>The dark side of this is that many of us won't. And, in particular, in many areas, the total number of brass rings is relatively fixed and we can't all get them. A hundred years ago, most people didn't even think of becoming an author.
It's worse: a hundred years ago (say 1921) there were less people (in the US for example), and more succesful authors.
Now it's more people (350 million vs 100 million in 2021) AND less absolute people reading books (perhaps as today they also compete with tv, the web, youtube, netflix, social media, videogames, and so on as everyday entertainment options).
So it's much much harder to make a living as an author today than in 1921.
It’s older books not Netflix that’s the real competition. Amazon’s unlimited bookshelf holds a lot more than just Lord of the Rings. That said, residuals are also much easier to capture now days than back when book stores had extremely limited shelf space so it’s not all bad. There is a real trade off of fewer sales in year one but more sales in year 2-20.
On the numbers side people have a lot more disposable income, capturing a larger share of revenue per person can completely flip the equation. Patreon, etc don’t have to individually provide enough to live off of as long as all revenue streams add up to a living wage.
I suspect if the objective threshold is say 50k USD inflation adjusted, today is relatively speaking a much better time to be an author than most people here are assuming.
Of course that’s ignoring all the vanity books being published. Simply having an ISBN number doesn’t really mean anything in today’s world.
When agriculture was invented, it put a bunch of hunter gatherers out of business. They weren't happy about it, they liked being hunters and gatherers.
But that surplus workforce found jobs in other areas, creating whole industries where there had been nothing. Can't have Post-mates without workers and restaurants. Can't have restaurants without more workers and food distribution. Can't have food distribution without more workers and food processors... etc.
Ivy league english majors get jobs writing TV and movie scripts. Mass electronic distribution means that many many people get to watch the creative output of a small number of people. All the other people who used to write are available to fill new niches in the economy.
Yep, the transition is difficult, and they'll complain about it, but society as a whole benefits.
>When agriculture was invented, it put a bunch of hunter gatherers out of business. They weren't happy about it, they liked being hunters and gatherers. But that surplus workforce found jobs in other areas, creating whole industries where there had been nothing.
For many it remains still not that wise a decision.
>All the other people who used to write are available to fill new niches in the economy.
Yeah, I hear burger-flipping is still in demand.
I appreciate the ELI5, but it's not that I don't know history, or I don't understand that some jobs die and others replace them.
It is that I consider some jobs dying a problem, whether they are replaced by something else or not, and doubly so in the way that that transition happens (and some people in each generation get the short end of the stick).
> it's not that I don't know history, or I don't understand that some jobs die and others replace them.
ok, but it's not that some jobs die and others replace them, it's that efficiency gains allow less effort to satiate demand and thereby create a labor/ingenuity supply for new endeavors.
the job of writing (or performing music, etc.) did not die, it's that the demand for satisfying arts consumption can be met by a smaller sector of the economy.
1921 is shortly after copyright became effectively infinite, and falls in the gulf of books that were lost because they were snatched away from entering the public domain.
I really don't see any good argument why copyright should last longer than, say, 20 years.
Would any potential authors decide it's not worth it to write books if copyright only lasted 20 years? What benefit to society does ~100 years of copyright provide?
How do you solve the Mickey Mouse problem? E.g., you have a character that has created an "empire" that an organization has the means (cultural/monetary) to prevent their creation from entering the public domain. You have to figure out what to do about those rare situations because they're the driving force for extending copyrights.
My ideal is like the old system (initial registration plus fixed term renewals). That actually worked well to balance interests and we should go back to it. Just make the renewals an increasing cost so that your 'Mickey Mouse' hits can continue to have effectively infinite protection while most won't renew and drop into the public domain.
I think Disney's control over copyright law has been greatly overstated because it makes a better story. Yes, they lobby in favour of longer copyright. But they're spending a measly ~$4 million per year on lobbying (total, not specifically on copyright) [1].
The boring truth is politicians in Congress were in favor of copyright extension (at least in 1998). Two reasons given were: 1) copyright industries give the US one of its most significant trade surpluses, and 2) the European Union had recently extended copyright there for 20 years, and so EU works would be protected for 20 years longer than US works if the US did not enact similar term extensions.
I fully expect the copyright on the first Mickey Mouse cartoon will expire in 2024.
I don't think that sounds like the "boring truth". The Sonny Bono Act had wide support from the copyright industry [1]. Supporters also said that since perpetual copyright is constitutionally forbidden, that it should be "forever less one day".
That the extension was done under the guise of harmonization only shows that the lobbying was done one country at a time. That there is "only" $4 million/year doesn't show that Disney has a small effect, but rather how unbelievably cheap it is to buy a congressional vote.
Isn't it kind of a given that the copyright industry supports pro-copyright legislation?
> That there is "only" $4 million/year doesn't show that Disney has a small effect, but rather how unbelievably cheap it is to buy a congressional vote.
It doesn't show that. You're speculating that Congress supported copyright due to Disney's lobbying and dismissing the possibility that members of Congress who supported it actually supported it for the reasons they stated. The tricky thing with this kind of speculation is it's impossible to prove or disprove. Maybe it was Disney that convinced them. But you don't seem to have any evidence.
If it's so cheap to buy Congressional votes, why hasn't Disney been able to extend copyright again in the past 20 years? They've been lobbying every year since Sonny Bono. The copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire.
If votes are so cheap, why can't we just buy votes to shorten copyright? Or at least prevent extensions?
The point I was more making is how do you handle successful things that are long term viable. Such as Mickey Mouse, Sherlock Holmes, etc. Though, yes, it's overstated the impact. The 1976 act was more impactful than the Sonny Bono Act.
Everything having a lifetime copyright has it's own problems, but cutting everything to 20 years creates it own.
If something has long-term public appeal, fantastic. Then the creators should be glad to have contributed something that lasted so long. But when you say "viable", I hear an implication of "commercial viability". I think that's a poor framework in which to understand copyright duration.
The public domain isn't meant to be a dumping ground for forgotten properties. Rather, the public domain is a wellspring from which new writers can draw upon. Just as I may name a character "Sherlock" (1887), "Romeo" (1597), or "Odysseus" (~700 BC) in order to bring in specific character traits, I may also want to name a character "Superman" (1938), "Gandalf" (1954), or "Skywalker" (1977). These are all part of our shared cultural heritage from previous generations, and we have a right to build upon that heritage to create something even better for the next generation.
That is why I think roughly one generation, 30 years or so, is an appropriate maximum copyright duration. As adults, every generation has the right to retell and remix stories and characters from their childhood. The current duration of copyright is a gross abuse of that right.
Fair enough, but commercial viability is the point of copyright. It's an exclusive distribution right of a creative work. We've carved out tons of exceptions for copyright for things like parody, educational purposes, etc., but at it's core it's a distribution right and nothing else. Instead of working in an existing property, it's better to create something new, even if you're inspired by the other thing. The entirety of the music industry for how this works in practice in our current framework. The games industry also has lots of good examples of creating new works using existing ideas without violating copyright.
To respond to this specific point, though "...we have a right to build upon that heritage to create something even better for the next generation". We already do this, we create tropes and then write new stories using those tropes. Creating new is better than just rehashing existing properties and longer copyright terms actually encourage new works because you can't rely on older properties for your material. I think they're too long for virtually all works because most works are commercial failures. They could find new audiences if their distribution rights weren't locked up. MST3K is a great example of doing something new with an existing property that is only possible with term limits.
> Fair enough, but commercial viability is the point of copyright.
I strongly disagree with this statement. The point of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". The commercial viability is the means through which that point is achieved. If at any time copyright isn't functioning to promote the arts, and instead hinders, then it isn't fulfilling the point.
While I do agree that the tropes are the stronger part, part of the reason why shared characters are so powerful is because they can immediately stand in to represent the trope. If I am writing a Robin Hood story, I don't need to spend time explaining who Robin Hood is, I can just start telling the story. If I am writing a story about "What if Superman were evil?" (e.g. [0][1]), then I need to first spend time explaining who the character is, describing powers, and then drawing just enough parallels so that the audience knows who I'm talking about without drawing so many that I get sued. It's a really boring way to start a story.
You should really read up on the history of copyright, because it's the genuinely the exact opposite of what you're saying. Copyright initially enforced restrictions on printing press operators and was used as part of the censorship mechanism. There's an argument that copyright actually slowed progress and countries with weak copyright advanced faster. It logically follows because allowing unlimited copies of works to be made regardless of ownership allows for dissemination of information quicker.
Progress of knowledge is covered differently and it's why the US has carved exceptions for facts (they're exempt from copyright) and we use a patent system for inventions. Think of current problems with companies like Elsiver that use copyright as a cudgel to keep academic papers from the masses.
Thank you for the link, and that is some very good background that I had been unaware of. There are some other interesting examples, such as Hollywood becoming the motion picture capital of the US by virtue of being farther away from Thomas Edison, and therefore harder to sue.
I definitely agree that copyright can, and frequently does hinder progress. My statement is perhaps limited to the US, where patents and copyrights are given an explicit goal in Article 1 of the Constitution, stating "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The "to promote the progress" wording is important, as it tells a goal, and not just a legal capability.
A thought experiment I like is to consider the best way to promote progress in the arts and sciences. Suppose there were a magic box, which could instantly tell the full value of any invention or artwork or writing. You put something in, and it tells you how much it benefits society. Then there could be a program set up to reward authors and inventors for making things. They come up to the box, put the work in, and get paid the amount that the magic box tells you. In exchange for contributing to society, there is some compensation for doing so.
Of course, no such magic box exists, nor can it. We could have some sort of a poll to determine the overall worth of a new book or a better can opener, but that would have a lot of overhead. So instead, for a limited time, we reward authors and inventors by giving them a temporary monopoly over making copies of what they wrote, and that can become a monetary reward by selling those copies. Because we don't have an objective measure of a book's worth, we fall back to subjective measures. But this is still fundamentally a restriction on society as a whole, not to reproduce something that they have purchased, and that restriction requires some ongoing basis. It cannot be forever, and it must always be in service of promoting the arts and sciences, because that is the only reason why the offer of a legal monopoly in exchange for open publication exists.
(As a tangent, I don't understand any basis for legal protections of trade secrets, beyond civil penalties for breaking a contract. Companies using trade secrets have decided not to accept the bargain offered by patents, and therefore should also not have the benefits of legal protections.)
(And a second tangent, I don't think that computer programs released without source code should be eligible for copyright protection. The authors have not fulfilled their side of the bargain by releasing a work in a form that can be built upon and expanded by society once their limited-time monopoly has expired, and so they should not receive the legal monopoly offered in that bargain.)
> Fair enough, but commercial viability is the point of copyright.
Yes, and that point is that it's not for ever.
> It's an exclusive distribution right of a creative work.
Exactly. For a limited time.
Most of us only live for a single lifetime, so anything longer than that is effectively forever: If something is locked away by copyright when you're born, and still is when you die, then you don't ever get it free of copyright.
> The games industry also has lots of good examples of creating new works using existing ideas without violating copyright.
Games are interesting because games copy each other incessantly but almost never sue over copyright.
The actual source code and art would clearly fall under copyright, but not the gameplay. So when PUBG discovered the popular battle royale genre, everyone rushed to copy it and now we have Fortnite, Apex Legends, Call of Duty Battle Royale, etc. When Dota was popular, it spawned tons of clones. Minecraft spawned tons of clones. In some cases where the clones are too similar, the original creator may have legal grounds for suing, but they seldom do so.
Short of blatantly stealing assets from another game, it's hard to get in trouble over another game's copyright.
Yep, ideas vs execution. You see it in books and music pretty frequently as well. Twilight is a great example because it spawned a ton of clones. Music was pretty insulated until fairly recently with some lawsuits over similarities being a bit... questionable.
Side note, this has been a really good thread to read and respond to.
Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, and as far as I know, it's been fine. That might be why there have been so many movies and shows based on the character recently.
Imagine it's 2024 and the original Mickey Mouse cartoon just entered the public domain. How does this impact Disney?
-Anyone could watch Steamboat Willie for free (assuming it's online somewhere). I don't see this harming Disney.
-Another big studio like Warner could make a cartoon with the original Mickey. I doubt any of the big studios are even interested in doing so, but if they do, I don't think it will affect Disney's revenue.
-Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey character. I think if anyone does this, it's more likely to help than hurt Disney, by boosting Mickey's profile.
-Other manufacturers could make Mickey Mouse merchandise. This is probably the biggest direct harm to Disney, but I don't think it'll make much impact on their revenue.
Some things people couldn't do:
-Use the Mickey Mouse logo. It's protected by trademark.
-Make a sequel or spin off of a modern Mickey Mouse product. Another studio couldn't just make Epic Mickey 2 since Epic Mickey (2010) is still protected.
I'm not sure Disney makes much money off of Mickey compared to other properties like Star Wars, Marvel, Frozen, etc. Mickey's popularity seems to be waning. Apart from a few video games, he hasn't been in much recently. He has a TV show that did fine but isn't particularly popular.
Okay, but what about other popular properties? The first Harry Potter book was published 24 years ago. What if it were in the public domain?
-J. K. Rowling's net worth is estimated to be over a billion USD. She'll be okay.
-People would still buy new books written by J. K. Rowling.
-Only her earliest books would be in the public domain.
In most jobs, you can't expect to work for a few years and be set for life. I'm not sure why it should be different for authors (and it usually isn't). If your book won't make enough money for you to retire after 20 years of sales, you'd either have to write another book, or get another job. That's already the case for the vast majority of authors.
The trick to dealing with a 20 year copyright term is to keep making new works. Which is exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage.
Sherlock Holmes is not in the public domain in full. Most of the things we think of as 'Sherlock Holmes' are from stories still in copyright. It's why you see Elementary as a property and Sherlock as modern day. Counterintuitively they had to come up with new ideas because the existing ideas are locked up with copyright.
Couple of other issues.
"Small studios and independent artists could use the original Mickey character"
"Other manufacturers could make Mickey Mouse merchandise. This is probably the biggest direct harm to Disney, but I don't think it'll make much impact on their revenue."
The reason you've seen them make Steamboat Willie LEGO and the current "old-style" Mickey Mouse cartoons is because they're setting up a copyright argument if someone tried. They're also setting up the same arguments that Sherlock Holmes uses which is that the elements of Mickey in Steamboat Willie have been used recently and are thus still locked up by copyright. You can distribute Steamboat Willie, but can not otherwise use the property. The Sherlock Holmes case is here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163248743572192...
"Which is exactly what copyright was supposed to encourage."
No, copyright is an exclusive distribution right. It's a government granted monopoly to provide protection to creative works. The history of copyright is pretty interesting in an of itself and starts with the printing press in the 1500s. Long story short, though, it's always been about commercial exploitation of a creative work.
Yeah, not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain. As it says in the case you linked only 10 stories out of 56 plus 4 novels were still under copyright (now down to 6).
The Doyle estate lost the case you're referring to and Klinger was allowed to publish his derivative stories.
Disney could try to sue, but I don't think their case is any stronger than the Sherlock Holmes case if the defendant is only deriving material from the original Mickey cartoon.
Klinger was seeking declaratory judgement that he could use the non-protected elements. Doyle estate was saying he couldn't. It was agreed by both parties that he couldn't use elements contained in the 10 stories.
From the case listed "And the claim is correct, for he acknowledges that those copyrights are valid and that the only copying he wants to include in his book is copying of the Holmes and Watson characters as they appear in the earlier stories and in the novels."
Mickey Mouse will most certainly not be in the public domain anymore than he is now. Disney can also fall back on trademark law to take care of Disney's use as well.
I think we have the same understanding of the case then. We seem to have a different conclusion on derivative works based on the original Mickey Mouse once it enters the public domain. I agree with you that modern Mickey would still be under copyright.
It's a bit of a moot point in my opinion, because I don't think anyone outside of Disney would even want to make more of 1928 Mickey. It's old. It's not popular. Maybe they'd use him for a cameo or for parody, but shows already do that anyway, regardless of the copyright [1].
> How do you solve the Mickey Mouse problem? E.g., you have a character that has created an "empire" that an organization has the means (cultural/monetary) to prevent their creation from entering the public domain. You have to figure out what to do about those rare situations because they're the driving force for extending copyrights.
We have a mechanism for solving the problem of Derivative works that purport to be creations of the "empire": trademarks.
BTW, everyone focuses on Steamboat Willie (entering the public domain in 2024), but there are already several Mickey Mouse cartoons in the public domain: The Mad Doctor, Minnie's Yoo-Hoo, and Mickey's Surprise Party.
So, it is possible to create derivative Mickey Mouse works, just make sure that they can't be confused for works or products created or licensed by Disney.
I don't really have a good solution. My gut reaction is that having a system that rewards the same companies that pushed for infinite copyright duration, rather than removing their hold over our shared culture, isn't a good solution. That isn't the most pragmatic of me, but I'd rather not reward Disney for breaking the public domain.
The renewal system you propose seems like a pretty good idea. Not sure you even need the increasing cost. Just making it a small fee would probably mean 98% of works would never get renewed after the first term. Perhaps add a rule that the author can renew for free if he's still alive.
It's basically how the US system worked prior to 1976, though the terms were 28 + 28 renewal. Most didn't renew because they didn't make enough money to make the renewal worth it.
We won't know for a hundred years how many of the books that will be published in 2021 will be notable enough in 2121 to be on the 2021_in_literature wikipedia page.
It's worse: a hundred years ago (say 1921) there were less people (in the US for example), and more succesful authors.
Now it's more people (350 million vs 100 million in 2021) AND less absolute people reading books (perhaps as today they also compete with tv, the web, youtube, netflix, social media, videogames, and so on as everyday entertainment options).
So it's much much harder to make a living as an author today than in 1921.