I missed the fun here but I was happy to read about Matty's literary lineage and the generosity of his family of writers. I am wondering if you have relationship to Rafael Yglesias, whose novel about teenage Shakespearean actors was one of the best freaking things I ever read as a kid when we were being bussed to PS 221 in New York City in the 1960s
If you're interested in the (arguable) limitations on Congress's power to keep extending copyright terms indefinitely, you should read Justice Breyer's dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft, a challenge to the Copyright Term Extension Act based on pretty much on the same logic discussed here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD1.html
He also points out how ridiculous it is that it somehow incentivizes more creation to extend the term of a copyright (as the CTEA did) from life plus 50 to life plus 70:
"What copyright-related benefits might justify the statute’s extension of copyright protection? First, no one could reasonably conclude that copyright’s traditional economic rationale applies here. The extension will not act as an economic spur encouraging authors to create new works. No potential author can reasonably believe that he has more than a tiny chance of writing a classic that will survive commercially long enough for the copyright extension to matter. After all, if, after 55 to 75 years, only 2% of all copyrights retain commercial value, the percentage surviving after 75 years or more (a typical pre-extension copyright term)–must be far smaller. And any remaining monetary incentive is diminished dramatically by the fact that the relevant royalties will not arrive until 75 years or more into the future, when, not the author, but distant heirs, or shareholders in a successor corporation, will receive them. Using assumptions about the time value of money provided us by a group of economists (including five Nobel prize winners), Brief for George A. Akerlof et al. as Amici Curiae 5—7, it seems fair to say that, for example, a 1% likelihood of earning $100 annually for 20 years, starting 75 years into the future, is worth less than seven cents today.
What potential Shakespeare, Wharton, or Hemingway would be moved by such a sum? What monetarily motivated Melville would not realize that he could do better for his grandchildren by putting a few dollars into an interest-bearing bank account? The Court itself finds no evidence to the contrary."
I ostensibly agree with the larger point of letting older works move into the public domain, but I believe the point is misplaced for these books. For example, "And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street" will enter the public domain in 2031, not 2061. It was first copyrighted in 1937, and then renewed in 1964. The 1992 Amendment applies to all works copyrighted after Jan. 1, 1964, automatically adding 47 years--so 2011. Then the 1998 Amendment added another 20 years, so 2031. The Life + 70 is only applicable for works copyrighted in their first term after Jan. 1, 1978. 17 U.S.C. § 304
Love you Matt, but you play a rhetorical trick here to avoid taking a stand on the current cultural forces influencing free speech. “If it were up to me I would’ve banned two of the three, but it shouldn’t be up to me, because public domain.” It’s a trick I’m gonna start calling the “good cop”. There’s a reason people are writing about cancellation and not public domain and IP rights: because it’s more interesting. If you want to wait out the debate on whether a climate of fear engendered by activists and a media and corporate class that will strip somebody of their livelihood over a couple of Twitter complaints, that’s fine, but why use doctor Seuss to illustrate your point about IP?
Because Dr seuss is in the news at the moment. And Matty still thinks he needs to make viral content. When actually he has a loyal following that will pay hear about buses in Bute Montan.
I am wondering if there is any way to split copyright so that control over derivative works exists for less time than control over the original work. I do think that so long as a creator is alive they should have some control over their creation, but maybe after some years anyone can make a derivative work.
I say this because (Seuss fracas aside) I think the most toxic part of long copyright is letting corporations have a monopoly on cultural touchstones, and that I do believe creators have less of a moral right to prevent others from getting inspiration from their work than they do to be cut in on any profits made from their specific work.
I disagree with the view that 'regulation is for monopolies' and big tech companies aren't monopolies (debatable), and thus applying a regulatory approach to them doesn't make sense. Regulation is appropriate wherever what is deemed as a public good is at stake. This includes environmental, consumer protection, fair markets, etc. etc. So, if we deem that social media and other tech platforms have become such critical societal infrastructure as to enter the realm of 'public goods', then it is totally appropriate and advisable to consider regulation to secure social goods (privacy, access, speech protections, etc.).
A good analog may be our layers of financial sector regulation, rather than your local public utilities commission. In finance, we recognize a significant public good around fair, transparent markets, and the fact that there is an inherent potential for abuse and taking-advantage by players. So we have the SEC, etc., and we don't simply fall back on the argument that 'JP Morgen isn't a monopoly so they are free to do anything they want...' For the same reason that we recognize that the societal impact of the financial sector warrants regulation, we totally consider regulation for Big Tech is various ways.
That said I don't think that EBay delisting a book really rises to the level of government intervention.
One of the unexpected benefits of Slow Boring has been that I learn 1-2 new words in every post (today it was "expurgate"). Any more than that would be annoying, I appreciate the balance.
I'm a classical musician, and in our world, it is still very much the common belief that copyright law is crazy and creativity-stifling, and everyone despises Disney and Sonny Bono.
Music publishers are absolutely horrible companies that only exist because of their monopoly interests. They charge outrageous fees for performances of works within copyright and this adds to the problem of our art form being viewed as stodgy, old, and white.
Let's say you're a start-up chamber orchestra and you want to program a piece by a living Latina composer, but her publisher is going to charge you $800 / performance. You might not expect to break even on that. If you could, instead, program a Mozart symphony which is FREE, it's easy to see why people default to the canon.
"But since [Tarantino] didn’t buy the rights, he can’t fully acknowledge the debt [of borrowing from Lam's "City on Fire"]. And since he was making a movie at the beginning of his career on a shoestring budget ... he couldn’t afford to just be generous and throw money around on buying rights. So Lam ends up getting neither money nor credit, which is not helping anyone." Well, it helped Tarantino, and not just in the sense of individual self-interest. It enabled him to make a great movie that he couldn't have made if he had been compelled to spend more money making it. The downside for "borrowees" like Lam has an upside: it subsidizes (or at least removes one barrier to) the borrowers who can make new work by borrowing (short of copying) the work of others.
Speaking only to your section about Amazon and eBay pulling items: I have no doubt eBay's pulling the Seuss books was, similar to the estate's, simply based on fear of a social media boycott. And I don't want my reading choices determined by the minority that is the Twitter mob. Your ideas about copyright will help...sort of. It will still depend on the distributors electing to distribute "controversial" material, whatever "controversial" means next week.
Would it help clarify things if I pointed out that Mickey Mouse earns American shareholders a hell of a lot of foreign exchange. As does quite a lot of intellectual property and things like brands and patents. And that is why modern FTAs and trade negotiations spend so much time and effort on establishing rules to protect these things. If you want to give them away I am cool with that. America will be the biggest donor.
Matt, in your footnote, are you referring to the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA? I remember seeing a City on Fire/Reservoir Dogs double feature there around 1996.
A decade ago on the internet, this would have been the majority take, completely uncontroversial. I’m shocked at how much that’s changed. I had a quasi-prominent author on Twitter accuse me of wanting writers to be unable to eat just because I suggested that maybe “Life + 70” was a little bit too long! It’s wild.
Much like every poor american is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, every mid-shelf-or-lower author on twitter is a temporarily embarrassed JK Rowling.
I actually don’t know what a standard publishing contract is like—if I sell a book to a publisher, do they typically retain the copyright for its entire term? If so, I guess I would be selling the future revenue stream during my lifetime. (Still is too long though. Especially because 95%+ of copyrighted things won’t still be making money after its author has been dead for 70 years.)
Older viewers will recall the 70's era of the Defective Detectives. I prefer the more modern versions of what I call the Eclective Detectives which I think are more in keeping with their Holmesian roots. I had not included House in this pantheon. But you are right. He is.
I missed the fun here but I was happy to read about Matty's literary lineage and the generosity of his family of writers. I am wondering if you have relationship to Rafael Yglesias, whose novel about teenage Shakespearean actors was one of the best freaking things I ever read as a kid when we were being bussed to PS 221 in New York City in the 1960s
If you're interested in the (arguable) limitations on Congress's power to keep extending copyright terms indefinitely, you should read Justice Breyer's dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft, a challenge to the Copyright Term Extension Act based on pretty much on the same logic discussed here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD1.html
He also points out how ridiculous it is that it somehow incentivizes more creation to extend the term of a copyright (as the CTEA did) from life plus 50 to life plus 70:
"What copyright-related benefits might justify the statute’s extension of copyright protection? First, no one could reasonably conclude that copyright’s traditional economic rationale applies here. The extension will not act as an economic spur encouraging authors to create new works. No potential author can reasonably believe that he has more than a tiny chance of writing a classic that will survive commercially long enough for the copyright extension to matter. After all, if, after 55 to 75 years, only 2% of all copyrights retain commercial value, the percentage surviving after 75 years or more (a typical pre-extension copyright term)–must be far smaller. And any remaining monetary incentive is diminished dramatically by the fact that the relevant royalties will not arrive until 75 years or more into the future, when, not the author, but distant heirs, or shareholders in a successor corporation, will receive them. Using assumptions about the time value of money provided us by a group of economists (including five Nobel prize winners), Brief for George A. Akerlof et al. as Amici Curiae 5—7, it seems fair to say that, for example, a 1% likelihood of earning $100 annually for 20 years, starting 75 years into the future, is worth less than seven cents today.
What potential Shakespeare, Wharton, or Hemingway would be moved by such a sum? What monetarily motivated Melville would not realize that he could do better for his grandchildren by putting a few dollars into an interest-bearing bank account? The Court itself finds no evidence to the contrary."
I ostensibly agree with the larger point of letting older works move into the public domain, but I believe the point is misplaced for these books. For example, "And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street" will enter the public domain in 2031, not 2061. It was first copyrighted in 1937, and then renewed in 1964. The 1992 Amendment applies to all works copyrighted after Jan. 1, 1964, automatically adding 47 years--so 2011. Then the 1998 Amendment added another 20 years, so 2031. The Life + 70 is only applicable for works copyrighted in their first term after Jan. 1, 1978. 17 U.S.C. § 304
Love you Matt, but you play a rhetorical trick here to avoid taking a stand on the current cultural forces influencing free speech. “If it were up to me I would’ve banned two of the three, but it shouldn’t be up to me, because public domain.” It’s a trick I’m gonna start calling the “good cop”. There’s a reason people are writing about cancellation and not public domain and IP rights: because it’s more interesting. If you want to wait out the debate on whether a climate of fear engendered by activists and a media and corporate class that will strip somebody of their livelihood over a couple of Twitter complaints, that’s fine, but why use doctor Seuss to illustrate your point about IP?
Because Dr seuss is in the news at the moment. And Matty still thinks he needs to make viral content. When actually he has a loyal following that will pay hear about buses in Bute Montan.
I am wondering if there is any way to split copyright so that control over derivative works exists for less time than control over the original work. I do think that so long as a creator is alive they should have some control over their creation, but maybe after some years anyone can make a derivative work.
I say this because (Seuss fracas aside) I think the most toxic part of long copyright is letting corporations have a monopoly on cultural touchstones, and that I do believe creators have less of a moral right to prevent others from getting inspiration from their work than they do to be cut in on any profits made from their specific work.
I disagree with the view that 'regulation is for monopolies' and big tech companies aren't monopolies (debatable), and thus applying a regulatory approach to them doesn't make sense. Regulation is appropriate wherever what is deemed as a public good is at stake. This includes environmental, consumer protection, fair markets, etc. etc. So, if we deem that social media and other tech platforms have become such critical societal infrastructure as to enter the realm of 'public goods', then it is totally appropriate and advisable to consider regulation to secure social goods (privacy, access, speech protections, etc.).
A good analog may be our layers of financial sector regulation, rather than your local public utilities commission. In finance, we recognize a significant public good around fair, transparent markets, and the fact that there is an inherent potential for abuse and taking-advantage by players. So we have the SEC, etc., and we don't simply fall back on the argument that 'JP Morgen isn't a monopoly so they are free to do anything they want...' For the same reason that we recognize that the societal impact of the financial sector warrants regulation, we totally consider regulation for Big Tech is various ways.
That said I don't think that EBay delisting a book really rises to the level of government intervention.
One of the unexpected benefits of Slow Boring has been that I learn 1-2 new words in every post (today it was "expurgate"). Any more than that would be annoying, I appreciate the balance.
I'm a classical musician, and in our world, it is still very much the common belief that copyright law is crazy and creativity-stifling, and everyone despises Disney and Sonny Bono.
Music publishers are absolutely horrible companies that only exist because of their monopoly interests. They charge outrageous fees for performances of works within copyright and this adds to the problem of our art form being viewed as stodgy, old, and white.
Let's say you're a start-up chamber orchestra and you want to program a piece by a living Latina composer, but her publisher is going to charge you $800 / performance. You might not expect to break even on that. If you could, instead, program a Mozart symphony which is FREE, it's easy to see why people default to the canon.
Music copyright's effect on live performance is absolutely its most baleful aspect.
Or as my favorite tiny folk cafe put it, on a sign stage left:
BMI and ASCAP
want my dough
if you play covers
out you go!
Burma Shave
"But since [Tarantino] didn’t buy the rights, he can’t fully acknowledge the debt [of borrowing from Lam's "City on Fire"]. And since he was making a movie at the beginning of his career on a shoestring budget ... he couldn’t afford to just be generous and throw money around on buying rights. So Lam ends up getting neither money nor credit, which is not helping anyone." Well, it helped Tarantino, and not just in the sense of individual self-interest. It enabled him to make a great movie that he couldn't have made if he had been compelled to spend more money making it. The downside for "borrowees" like Lam has an upside: it subsidizes (or at least removes one barrier to) the borrowers who can make new work by borrowing (short of copying) the work of others.
Speaking only to your section about Amazon and eBay pulling items: I have no doubt eBay's pulling the Seuss books was, similar to the estate's, simply based on fear of a social media boycott. And I don't want my reading choices determined by the minority that is the Twitter mob. Your ideas about copyright will help...sort of. It will still depend on the distributors electing to distribute "controversial" material, whatever "controversial" means next week.
The novelisation of my FAVE computer game https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-alpha-centauri is sadly an orphaned work - I lost my copies when I moved from NZ to France
Check out the price of book 3! fucking algorithmic book merchants
"3 Used from $768.57
2 New from $491.22"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671040790/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
(1) That's absurd. (2) SMAC is also awesome. (I am mostly posting this for (2).)
Would it help clarify things if I pointed out that Mickey Mouse earns American shareholders a hell of a lot of foreign exchange. As does quite a lot of intellectual property and things like brands and patents. And that is why modern FTAs and trade negotiations spend so much time and effort on establishing rules to protect these things. If you want to give them away I am cool with that. America will be the biggest donor.
Matt, in your footnote, are you referring to the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA? I remember seeing a City on Fire/Reservoir Dogs double feature there around 1996.
I remember reading your grandfather's book with interest and pleasure when it came out.
And I've been with you on copyrights for as long as I can remember being aware of them.
A decade ago on the internet, this would have been the majority take, completely uncontroversial. I’m shocked at how much that’s changed. I had a quasi-prominent author on Twitter accuse me of wanting writers to be unable to eat just because I suggested that maybe “Life + 70” was a little bit too long! It’s wild.
Much like every poor american is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, every mid-shelf-or-lower author on twitter is a temporarily embarrassed JK Rowling.
Hard to see how the +70 part helps any author eat, unless they're selling the future revenue stream during their lifetime.
I seem to remember David Bowie doing something like that, but I’m too lazy to Google it right now.
I actually don’t know what a standard publishing contract is like—if I sell a book to a publisher, do they typically retain the copyright for its entire term? If so, I guess I would be selling the future revenue stream during my lifetime. (Still is too long though. Especially because 95%+ of copyrighted things won’t still be making money after its author has been dead for 70 years.)
Older viewers will recall the 70's era of the Defective Detectives. I prefer the more modern versions of what I call the Eclective Detectives which I think are more in keeping with their Holmesian roots. I had not included House in this pantheon. But you are right. He is.