Gametech wrote: > > I've got plenty of respect for a creator's rights (I'm a creator, most of > the work I've done profesionaly would fall under the so called proctection > of copyright), but I've got little to no respect for current copyright laws. > I don't equate a creators rights to be = to copyright > Well by definition copyright = creaters rights. What do you see creators rights to be? <snip stuff about ages> > > > Okay well If it's clearly aimed at me I may as well retort. > I've got no issues with a creator making money off of their creation, that > is I've got more of an issue with capitalistic society than with this one > branch of professions making money (which I'm complety part of). The > publishers of media these days make more than the author does, an metric > ass-ton more. The idea of changing copyright laws to a much shorter finite > fixed length of time in your eyes 'robs' them, they are willing to fork over > in most cases over 80% of the profits made from their works just to the > chain of distribution, reforming copyright doesn't even mean the creator has > to make *less* money - this shortend span of time that a creator can collect > money for a specific work can be compensated by a larger % of his sales > (which they have willingly chosen to not take, they *could* always self > publish) after all it's th buisnesses that publish and own rights that are > actually making the largest percentage of the money involved in a creators > work, not the creator themselves. > Changing copyright laws to reduce the period in which a work is protected will, in the short term, only advantage publishers. The main problems that you are identifing with respect to publishers making more money out of works like books and much more clearly the music industry actually have very little to do with copyright law and much more to do with the lack of competition between publishers. Self publishing is often not an option, though sometimes it is. Most small presses, and I know people who have run them, loose money. Just on the economy of scale thing. And a new author is going to have a lot of difficulty breaking through being self marketed. Music is slightly different, as it is more common for musicians to self publish these days , but then it is also a lot less expensive to do so. But getting radio play without a publisher backing you, well good luck. Basically it comes down to the fact that in order to be published you have to go through a publisher, and the author of any work gives the publisher the rights to publish the publisher doesn't just get them, the author has to give them up. It's all supply and demand, look for instance at the creative control that J.K. Rowling reportedly got over the Harry Potter movies, down to casting. She bargined hard , her work was in demand, and she got what she wanted. I could be much more interesting, however, if authors/musicians form a co-operative to publish there works :) > > for most musicians excluding the occasional 'popular over more than two > generations' 90% of the money they will make from any one album will be made > in the first 10 years, I haven't suggested 10 years as copyright expiration > but the point that any amount of copyright generously allows a creator ample > time to capitalize on their work. > Ten years is far too short. For instance the movie industry would just wait 10 years before adapting any book and then have completely free license to do what they wanted, without any compensation to the author. Basically, Gametech, while I see where you are coming from, the people who would gain the most from such a shortening of copyright would be publishers. Andrew.