Hacker News Reader

Comment by ncallaway | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com