5 years it should be a law

[AdminAssistant]

Music, on the other hand, is more important to let lapse, otherwise we're going to start running out of works to be made. Most people write works that are influenced by what they heard growing up, and if you extend copyright to the lifetime of the artist, then the majority of what anybody hears growing up will be off the table, utterly stifling the ability of future generations to use their own lives as inspiration.

You can write works influenced by things that are under copyright. Covers and remixes can be (and often are) done with permission. (The briefest glance at the electronica/dance music community will confirm this.) Fair Use covers satire. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

But I believe that a playwright ought to be able to prevent their play from being turned into a Broadway musical or a Brett Ratner film for as long as they're living. I believe that a scholar should have their work cited and respected. Copyright doesn't just cover Top 40 music, books, and movies. It covers academic work as well. And I'll be damned if I bust my ass to write a book, only to be told that I have no control over my own intellectual property.

Copyright laws might be frustrating. I don't like the fact that intellectual works sit molding in archives because the copyright holders don't think they can make a buck off of them. But I prefer that to yanking away rights from the people who created the damn thing in the first place. I mean, you're complaining about not being able to buy Disney movies on demand or tv show episodes not being on DVD. I'm talking about the right to control the intellectual property that a person creates. There's no question there.

[bara]

But I believe that a playwright ought to be able to prevent their play from being turned into a Broadway musical or a Brett Ratner film for as long as they're living. I believe that a scholar should have their work cited and respected. Copyright doesn't just cover Top 40 music, books, and movies. It covers academic work as well. And I'll be damned if I bust my ass to write a book, only to be told that I have no control over my own intellectual property.

I can agree with this.

[AdminAssistant]

Actually, I thought of an interesting idea. Companies cannot pursue charges of piracy or theft if the item in question is not available for sale to the general public. That might encourage production companies to keep tv shows, movies, books, etc. at least available in a digital format online. Greater access to materials for consumers, plus greater visibility for the creators.

[DrFaroohk]

I look at it like this: If I copy a movie that the company is selling, I'm cheating them out of their 19.95 that the movie costs. If I download a movie that is no longer in print and unavailable everywhere, then I am cheating them out of their 0.00 that their movie costs.

Okie dokie, they can sue me for 0.00, and I will gladly pay reparations of that 0.00 plus %10,000.

I've never understood some people's obsession with protecting their garbage.

[jackfaire]

Copyright laws might be frustrating. I don't like the fact that intellectual works sit molding in archives because the copyright holders don't think they can make a buck off of them. But I prefer that to yanking away rights from the people who created the damn thing in the first place. I mean, you're complaining about not being able to buy Disney movies on demand or tv show episodes not being on DVD. I'm talking about the right to control the intellectual property that a person creates. There's no question there.

Except the law I propose is about availability.

Not saying yank rights away from writers. Saying if a writer refuses to let the book they wrote be published in book form for 5 years then they should lose the right to it.

I am not saying they have to option it as a movie or lose it I am saying they have to keep distributing it.

That is the key. Writers would still maintain the rights unless they decided to have their books pulled from shelves and buried for a period of 5 years or more.

[AdminAssistant]

The problem with that is distribution is often decided by the publisher or production company (a separate issue). So you'd punish the writer for the actions of the publisher?

[jackfaire]

The problem with that is distribution is often decided by the publisher or production company (a separate issue). So you'd punish the writer for the actions of the publisher?

No because making an honest attempt to distribute is still distribution and in a time when your written material can be sold in digital format the publisher choosing to no longer publish it argument holds as little weight as the DVDs don't sell well.

Plus I see it happening with a hearing. Each property owner given the opportunity to explain why they are deserving of keeping the copyright.

There is no reason to just run around taking people's rights away but there is no reason to bury things either.

Imagine if someone had decided one of your favorite Playwrights works should never be read or performed and they vanished from the public consciousness.

[Boozy]

Okie dokie, they can sue me for 0.00, and I will gladly pay reparations of that 0.00 plus %10,000.

That is essentially how civil law works in Canada when it comes to intellectual property. You have to show damages to get damages.

However, if I wrote a book that I haven't released yet, but plan to at some point, I get damages if someone gets a copy of that book and distributes it. It might be difficult for the courts to determine exactly what future income would have been, but they do some rough estimates and figure something out. Depending on how rosy my writing career looks, it could be anywhere from $1 to $100 million.

If JK Rowling's last Harry Potter book had been widely distributed before her publisher had a chance to release it, I don't think anyone would have claimed she suffered no damages.

[DrFaroohk]

That is essentially how civil law works in Canada when it comes to intellectual property. You have to show damages to get damages.

However, if I wrote a book that I haven't released yet, but plan to at some point, I get damages if someone gets a copy of that book and distributes it. It might be difficult for the courts to determine exactly what future income would have been, but they do some rough estimates and figure something out. Depending on how rosy my writing career looks, it could be anywhere from $1 to $100 million.

If JK Rowling's last Harry Potter book had been widely distributed before her publisher had a chance to release it, I don't think anyone would have claimed she suffered no damages.

Well yeah that's different.

Let's just say a hundred years from now the books are out of print. But damn I really want to read the books, and would gladly pay a reasonable retail fee for said books. But there is no where to pay said fee. So I'm going to try and download it somewhere.

[AdminAssistant]

Imagine if someone had decided one of your favorite Playwrights works should never be read or performed and they vanished from the public consciousness.

That's not really fair since plays/musicals work under a different set of circumstances. There are actually a number of valid critiques of the way copyrights work in theatre and there do need to be some changes made. (Other theatres should be allowed to perform pieces currently in production on Broadway, productions should not run for 15+ years...etc.) For the record, most of my favorite plays aren't performed very often, even though most of them are in the public domain. Victor Hugo's Ruy Blas just doesn't pack 'em in like it used to...and does anybody do Duchess of Malfi anymore? It's a pity. But I also have to accept that I am not the typical theatre-goer in this country and the market is not about to conform to my desires. As long as the masses flock to whatever Andrew Lloyd Webber or Stephen Schwartz craps out, it's not going to change.

No because making an honest attempt to distribute is still distribution and in a time when your written material can be sold in digital format the publisher choosing to no longer publish it argument holds as little weight as the DVDs don't sell well.

Are you suggesting self-publishing as an alternative? Because most contracts forbid the author from doing just that. Now, if you're talking about removing publishers from the process entirely and having all authors self-publish their work....all I will say is that editors are more important to the writing process than you might think.

[HYHYBT]

Why shouldn't productions of plays run just as long as ticket sales keep them profitable?

Separately... I don't remember the name at the moment, but there's a series of books I won't begin reading, even though I've very much enjoyed another series by the same author, because the last book has been written for years and the publisher is just sitting on it. As long as we're reforming things, can we throw in something that says that the rights revert back to the author if the publisher doesn't release within some reasonable amount of time? Long enough that legitimate delays and issues of timing don't cause a problem, but short enough that it can be published elsewhere before becoming free.

[AdminAssistant]

Why shouldn't productions of plays run just as long as ticket sales keep them profitable?

I think I may have started a separate thread on that, once upon a time.

[HYHYBT]

I think I may have started a separate thread on that, once upon a time.

I can't find such a thread among those you've started. Would you mind a link, or a summary, either one?

[AdminAssistant]

Would you mind a link, or a summary, either one?

Basically, the art gets stagnant. Same sets, same costumes, same everything. Once the original cast leaves the show, they hire actors who look like the original cast and they can't do anything different with the role. They have to perform it just as the first person did. (Exception here for celebrities they bring in periodically to perk up ticket sales.) Then they run this monstrosity through a copy machine a few times to create tours that go all over the country. Absolutely nothing original about it. And, during this process, nobody else in the country can do that show. It's not such a problem with new plays, but it's a real pain with revivals. A group of students were two weeks away from beginning rehearsal for Equus, and then they had the rights yanked away because the Broadway production w/ Daniel Radcliffe was announced. That's not right.

RENT has always been my favorite example. It's a musical that's perfect for colleges, regional theatres, community theatres, high schools, etc. I was really excited when the Broadway show closed after ~15 years, opening up the rights. The production company has already re-mounted a new production Off-Broadway, headed for Broadway by the summer (tourist season). They simply don't want anyone else to be able to profit from the show, stifling one of the best musicals from the 90's.

[HYHYBT]

The problem, then, isn't that they're continuing to run the play, but that they won't let anyone else do it?

(Would it be a bad idea to hold your breath for The Mousetrap?)