5+5 year copyright terms questioned

[cc]

I remain unconvinced on whether we should go forward with the proposed 5 years + 5 on request copyright length for the following reasons:

1) The numbers were initially suggested without good reason (as far as I can tell), and were agreed upon "democratically" through a poll. I know from experience that crowd mentality can skew the results, so I am not ready to accept 5+5 without some good arguments to support it.

2) We have a report that indicates 5 as the extreme minimum, 40 as a maximum, and 14 years as a possible ideal solution.

3) Our current manifesto gives no reason for content creators to support our cause. Unreasonably short copyright means they lose a privilege they have been taking for granted, and we don't even dangle a proverbial carrot to change their minds*. There are posts on these forums that show people liable to be affected are dissatisfied with 5+5.

4) 10+5 years makes more intuitive sense to me personally. Cultural trends appear to last around 10 years: we have the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s etc. Thus, we could say most kinds of content will only be relevant for about a decade after they are produced and will start to lose their value afterwards. It's a good guess that the creators will be able to monetise and profit from their investment in that period, while the +5 can be a "safety period".

I'm also worried that our one-size-fits-all approach to copyright length may not be very sensible. Software (binaries) are very quick to circulate because most software is only relevant for 3-5 years and then becomes obsolete. Books, however, can take much much longer. This can affect how fast the creators are able to make money from their work, and the 5+5 system favours types of content that spreads fast.

Please understand that I am only interested in inciting debate because I want us to do the right thing -- I'm just not sure if 5+5 is a good enough copyright duration.

* I strongly suggest we incorporate some of the goals of the Featured Artists Coalition into our manifesto.

[scuzzmonkey]

i'm with you cc in thinking that 5+5 is too short - for the same reasons you are.

10+5 makes more sense to me in both a commercial and an ownership sense, and using your books example, it would encourage two things.

1) authors to write more to keep their money coming - incentives are always good...right?
2) easy distribution of culture, and especially useful for academics when citing sources and quotations etc.

think of it this way...15 years ago is now 1995 - and i can't honestly think of a single thing that i know people to buy, that has stayed exactly the same, since then - even coke gets changed every once in a while - so I also agree with your point about cultural trends only lasting specific periods of time.

[samgower]

I'm in favour of 5+5.

The vast majority of works will fall under the radar within 5 years. These should subsequently be put in the public domain.

A few works, like the Harry Potter series for example, remain popular for longer. In this case, the author should be able to apply for an extension of copyright of another 5 years, and similarly until the author can no longer prove that their income relies on that work (i.e. most of their income comes from sources other than that work).

I think that last point, being able to renew copyright every 5 years until the author's income no longer relies on the work, is not currently party policy but may be a good compromise, not only between 5+5 and 10+5, but between us and authors too. It recognises that the popularity of works does not follow a set period, but may last a long time, and the author should benefit from this should they need to. Popular works are also, generally speaking, good. We should be rewarding authors not only for creating something, but creating something good, and I think this may be a solution to that.

[jez9999]

5+5 for me. If you're going to talk about 14, 20, 50 years, or whatever... at least an exception needs to be made for software copyright, as software progresses far more rapidly. It seems unreasonable to me that a company should copyright on software over 10 years old; much of it is abandonware, ffs!

[cc]

I'm in favour of 5+5.

The vast majority of works will fall under the radar within 5 years. These should subsequently be put in the public domain.

A few works, like the Harry Potter series for example, remain popular for longer. In this case, the author should be able to apply for an extension of copyright of another 5 years, and similarly until the author can no longer prove that their income relies on that work (i.e. most of their income comes from sources other than that work).

I think that last point, being able to renew copyright every 5 years until the author's income no longer relies on the work, is not currently party policy but may be a good compromise, not only between 5+5 and 10+5, but between us and authors too. It recognises that the popularity of works does not follow a set period, but may last a long time, and the author should benefit from this should they need to. Popular works are also, generally speaking, good. We should be rewarding authors not only for creating something, but creating something good, and I think this may be a solution to that.

I can agree that a lot of software and some music will fall under the radar in 5 years, but I cannot believe the same goes for a multi-million dollar movie that took 3 years to make, for example. If we take away the creators' privilege of milking such movies for all they're worth, those movies will just not get made (i.e. high risk, potentially high yield. If you tell them in advance they won't be able to make that much money, people won't invest in it)!

As for unlimited extensions until the creator is no longer dependent on the content for income, that's a system that's just asking to be abused -- imho we should avoid it. For instance, super-stars like Bono depend on their older content to support their luxurious lifestyles, so they'll keep renewing copyright indefinitely to get every penny they can squeeze out of it. Things get more complicated when you get to group projects led by companies (movies, TV content, games...).

On a similar line of reasoning, it might perhaps be appropriate for the government to "rent out" copyrights for a fee (say, on a yearly basis), which increases with every renewal. The rights holders will then need to decide for every renewal whether they stand to make a profit or loss. What do you think?

[samgower]

On a similar line of reasoning, it might perhaps be appropriate for the government to "rent out" copyrights for a fee (say, on a yearly basis), which increases with every renewal. The rights holders will then need to decide for every renewal whether they stand to make a profit or loss. What do you think?

Yes, I like this idea better. Perhaps we could go with Larry Lessig's copyright register idea. So everyone gets a free, standard length copyright of 5 (10?) years, and then every year afterwards the author must register his/her work for it to remain copyrighted, each year the cost of registering increasing. Essentially, it would be a sort of indirect tax: if you want to hold on to your copyright, good for you, but you're going to have to pay for the privilege.

How would we set the price of registering/whatever? I can't imagine having a fixed price, £100 one year, £200 the next and so on, as smaller authors/companies might struggle to pay but massive multinational monsters like EMI or Universal would pay it easily. Maybe the price would be set proportional to the income gained from the work?

[cc]

Yes, I like this idea better. Perhaps we could go with Larry Lessig's copyright register idea. So everyone gets a free, standard length copyright of 5 (10?) years, and then every year afterwards the author must register his/her work for it to remain copyrighted, each year the cost of registering increasing. Essentially, it would be a sort of indirect tax: if you want to hold on to your copyright, good for you, but you're going to have to pay for the privilege.

How would we set the price of registering/whatever? I can't imagine having a fixed price, £100 one year, £200 the next and so on, as smaller authors/companies might struggle to pay but massive multinational monsters like EMI or Universal would pay it easily. Maybe the price would be set proportional to the income gained from the work?

Yes, 5 years + paid extensions make sense. This also gives a proverbial carrot for the government (a new source of money), who would be the ones to approve such laws!

I would say the first 5 or preferably 10 years should be free, which will be a period for the creators to make up their investment and to profit. They'll have to register their content centrally, and also provide copies of the content for safe-keeping and preservation. I guess the renewal fees will have to be a fixed price + something proportional to their profits from the content, though that definitely needs further discussion.

This system should also give us the opportunity to deal quite fairly with existing copyrights... and can also be applied to patents!

[jez9999]

Even 10 years seems like an excessively long period of time. For a blanket guide, anyway. For every book you mention, I can raise you a Hollywood movie that made breathtaking profits in the first few *weeks* (Avatar...), and will no doubt make the vast bulk of its entire profit in the first 5 years.

[PeterBrett]

Even 10 years seems like an excessively long period of time. For a blanket guide, anyway. For every book you mention, I can raise you a Hollywood movie that made breathtaking profits in the first few *weeks* (Avatar...), and will no doubt make the vast bulk of its entire profit in the first 5 years.

On the other hand, Jez, remember that some authors (especially new ones) have their manuscripts languish in publishers' slush piles for up to a couple of years before they even get read. One example is Larry Correia, whose book "Monster Hunter International" is now on its third printing in 6 months -- but which took well over 2 years to find a publisher. (Luckily he was picked up by Baen Books, who are awesome).

Not all content can be converted to money quickly, unfortunately. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this problem is.

[simonclifford]

I support the 10+5 for the reasons highlighted

[glambert]

Well, can we not suggest different copyright lengths for different materials?

5+5 for movies
5+5 for music
5+5 for software
10+5 for books

How about that?

We need to decide on something and fast, we have an election coming up in a matter of months, we have no decision on which candidates will stand and where and we do not even have a completed manifesto to base our campaigns around.

[scuzzmonkey]

honestly, i still think 5+5 is too short - as per that report, I've not seen anything that says that 5 years is actually a good amount for everyone involved - I thought that the point of our copyright reform wasn't to take money from the industries, but to attempt to create a level playing field between the consumer and the producer - and 5 years, imho, doesn't do this.

10+5 _really_ should be the smallest level we offer, and maybe for books and things say, 10+10.

software however would probably benefit from a 5+5, but what about games - thinking of MMOs specifically here, or would an expansion or re-releasing the original inc expansion packs, re-new the licence?

[samgower]

Anyone have an opinion on what cc and I were talking about above?

[PeterBrett]

Anyone have an opinion on what cc and I were talking about above?

I have always been in favour of 15 years, with no extensions. So we more-or-less agree, modulo the precise numbers involved.

[glambert]

I would like to offer a compromise in the middle of 10+5 for everything.

Whatever we decide on will certainly be less than 50, so let's be quick and agree on options, my suggestions are 5+5, 10+5, 15+5, 5+0, 10+0, 15+0, and then an option for various lengths depending on the type of material. When we have a list of options ranging from minimum to maximum and also including my latter option of varying it, I believe we should put it to a party vote within a matter of days so we can get it confirmed into the manifesto.

[rancidpunk]

We've already had a vote viewtopic.php?f=13&t=765

[glambert]

I wasn't aware of it, ok.

Regardless, it appears that the most popular choice was a fixed term, possibly extendable and the most popular fixed term was 5+5.

So, why do we have this topic? Do those who still object, despite the votes being held and results counted and published, want ANOTHER poll?

[cc]

rancid, glambert, I'll refer you to my original post and specifically point (1).

I believe this is not something to be decided using a poll. This needs careful deliberation by a small group of people who will find a solution that takes all the angles into account and tries to examine all the possible ramifications of the choices being made.

I'm not asking for another poll, nor do I think one would be appropriate. I want people to ARGUE about their suggestions on this matter so we can decide on this through due process -- this is a rather delicate subject.

[jez9999]

My argument is quite simple. The vast majority of works that make any significant money do so in the first 5 years, and certainly in the first 10 years... even most of the less popular ones. The term should be as short as possible as to reasonably encourage new creations, but then to give it to the public domain ASAP. I'm not someone who thinks that this term is a value that can be determined scientifically or mathematically - it's just a subjective judgement. So for the large majority of works, I reckon 5-10 years is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to make money off of it, especially in the days of ultra-quick distribution, and much easier promotion, over the internet.

Some works would probably lose out somewhat with a 10 year maximum, and you may want to find some sort of exception for said works, but I'd be inclined to say, unfortunately, tough luck. You didn't manage to make money out of it in 10 years, an ample amount of time. You're not guaranteed a living through intellectual property, any more than I'm guaranteed a living through IT, even though I happen to be lucky enough to be employed in this sector right now.

[PeterBrett]

My argument is quite simple. The vast majority of works that make any significant money do so in the first 5 years, and certainly in the first 10 years... even most of the less popular ones. The term should be as short as possible as to reasonably encourage new creations, but then to give it to the public domain ASAP. I'm not someone who thinks that this term is a value that can be determined scientifically or mathematically - it's just a subjective judgement. So for the large majority of works, I reckon 5-10 years is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to make money off of it, especially in the days of ultra-quick distribution, and much easier promotion, over the internet.

Some works would probably lose out somewhat with a 10 year maximum, and you may want to find some sort of exception for said works, but I'd be inclined to say, unfortunately, tough luck. You didn't manage to make money out of it in 10 years, an ample amount of time. You're not guaranteed a living through intellectual property, any more than I'm guaranteed a living through IT, even though I happen to be lucky enough to be employed in this sector right now.

Well, I courteously disagree, as you know. I am firmly of the opinion that the issue isn't money per se -- it's what copyright duration maximises benefit to the public in the current economic and technological conditions, and there exists an experimental framework within which that optimum can be calculated, given well-specified measurements that need to be taken. (Pollock 2007)

Please feel free to point out the errors in Pollock's approach. If the issue is that the data isn't good enough, fine: that's something we can fix. However, you're going to have your work cut out to convince me that the duration you "reckon" is "an ample amount of time" is a good basis for party policy. In the end, I'm going to go along with what the party adopts, but I hope that, whatever the final outcome is, it's based on more than just someone's gut feeling.