Re: HP copyright was Re: 1st ed Request on Stats

Some Guy <noemailformethanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keith Davies wrote:

I was talking with a coworker about this last night. She's kind of okay
with patents being a limited-duration monopoly, but wasn't so sure that
copyright lasting less than 'life of creator' would be right.

I came to a realization, though. A lifetime monopoly (let alone
'lifetime plus') may be a *disincentive* to create. I can create one
thing, it makes lots of money (and don't doubt that Rowling will be
reaping the benefit of Harry Potter for some time to come), and... the
creator doesn't need to do any more.

*** 'em! If I own a factory that builds widgets, I need to keep my
factory building widgets to keep making money. If I create something, I
get a limited-duration monopoly to market it (whee! Money time!). If I
want to keep making money on my creations,

*I NEED TO KEEP CREATING*

How's *that* for incentive to create? You get a limited-duration
monopoly to make money when it's most likely to be most profitable, then
your out on your ass and have to *create more* to get more money.

Or, as stated in a story by Michael Lindgren, "the secret to success as
an author is a pretty simple formula: add ass to seat, subtract excuses,
and get to work".


Unless, of course, you luck out like Rowling and don't need any more
money, in which case you don't *need* lifetime (plus!) monopoly on your
work.


Keith

I see a couple of problems with that idea:

1. Some people only have one book in them. Why punish them for that?

Why reward someone who does one piece of work?

Does this mean I just have to write one piece of software, prepare
requirements, manage a single project, and I'll get paid for the rest of
my life? My dad (cabinetmaker) needs to build a single kitchen and
he'll get a cheque every year until he dies, then I get them?

Why does someone "with only one book in them" deserve money for the rest
of his life?

2. You can't ever know that you'll make money on something when you
create it; any given piece may be rejected, probably numerous times.

Similarly, you can't ever know that you'll make money on a stock
investment. If you *can*, then the SEC would likely want to have a chat
with you -- there are rules, enforced to varying degree, about
'guaranteed' stock investments. Simply because I dump a bunch of money
into a particular stock doesn't mean I can *count* on making money on
it.

Similarly with real estate. I can't, because I'm not tightly linked to
politicians planning major projects, know that certain real estate is
*going* to make me money. If I buy some property with the expectation
the value will go up it's a *fairly* safe bet, but there's no reason for
me to be shocked if it doesn't.

Mal lost about 900k on this recently. It's the nature of the beast --
*nothing* is *guaranteed* to make you money, regardless of how much
time, money, or effort you sink into it.

So, if you spent the time to write a book and it didn't sell well until
the copyright expired, sucks. Write another one and hope it does
better. In fact, write another one before the copyright expires and
hope it does better.

Or, as mentioned in the quote above, "add ass to chair, subtract
excuses, and get to work".

This isn't always because it is bad, but could be due to issues with
the current literary climate. If the social desire for a book doesn't
rise until 20 years after you write it, why should you lose all your
hard work?

You weren't paid when you wrote it?

Honestly, I have no problem with that. If you do something 'out of
time' and it bites you on the ass later, it's unfortunate for you, and I
may well be sympathetic, but sometimes that's just the way it goes.

If I patent a device that doesn't become popular until after the patent
expires, should I be given licensing fees? The guy who basically
invented the cell phone got *fucked* by this -- he had all the patents
in place after he basically developed the core components (there've been
improvements and miniaturization since then, but he had the core of it
decades ago). And it wasn't until decades after that that cell phones
were commercially available, and most of another decade or so before
they became ubiquitous. The 'inventor of the cell phone' of the cell
phone got *nothing* out of it. Is this unfair? He doesn't seem to
think so; I read that he was asked about it a few years ago, he was in
his 80s IIRC, and he was pretty philosophical about it.

So. Nah, I don't think the author necessary deserve to be rewarded so
long after he writes his work.


Hell, look at my writing. Almost anything that isn't paid for before I
start, I give away. It's free for damn near anyone to use, as long as
they don't claim they wrote it. Am I wasting my hard work? Do I
inherently *deserve* to be paid for it, simply because I put the words
to paper?



Keith
--
Keith Davies [before deleting an unclear email message]
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxxxxx "Ah, t'hell with it. If this email message
keith.davies@xxxxxxxxx is important it'll come back to screw me
http://www.kjdavies.org/ anyway." -- Steve, Senior Systems Analyst

.