Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writing books is not really a good idea

ellegriffin.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 630 posts

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#591

Post by OldTimeCoffee »

speleding wrote: post #582
OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#592

Post by OldTimeCoffee »

nearbuy wrote: post #585
OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#593

Post by kixiQu »

akiselev wrote: post #407
ellegriffin wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is certainly valid, but it also assumes the current publishing model (as in, how could I, one writer, make $100,000 of the $28 billion pie). Which also assumes that I would need to reach mass appeal (re: sell lots of copies) as an author to be successful in that paradigm. What I am asking is, is it possible for me, who already has a niche audience for my writing, to have those followers support me as a writer? C…

> What I am asking is, is it possible for me, who already has a niche audience for my writing, to have those followers support me as a writer? Can I add enough value to that small audience, that they want to pay to subscribe to my work? Would 1,000 people pay $100/year? Or 2,000 people pay $50/year? That's a completely different concept that a novelist so data from the classic publishing industry are likely useless.…

The value propositions creators bring to their markets are changing drastically. An artist whose content I follow across YouTube and Instagram is a vlogger and does a ton of design work outside of the scope of her more traditional "here is a painting, would you like to buy it or a print of it" offerings. She also engages socially with her fans. The whole thing works out to selling an experience/brand of a kind that didn't really exist in the past. I think it's fair to say that it's probably not possible to follow this path "as a writer" in the sense that "a writer" has meant in the past -- but that doesn't mean that this is a situation where "Short answer: no." is an accurate (or indeed respectful) answer to a question that she is asking by attempting the thing.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#594

Post by kixiQu »

I really liked this piece and I'm quite curious how genre fiction's overall subsidy of traditional publishing houses factors into this. The answers to all these questions are very different for e.g. genre romance authors than for e.g. literary nonfiction authors.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#595

Post by webmaven »

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #557
nearbuy wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. 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…

> 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.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#596

Post by MereInterest »

nearbuy wrote: post #585
OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#S...

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#597

Post by MereInterest »

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #592
nearbuy wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#598

Post by nearbuy »

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #592
nearbuy wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

I'm really not sure it's much of a problem.

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.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#599

Post by Dylan16807 »

OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #590
Dylan16807 wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell them to go away and use trademark law?

So then Trademark begins to be used as a copyright extension mechanism and Trademark law has no expiration? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

It's not the same, but it's enough to protect what they really care about money-wise.

Re: Writing books is not really a good idea

#600

Post by OldTimeCoffee »

MereInterest wrote: post #597
OldTimeCoffee wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Post reply on HN