Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdowling | Hacker News Reader

Here's an even more problematic example:

1. Author publishes a dozen novels over the first 20 years of his/her career. All of them are good, but none of them sell well.

2. Author does not pay the copyright renewal fees because they are too expensive. Anyone can now copy those books and pay nothing.

3. Author's next book is well-received. The author is hailed as a genius and there is suddenly a ton of interest in the author's earlier works.

4. Everyone but the author makes money on the author's older works.

Edit: The point here is that when a work is successful, which is rare, it is unfair for everyone other than the author, who is most responsible for the work, to profit from it.

View on HN

I really don't see that as very problematic.

For me, the value of the books is the value they provide to their readers, not the money they provide to the author. We want author to be able to get money because it will incentivize them to write. I don't think it's realistic to think any writer will not write because his work may become famous only after he has published some books and therefore won't be as profitable as some other copyright scenario. That is just not how people think.

I know that some people see copyright as some kind of justice system to ensure creators get their due. I think that view in general leads to copyright maximalism, and is not a good place to start from when discussing the value of copyright

It’s fine that society should benefit, but why should the publishers who pay the author nothing benefit the most?

(Edit: Not just republishers of the original work, but also those making derivatives like translations, sequels, or movie/TV adaptations.)

Actually, without copyright the publishers will be getting almost nothing as with everyone being able to publish the price will quickly go down to printing and postage.

Makers of derivative works such as foreign language translations, sequels, and movie adaptations could presumably hold monopolies on those.

I'm sure they could release those things, but how could they hold a monopoly when everyone is allowed to do their own translations, sequels, and movie adaptations? Maybe there would be some big successful publishers with that business model, but that seems like a good thing if they produce good content.

> but why should the publishers who pay the author nothing benefit the most?

How do the publishers benefit from a work that enters the public domain? They have no more right to use the work than anyone else. I think the margins for publishers would be very low after a work enters the public domain.

Derivative works like translations, sequels, TV/movie adaptations, etc.

Why are they making derivatives of a work that nobody cared about? If someone else comes along and makes a profitable derivative, seems like they have added something that the original author just didn't have (Better story, Better marketing, etc)

Wouldn't the author then be extremely incentivized to create a new novel after the well-received one?

Since that new novel would be granted an exclusive monopoly period, and the author now has significant notoriety.

So, since the explicit goal of the system is to incentivize _new_ works, and this system incentivizes _new_ works in that scenario, it seems like an explicit success of the system, rather than a problematic example.

In the current scenario, at step 4. the author can simply retire on the success of those previous books. That _fails_ to incentivize new works. So I'd argue my proposal works _better_ at the goals of copyright in this scenario than the current system.

The author could be dead and his family could be impoverished, or maybe his best novels were his earlier ones. Should publishers make tons of money off his earlier, better works while his family starves?

Also, copyright isn’t just the original work, it’s also derivatives like sequels, translations, and movie adaptations. Should all of them make money while the author and his family get nothing?

In the real world, limiting copyright like you suggest is a non-starter.

the author could be alive, and write new works, and that seems more likely

any member of the family could also contribute to society by writing new works

remember the goal: to promote new works; not to make the author money, or their family money, or their family's descendants money; and not to enrich or prevent the enriching of any given publisher

allowing the author and family to milk old work in perpetuity, whether independently or through a publisher, would seem to incentivize the opposite of that

In some ways, writing a novel (or producing certain types of works) is like buying a lottery ticket. Most of the time it will be worth nothing. But if it is a winner, then the buyer would like to be able to cash it in. If, on the other hand, you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers, then people would stop buying lottery tickets.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to write or produce creative works, even when the reality is that most works will not be successful in any way. If you take away the possibility of reward for the few works that are successful, then that will result in fewer works being produced.

nobody is proposing "taking away the possibility of reward", or making anything such that "you couldn't win the jackpot even if you hit all the numbers", so it sounds like there're no issues with the proposal

if there was data that shows copyrighted works usually earn nothing the first 5 years, and earn significant value after that, or even that annual earnings from copyrighted works usually increase after 5 years, the argument against the proposed reform would be more convincing,

but in any case, the purpose of copyright is to encourage new works, not allow authors to perpetually cash in on old ones like a lottery ticket instead

> The author could be dead

In that scenario it doesn't sound like there's a lot we can do to encourage the author to create new works. Which is, again, the explicit and primary goal of copyright law and jurisprudence.

I think you're missing the point. None of the works would have been produced in the first place if there wasn't the possibility of making a return on the investment in time, energy, etc.

This situation just doesn't seem that likely. How often has an author with absolutely no sales whatsoever on their first few books then gone on to release a best seller? If their early works are profitable at all, they would renew the copyright for the relatively low rate and still be holding it when their new bestseller comes along.

If the author is dead, then what are you even arguing about? Of course copyright should not be extended past death. Do you think Charles Dickens descendants should still be getting paid for his work? It's ridiculous

Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to creating things, with the ultimate benefit of an eventual richer public domain. Yet the author in your scenario didn't lack the motivation.

Under the proposed system, he'd also be more likely to be encouraged to continue creating new works, rather than just retiring because of the one successful book.

Under the proposed system, he probably would never have written anything because the most likely outcome is that he would gain nothing even if his works are successful.

Considering how much effort your hypothetical writer put into writing several books w/o getting any compensation makes me doubt their motivation was money.

They would have long given up, if it was money.

The author can sell their own book even after copyright is up. Indeed some people may prefer to buy it from them. I think the system would totally change how people perceive these things

Reply on news.ycombinator.com