5+5 year copyright terms questioned

[cc]

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

I believe sam meant the following idea (and subsequent posts associated with it):

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.

I also think there might be something there, and would be interested in people's opinions on that idea. My concern is that it may favour the "big money" over the small-time copyright holders, though that may not be the case as the two usually operate quite differently.

Another issue that requires our attention is the transitional period after such laws go into effect. If, for instance, we manage to pass a law for strict 15-year terms, many existing copyrights will immediately expire; I associate that with a bubble bursting (in the economic sense), which is not a desirable outcome as that has catastrophic results. Any solution that we decide upon must make provisions for a smooth transition that minimises the fallout.

Well, I courteously disagree, as you know.

I wholeheartedly agree with Peter on that matter.

jez's post makes me realise that copyright terms have been extended several times already, and some arguments must have been presented to push through those extensions. Does anyone here know what those arguments were (or can find out)? I would say knowing those will be pivotal to us creating counter-arguments to refute them.

[samgower]

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.

Practically every author of every kind of work would disagree with you. Saying "right, you've got 10 years or 15 if you're lucky to make enough money to live from this work, and by the way people can share this with others en masse without giving you anything in return; good luck" isn't going to win us much support from authors, the same people we need to win-over if we're going to make this happen. That is why I'm advocating a solution not unlike how we deal with cigarettes, by taxing it.

If you want to smoke, great, but that will put greater load on the NHS so you'll have to pay an arm and a leg to pay for the damage you're doing to society (known as a negative externality in economic parlance). The added bonus of this is that the higher price of cigarettes will persuade people to stop smoking.

Similarly, copyright damages society by limiting the public domain. So if you want copyright, great, but you're going to have to pay for the privilege to offset the damage you're doing. The added bonus in this case is that authors will be persuaded to put their works in the public domain more quickly and more often.

I have three suggestions regarding how this should be implemented:

• The first few years of copyright, be it 5, 10, whatever, shall be free of charge.
• After that time is up, if you want to keep copyright you'll have to register your work and pay a fee to register it, which will be proportional to the profit gained from that work over the past year.
• Each year the work will have to be re-registered, and the fee as a proportion of profit will increase each time.

The fee should be a flat rate (say £500 or something affordable to independent authors) plus a proportion of the profit from that work, starting at some low figure, say 5%, and increasing year on year until finally the proportion is very high (perhaps around 80%; definitely closer to 100% than 50%). Once the higher limit has been reached, it stays that way indefinitely (i.e. until the author fails to register his/her/their work).

This has two effects: firstly, works that earn very little will simply not be kept in copyright more than 5 years. It's just not worth it. Secondly, each year it will be less worth keeping a copyright, and more worth putting it in the public domain.

I feel that this is the best way to tackle the problem. It's not especially radical (whereas near-abolishment is), it's in line with what the government has been doing for decades already (indirect taxation) and it's in agreement with the principles of liberty (dissuading instead of prohibiting).

[PeterBrett]

The fee should be a flat rate (say £500 or something affordable to independent authors) plus a proportion of the profit from that work, starting at some low figure, say 5%, and increasing year on year until finally the proportion is very high (perhaps around 80%; definitely closer to 100% than 50%). Once the higher limit has been reached, it stays that way indefinitely (i.e. until the author fails to register his/her/their work).

That won't work -- it's an incentive for constructive accounting.

My modified suggestion is, after the initial guaranteed period, to require re-registration every 5 years, with an exponential increase in cost for each successive re-registration. So the first 5 year extension costs £1000, the second £10000, the third £100000, the fourth £1000000, etc.

[cc]

That won't work -- it's an incentive for constructive accounting.

Excellent point, I didn't quite consider that. The words "Hollywood accounting" come to mind.

My modified suggestion is, after the initial guaranteed period, to require re-registration every 5 years, with an exponential increase in cost for each successive re-registration. So the first 5 year extension costs £1000, the second £10000, the third £100000, the fourth £1000000, etc.

My reservation about that is, as mentioned earlier, that by going for very high fees, we automatically favour corporations over individuals. Corporations will be able to use funds received from other sources to retain their most lucrative copyrights, while individuals will most likely not be in a similar position. Perhaps we should differentiate between types of rights holders and tax different amounts accordingly... the problem with that is, companies can just give the copyrights to individuals and go about their usual business. Or, we can just say only individuals can be rights holders. Or, we can make copyrights non-transferable.

[jez9999]

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.

Practically every author of every kind of work would disagree with you.

Why?

The large majority of this party, in a members forum vote, wanted copyrights of 17 years or less, so there is evidently a lot of feeling out there that people do not want anything much longer than what I propose. Perhaps a bunch of authors would disagree with me, although that might be an argument from the heart rather than from the head, given that it was seen fit to start out copyright at a term of 14 years (in the US, at least). Now you're not only saying it shouldn't be reduced, but arguing that it should be longer than it started out. Again, why? Were they wrong when they first set the copyright term?

Also bear in mind that there are a bunch of people we're never going to get the support of. Like the mass-market recording and movie industries. We must ignore what they think of us, because if they had their way our party would not exist.

[scuzzmonkey]

except that isn't going to help us jez, the point of us wanting to reform copyright is to find a middle ground that benefits both parties, rather than either/or.

saying "lets just ignore them cos they will never see sense" is not an option because we live in a capitalist economy and society - and without getting into a massive debate about the +/- of that - doing what you propose won't ever work.

[cc]

Why?

The large majority of this party, in a members forum vote, wanted copyrights of 17 years or less, so there is evidently a lot of feeling out there that people do not want anything much longer than what I propose. Perhaps a bunch of authors would disagree with me, although that might be an argument from the heart rather than from the head, given that it was seen fit to start out copyright at a term of 14 years (in the US, at least). Now you're not only saying it shouldn't be reduced, but arguing that it should be longer than it started out. Again, why? Were they wrong when they first set the copyright term?

Also bear in mind that there are a bunch of people we're never going to get the support of. Like the mass-market recording and movie industries. We must ignore what they think of us, because if they had their way our party would not exist.

The point I've trying to make throughout this thread is that this should not be about what the public wants, or what the authors want. We need to do this through clear thought and arguments based on facts, if we want our policies to have any credibility.

The report cited twice so far proposes that the optimal copyright length, that balances the incentive to creators with the return to society, is between 10 and 30 years (centred around 20-ish), and we are taking that as a reasonable place to begin our discussion. 10 years is the minimum, and 5 years the bare minimum (look at figure 3).

I refuse to go forward with 5+5 because, as you say, it's based on feeling. In other words, we've pulled it out of our asses, and can't expect anyone to take it seriously -- especially our critics, who will use it as ammunition to shoot us down.

Now, this thread has been moving in an interesting direction, which may turn out to be fruitful, and I don't want it to be sidetracked. I will ask you, jez, and anyone else who wishes to hang onto 5+5 to start a new thread to express the arguments for it.

[jez9999]

except that isn't going to help us jez, the point of us wanting to reform copyright is to find a middle ground that benefits both parties, rather than either/or.

Copyright does not exist by default. The government (and so theoretically, The People) grant it to authors.

I somewhat disagree that the point of copyright reform is to find a 'middle ground'; it's to find the optimal copyright length that benefits the public the most - this is taking into account that authors creating new works is also a public benefit.

There is a careful distinction to be made between that, and 'a middle ground between us and the status quo' (by both parties, I'm assuming you're including the Copyright Cartel as part of the 'them' party).

[jez9999]

The report cited twice so far proposes that the optimal copyright length, that balances the incentive to creators with the return to society, is between 10 and 30 years (centred around 20-ish), and we are taking that as a reasonable place to begin our discussion. 10 years is the minimum, and 5 years the bare minimum (look at figure 3).

I refuse to go forward with 5+5 because, as you say, it's based on feeling. In other words, we've pulled it out of our asses, and can't expect anyone to take it seriously -- especially our critics, who will use it as ammunition to shoot us down.

Didn't you want to debate copyright length, and reasons for/against, in this thread? That's simply what I'm doing.

Now the report you cite may well be a good analysis of the situation, but frankly I can't tell because I don't have a PhD in further mathematics. Unfortunately, neither do the vast majority of people who'll be considering this policy. You might say we'll get attacked for 'randomly' coming up with 5+5, but we might just as easily get attacked for picking a figure from a report that tries to reduce 'benefit to society' to a mathematical equation, and is virtually opaque to the average person.

[scuzzmonkey]

but at least we can defend ourselves by saying that our opinion is based on reports, rather than just pulling crap out of our arses.

[samgower]

The large majority of this party, in a members forum vote, wanted copyrights of 17 years or less, so there is evidently a lot of feeling out there that people do not want anything much longer than what I propose. Perhaps a bunch of authors would disagree with me, although that might be an argument from the heart rather than from the head, given that it was seen fit to start out copyright at a term of 14 years (in the US, at least). Now you're not only saying it shouldn't be reduced, but arguing that it should be longer than it started out. Again, why? Were they wrong when they first set the copyright term?

Do you think authors care how we vote? A few hundred people, who by definition want radical copyright reform, aren't exactly representative, so it's unreasonable to say that there is "evidently a lot of feeling out there" for our cause, assuming you're talking generally.

For authors, it is a decision made with their head (especially when it comes to book authors, who can't perform their works like with music or film). They see us as trying to steal their hard work by drastically cutting copyrights, and give them nothing in return. That's clearly the wrong perception, but to win this we're going to have to change it, because it is they that government and the distribution industry will point to as those with something to lose. But if they are in support of our ideas then government and industry won't have an argument and we stand a much better chance of winning popular support and actually reforming copyright. We must balance our ideals with political realism, just like every other party.

And and no point did I say that it shouldn't be reduced. In fact, I'm saying that it should be reduced to 5 years. However, a lot of authors (and a lot of very rich lobbyists) aren't going to stand for that, so as compromise I'm suggesting that we allow extensions to this 5 year limit provided that authors are willing to pay for the privilege. If the content distribution industry really values copyright so much, they should put their money where their mouth is.

Also bear in mind that there are a bunch of people we're never going to get the support of. Like the mass-market recording and movie industries. We must ignore what they think of us, because if they had their way our party would not exist.

I agree, but we must try to win over public figures who use copyright, for the reasons I stated above.

[cc]

Anyway, I don't want us to dwell on 5+5 too much. There was some debate on it at the beginning of this discussion, but we moved past that and I don't want us to go back again because we'll never get anywhere that way.

Can we please return to the idea described by samgower in this post: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1312&start=20#p10054

[scuzzmonkey]

the only problem i have with that is that flat fees benefit big corporations - however, profit based also does because big corps can afford fancy lawyers and accountants to finger the books - either way the little man gets violated.

[jez9999]

And and no point did I say that it shouldn't be reduced.

Sorry, that was my words being a little ambiguous. I meant you seemed to be saying it shouldn't be reduced from 14 years.

[scuzzmonkey]

And and no point did I say that it shouldn't be reduced.

Sorry, that was my words being a little ambiguous. I meant you seemed to be saying it shouldn't be reduced from 14 years.

i'm still waiting for an actual reason beyond "my gut" as to why it should be less than 14 let alone 5

[rancidpunk]

5 + 5 is a reasonable compromise already on our part and it should only apply as a way to stop people profiting from other peoples work. Sharing works freely should be positively encouraged, not criminalised or even worse, neatly taken out of the process of law and policed by the actual rights holder themselves as Mandy et al have been "persuaded" is the best course.

[scuzzmonkey]

5 + 5 is a reasonable compromise already on our part

but why?

admittedly i'm playing devil's advocate slightly, but for all the talk we've done on this, the _one_ report that is actually independent and "proper" says that 5 is the 100% bare minimum, and that 14-20 would be better - and as I said, surely the best thing we can do is find a suitable balance if we ever actually want to be taken seriously and/or other parties to adopt out policies.

knee-jerk, reactionary, "OMG TELL ME THE NAMES OF ALL THE PAEDOPHILES IN MY AREA SO I CAN LYNCH THEM" pressure group politics was not what I thought we were about.

[samgower]

5 + 5 is a reasonable compromise already on our part and it should only apply as a way to stop people profiting from other peoples work. Sharing works freely should be positively encouraged, not criminalised or even worse, neatly taken out of the process of law and policed by the actual rights holder themselves as Mandy et al have been "persuaded" is the best course.

Does charging exponentially large fees for having copyright not stop persuade people to put their work in the public domain? Under the fees plan that Peter suggested, most works would only be copyrighted for only 5 years, some for 10 years, and maybe a small number for 15 years. In reality, there is little difference between 5+5 or 10+5 and this plan, only that it gives authors to the right to copyright for longer provided that they pay up, a much more reasonable solution that simply cutting off copyright after an arbitrary time.

[AndrewTindall]

back when we had the poll on this a while ago, I believe i voted 5+5, but that was before I was made aware of all the stuff re: 14 years being optimum. I'd say it should probably be something like 7+7, or 10+4, or the suggested fee idea.

[jez9999]

5 + 5 is a reasonable compromise already on our part

but why?

admittedly i'm playing devil's advocate slightly, but for all the talk we've done on this, the _one_ report that is actually independent and "proper" says that 5 is the 100% bare minimum, and that 14-20 would be better - and as I said, surely the best thing we can do is find a suitable balance if we ever actually want to be taken seriously and/or other parties to adopt out policies.

knee-jerk, reactionary, "OMG TELL ME THE NAMES OF ALL THE PAEDOPHILES IN MY AREA SO I CAN LYNCH THEM" pressure group politics was not what I thought we were about.

Have you actually sat down and read that thing? It attempts to take real life and put it into a set of mathematiacal equations. This feels about as random to me as my 'gut instinct', but my gut instinct is easier to explain than a report that contains such things as this on a very regular basis:


Don't go assuming that Rufus Pollock's report on copyright is more legitimate than others' views because it uses a lot of algebra.