it is still hard to see why a period of 70 years is considered necessary.
So where does that leave us?
I can see the benefit of copyright law for society but think that a duration of lifetime + 70 years is not optimal. I would suggest instead a duration of lifetime + 10 years, with a single extension of 10 years which can be applied for if the author is still in the top 100 bestseller list (for example). In this way Geoffrey will still want to write his books and his publisher gets a certain stability of income. But if selling his books is no longer profitable 10 years after his death they are released into the public domain for whoever might be interested to peruse them, at no cost to the public, and at no cost in lost profits to the publisher.
