As, apparently, nor can this fanfic writer, with their parody of a pen-name.
Just for a laugh: JRRT would be 131 if he were still alive. He published 45 books; he wasn't slacking.
His son Christopher, whom I met once, spent his whole adult life editing together his late father's works, and would have been 100 next year... and he nearly made it.
I get the snark, but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under.
The term of copyright has been extended recently, yes. But copyright is in the US constitution and has existed for much longer than 100 years. As to doing well for one's offspring? I think that is a concept that is older than 100 years...
I didn't say copyright only existed for 100 years. I said the "system", as you eluded to, has only existed for the last 100 years.
It's a lot less than 100 years, actually. I put it at the 1976 copyright extension act where things went totally off the rails.
(You could argue the 1909 act, which was accompanied by discussion in the Senate re: benefiting copyright holders in their old age and providing for their descendants was where things went wrong. The term didn't become outrageous at that time though. The 1909 act also required registration of copyrights as a balancing feature-- a requirement that would be removed subsequently.)
re: terms and the lobby
The original term of copyright in the US (1790 copyright act) was 14 years w/ an optional single renewal to 28 years (drawing inspiration from the Statute of Anne).
The 1831 copyright act increased the term to 28 years with an optional 14 year renewal. Noah Webster, cited by some as the first copyright lobbyist in the US, had an influence on this act (as did European copyright terms and "normalization" of US copyrights to match Europe-- a theme that repeats).
Samuel Clemens suggested copyright terms should be perpetual in an appearance in 1906 before the British House of Lords. Presumably he was voicing the same opinion in the US. He wrote about how any "reasonable author" would like copyright to "take care of his children" and "let the grand-children take care of themselves". (Why the children of copyright holders should be entitled to a "free ride" while others' children are not is a topic worthy of debate. Being the child of a copyright holder doesn't confer some inability to make one's own way in the world, to my mind.)
In 1909 the term of the optional renewal was extended to 28 years.
Up to and including 1909 US copyright seems fairly reasonable to me. It certainly seems capable of providing incentive to creators. A 56 year term is longer than I'd like, personally, but it isn't ridiculous. The public domain is still enriched and creators have the opportunity to create new derivative works.
In 1976 the term was extended again to either 75 years (works for hire) or life of the author plus 50 years. This is where, in my mind, the "social contract" became radically and unfairly stilted in favor of copyright holders (not necessarily creators-- since work-for-hire was codified in 1909 and became a normalized practice between '09 and '76). Corporate interests lobbied hard for the '76 changes and again for the Sonny Bono extension act in 1998 (Disney figuring in both times, for example).
I regard the '76 copyright extension as nothing other than a "pull up the ladder" action, and the '98 extension as even more so. So much of human creation is derivative. The '76 extension robbed significantly from the public domain. The '98 act changed the rules retroactively again, pushing the ability of creators to make new derivative works out to ridiculous future dates.
To my mind everything after the 1909 act has been serving the interests of copyright holders w/o regard for balancing the good of society.
Society has a shitty lobby (and post Citizens United money equals speech). It's never going back to being a fair system.
re: doing well for one's offspring - Consolidation of wealth and generational wealth are concepts worthy of debate. I don't think they're an unalloyed good, nor do I think I'm alone in that thinking.
>re: doing well for one's offspring - Consolidation of wealth and generational wealth are concepts worthy of debate. I don't think they're an unalloyed good, nor do I think I'm alone in that thinking.
That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not the ability to maintain control of an author's work for a period of time after their death would or would not be a motivating reason for them to obtain a copyright. It obviously is, how could you dispute that?
I don't believe J.R.R. Tolkien, personally, would have lacked motivation to produce and publish his works if his future estate would have been unable to act in a rent-seeking manner 50 years after his death. He published under the pre-1976 regime in the US anyway.
Would some choose not to create works because they wouldn't get that deal in a hypothetical world where we reigned-in copyright terms to pre-1976 durations and life-plus clause? Yeah-- maybe. I don't think the effect would be terribly chilling. There was a lot of work made available under the 1909-1976 regime.
I certainly don't think we got an explosion of new work because of the 1976 act. It was a windfall for existing rightholders and a method to limit future competition.
It's a very simple question, telling that you refuse to answer it:
"but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"
You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't.
Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
That's an argument, to me, against the "necessity" of this regime. It serves to show that this regime is rent seeking, a windfall for existing copyright holders, and an impediment to competition.
"You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't."
You kinda did
>My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
It's a pointless observation. No one said that works would never be created without the extensions.
>Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
I suppose this would sway the masses if by giving copyright many more years after death, it caused long deasceaded authors to unearth themselves in order to squeeze out one last work.
