1. So, as a follow-up to yesterday's thread and comments about copyrights and lengths thereof, some additional thoughts about the practical and theoretical issues revolving copyrights, their length and copyrightable intellectual property in general. Ready? Here we go:
2. To begin, the pipe dream of a 30-year-term of copyright really is just that, a pipe dream. 179 countries including the US are signatories to the Berne Convention, a treaty tightly wound into the World Trade Organization. Here's the actual text:
3. Basically, the Berne Convention and its terms the "floor" for copyrights; you can't offer less protection than it offers and be a signatory. A copyright term of 30 years-and-out is, uhh, *less.* It is not seriously going to be considered any time soon. So, it's Life+50, folks.
4. Now, and of course, you may rail, if your heart desires, about the injustice of this particular term of copyright; I myself would trim it back a bit to life+25. But unless you convince 179 national signatories to amend a highly standardized and *functional enough* treaty, meh.
5. Beyond that very practical issue, there's the matter that you need to make a compelling moral, ethical AND economic argument to copyright holders that they should accede to your revised-but-certainly-less-than-current copyright term. Spoiler: Good luck with that!
6. The moral/ethical case is ironically the easiest to make: think of the public good! And indeed the public domain is a vital good, which should be celebrated and protected -- no copyright should run forever. It should be tied to the benefit of the creator, then to the public.
7. Where you run into trouble is arguing to a creator that *their* copyright should be *less* than the term of their life (plus a little bit for family). It's difficult enough to make money as a creator; arguing that tap should be stoppered in old age, is, well. *Unconvincing.*
8. Likewise, limiting that term limits a creator's ability to earn from their work in less effable ways. If there's a 30-year term of copyright and my work is at year 25, selling a movie/tv option is likely harder, not only because production takes a long time (trust me)...
9. ...but also because after a certain point, it would make sense to just wait out the copyright and exclude the originator entirely. A too-short copyright term has an even *shorter* economic shelf-life than the term, basically. Why on earth would creators agree to that?
10. (Not to mention that if creators *do* want to offer their creations in a substantively freer fashion to the public before their copyright term expires, they already have options via Creative Commons and estate planning; for those folks, it's a somewhat solved problem.)
11. But wait, you say, copyright terms used to be shorter! Yes! They were! And at one time they didn't exist at all! But that's not *now.* And *now* is what you have to work with. And *now,* it would be you who has to make a compelling argument to lower those term lengths.
12. Let me come at it from another direction: You want things in the public domain quicker. Okay! But what do I get for agreeing to this, that *replaces* my ability to control and benefit from my creations? Are you offering UBI? Universal health care? A robust safety net?
13. If the answer to the above questions is "no," then fuck you, pal, I got no reason to play your silly game. I live in the US of fucking A, where we have shitty wages, shitty health care and a truly shitty safety net. My creations are how I eat, pay bills, and care for family.
14. "But you can just write other things!" Sure. OR, I can write other things AND still control the things I've written before. "But society benefits from public domain!" Sure! AND they'll benefit even more if I can live comfortably to create more things to go into PD later.
15. Want to make a robustly moral AND economic argument for shorter copyright terms? You MUST start with building a society that does not punish creators for having those shorter terms. Until and unless you do, your words won't convince creators whose lives depend on copyrights.
16. In sum: Practically, copyright terms are settled (and slightly too long), but even if they weren't, we have not (in the US at least) created a society where shorter copyright terms make sense for many creators. Let's create that society! I'd be happy to revisit this then.
17. Thanks for your attention. And now, as usual, a cat picture to close out the thread. Here's Zeus, all casual.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I write books as a fucking business, thank you very much, and part of my business is the long tail -- creating a body of work that is saleable for many years. It's one reason I have that long contract with Tor: All my novels at one house, motivated to keep it *all* in print.
MOREOVER, a backlist I control means the ability to sell older novels as new in foreign markets and into other media formats years after the were originally published. Those additional publications/adaptations feed into backlist sales of the original work, and thus, royalties.
Reminder: Nearly every movie you loved from the 1980s is worse than you remember. Yes, there are exceptions. We're talking on average here. Pre-screen them before you show them to your kids. You'll save on a lot of "pausing and explaining" later.
(Also every single Disney animated film before ooooooh, let's say, 2000)
Incidentally, this is not me telling you that you can't ever enjoy your 80s favorites. Just to be aware that, especially if you haven't watched them for a while, they will likely vividly remind you the culture has, uhhhh, *moved on,* especially if you decide to show them to kids.
1. An email I received from a business planning, I guess, to disrupt the book blurbing business.
Pro tip: If you're paying for book blurbs, you're wasting your money. If you're taking money for book blurbs, you're an awful person. In both cases it undermines the goal of blurbs.
2. Personally, I give book blurbs for one reason and one reason only: I read the book and I liked it. There is no financial incentive offered or implied, it's one author paying forward to another. That's all, that's it.
3. The process of blurbing as enough cynicism and misunderstanding around it without some people (or companies) trying to find a way to monetize it. A paid blurb is worthless, and it degrades the value of sincere blurbs in the process. So, lose/lose for everyone.
Worried about voter intimidation and being challenged as a US citizen about your ability to vote? If you're registered, you have the right to vote, and it's illegal for anyone to try to stop you from voting. Here's information on that:
1. Yes, but also, here's a thing: I am not ignorant, nor am I uneducated, nor am I malign on these issues, AND STILL I got waaaay too far along in my adult life thinking systematic racism wasn't still as active, and endemic and as pervasive as it actually is...
2. ... and at this point, as much as I am aware of it especially thanks to the last four years, what I'm even more aware of is that I am still largely insulated from its realities and in most ways will not ever experience its depths. And ALL of that is for the same reason...
3. ...which is that a salient feature of systematic racism is its ability to mask from its beneficiaries (including mostly liberal, mostly educated, mostly not ignorant white people, like me) how bad and pervasive it STILL is at every level.
Today is the 18th anniversary of Krissy's starting day for the company she works for. It's also the 18th anniversary of her first promotion at the company she works for, because SHE IS JUST THAT GOOD, and the company was smart enough to recognize that very early on.
That was an interesting conversation to have, incidentally:
K: So, I don't have that job I started today anymore.
J: Uh-oh.
K: I got promoted.
J: Wait, what?
K: Yeah, they thought I'd be better at this other job that pays more.
j: Awesome, you'll VP by the end of the week.
She was not VP by the end of the week, but the company paid for her to finish up her college degree so that she could take a still different job with the company, which she did 15 years ago. We like this company, and like that they saw value in Krissy and her work right away.