Copy Off

Posted on by

I understand book publishing and how it functions just fine, but I think works should have a copyright period of 10 years, with the possibility of a 10 year extension. (I’d actually prefer no copyright at all, and a whole different system for supporting artists, but that is nearly impossible to even discuss with people.)

Why do authors think because they create something, they should hold monopoly rights to it in near perpetuity? I’ve created systems for companies that I was only paid for with a salary. Some are still in use today, 10+ years later. How is that different?

Copyright was always about balancing the public good with the ability of artists to make money — with the emphasis on the public good! Why do people like Silvia Moreno-Garcia think that they have some right to keep cashing checks from beyond the grave, no matter the reasons? I know, I know, a person won’t understand something that their salary depends on them not understanding, but I am always flummoxed by how people can be so ahistorical and clueless.

Somewhere around 95% of books make $0 after the first five years. Why are those books locked up for life+70 years?

I know people like Moreno-Garcia defend a broken system because they are worried a better one would harm them, but it still doesn’t make it a good or sensible way of doings things. Quite the opposite.