[OT] Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your comments.
When you say, "I've never really understood why, if I write a book, or create a cartoon character, I (and my successors) don't own the rights to those creations forever.", the reason is that you yield those rights to get your work published.
There's nothing wrong with that.
The cost of publishing, promoting, marketing and distributing a work is enormous; well beyond the means of most authors. Publishers, to protect their investment in an author's work, demand the rights to the work. In return, they advance money to the author and pay volume-based royalties. The level of royalties for a new author are commonly referred to as "a pittance". Such denigration is unjustified since the publisher is taking a considerable risk with an unknown quantity.
The point, of course, is that very little of the benefits of the extended copyright protection redound to the author of the work. Instead, they enrich the publisher who is now dealing with a known marketable work. The risk is gone, and the justification for copyright protection, which was initially established to reward the author of the work, has been subverted to reward the publisher.
To enhance the profit he realizes from your "product of my own labor, insight and imagination", he combines with other publishers to buy the political support necessary to extend the period of his control over your product. In short, he corrupts our legislators. That is not in the public interest.
The "Mom and Apple Pie" notion that an author should profit from his works is a myth.
Fred |
