A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

An idea is intellectual property, and is a protected intellectual property if patented.

It doesn't become intellectual property until it's turned into a book or a song or a painting or an invention, etc. Until then, it's an idea.

Patent law in the US is a farce and in need of drastic overhaul.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If somebody writes a book that people want to read that person has already made a contribution. And you can respect their wishes or disregard them and just take what you want. Is that the "great society" you are dreaming of, where everybody ignores other people's rights because they think they will easily get away with it?

And what contribution did you make to society, to justify your boundless sense of entitlement?

And don't tell me you have already read all PD works worth reading.

Well, I wrote a book that someone wanted to read, what exactly am I entitled to? Nothing and everything. I don't believe in a sense of entitlement, I believe in access to all knowledge as a fundamental human right.

People make contributions to society every day, a butterfly flapping its wings and all that, trying to gauge the importance of an individual contribution to the future of our culture is a fools errand. All contributions are equally important. Even mistakes, which cause us to reevaluate things.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I don't believe in a sense of entitlement, I believe in access to all knowledge as a fundamental human right.

You have that access now. To believe it should be free access, paid for by other people's tax dollars or the author's free labor, now that is a gigantic sense of entitlement. If you can't afford it --- go to the library, buy second hand, borrow a pbook from your friend, or share an account with your ereader. All of that accomodates you and the content creators.

There is no excuse.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You have that access now. To believe it should be free access, paid for by other people's tax dollars or the author's free labor, now that is a gigantic sense of entitlement. If you can't afford it --- go to the library, buy second hand, borrow a pbook from your friend, or share an account with your ereader. All of that accomodates you and the content creators.

There is no excuse.

Why would I need to excuse myself for wanting to read books? What does it matter which book I want to read?

So you believe that sharing an ereader account with one person is fine, but sharing it with 10 billion people is not fine?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, I wrote a book that someone wanted to read, what exactly am I entitled to? Nothing and everything. I don't believe in a sense of entitlement, I believe in access to all knowledge as a fundamental human right.

People make contributions to society every day, a butterfly flapping its wings and all that, trying to gauge the importance of an individual contribution to the future of our culture is a fools errand. All contributions are equally important. Even mistakes, which cause us to reevaluate things.

Ummm, I am pretty sure all contributions are not equally important. In the realm of books for example, something like 90-95% of everything that has ever been published has gone out of print. To claim a pulp novel that didn't even sell out its first modest printing is as important as a novel that has been read and studied for 200 years is yet another example of your sophistry.

--
Bill

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Ummm, I am pretty sure all contributions are not equally important. In the realm of books for example, something like 90-95% of everything that has ever been published has gone out of print. To claim a pulp novel that didn't even sell out its first modest printing is as important as a novel that has been read and studied for 200 years is yet another example of your sophistry.

--
Bill

But you're not precisely sure, we never can be. I will agree that there are some novels that have effected me far more than others but who I am to say that this or that novel will effect someone more or less than how the novel effected me? Trash or treasure?

How can we deal with absolutes when the universe is uncertain?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But you're not precisely sure, we never can be. I will agree that there are some novels that have effected me far more than others but who I am to say that this or that novel will effect someone more or less than how the novel effected me? Trash or treasure?

How can we deal with absolutes when the universe is uncertain?

So your judging the cultural contribution based on the effect the novel has on individuals?

I agree that it might not be possible to judge which novels will become culturally important, but judging the ones that have already become culturally significant is a bit easier. Is the novel still read? Is it imitated by other authors? Has the novel entered our cultural experience (either directly or indirectly). This is true whether you look at pulps or at books that attempt to be high literature. Clearly Jane Austin's works are culturally significant; 200 years later they are still read, still inspire other writers and adaptations. Equally clearly there are novels contemporary to Jane Austin's works that are totally forgotten. Maybe one day they will be discovered, though I rather suspect that the vast majority will never be "discovered".

Fortunately we are not dealing with the Universe here, nothing so grand as that needs to be looked at; we need only look at human culture which is a much smaller subject. Still subject to your silly platitudes I grant... but only by obviously embracing sophistry.

--
Bill

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The money that someone makes from a sale of a book is not a salary. Copyright ending at the author's death is a major disincentive to continue writing. Copyright is a deal where the author gets a limited time exclusive right to copy a work. It gives the author incentive to create, and in exchange, the work eventually enters the public domain.

One would imagine that an author would have little use for the incentive to create once he's dead.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It doesn't become intellectual property until it's turned into a book or a song or a painting or an invention, etc. Until then, it's an idea.

Patent law in the US is a farce and in need of drastic overhaul.

You seem to have a terribly concrete notion of what intellectual property is. For something to be copyright, it certainly needs to be set in a fixed form, but that's because copyright is a very limited form of intellectual property.

A patent is specifically for the kind of intellectual property that can't be simply expressed in a fixed form, and so gives wider protection. It would do an inventor no good to get protection for the specific form of their invention, only for someone to be able to avoid paying royalties by making minor changes to the form of the invention while still using the creative idea at the heart of it.

It's no secret that patent law (& copyright law, IMO) are in need of attention. The problem is that there's no agreement on what kind of attention they need!

The main good point about patent law is that the length of protection hasn't extended significantly. And that's because it's not in enough businesses' interests for it to be extended.

[QuantumIguana]

I never suggested that the author would create after death. I stated that the author's incentive to create would be lessened later in life if the copyright expired at their death. There are some people who actually think of other people besides themselves.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I never suggested that the author would create after death. I stated that the author's incentive to create would be lessened later in life if the copyright expired at their death. There are some people who actually think of other people besides themselves.

And folks who work in jobs that stop paying the moment they stop working don't?

[QuantumIguana]

It is not difficult at all to measure a books contribution. Some books keep are read for decades or centuries, and inspire adaptations and inspire other works. Other books are forgotten quickly or never made any impact at all. At the individual level, we measure the value of a book by buying it.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

So your judging the cultural contribution based on the effect the novel has on individuals?

I agree that it might not be possible to judge which novels will become culturally important, but judging the ones that have already become culturally significant is a bit easier. Is the novel still read? Is it imitated by other authors? Has the novel entered our cultural experience (either directly or indirectly). This is true whether you look at pulps or at books that attempt to be high literature. Clearly Jane Austin's works are culturally significant; 200 years later they are still read, still inspire other writers and adaptations. Equally clearly there are novels contemporary to Jane Austin's works that are totally forgotten. Maybe one day they will be discovered, though I rather suspect that the vast majority will never be "discovered".

Fortunately we are not dealing with the Universe here, nothing so grand as that needs to be looked at; we need only look at human culture which is a much smaller subject. Still subject to your silly platitudes I grant... but only by obviously embracing sophistry.

--
Bill

I am not judging any book, all we have are the potentials of a text towards the advancement of our culture. Every text might contain this potential.

How can we not be dealing with the universe? A book is after all a view of the universe through the eyes and mind of the author.

Would Jane Austens books have been more culturally significant if they were freely distributed at the the time of their writing? Did the printing monopoly play a role in making Ms. Austens books so culturally significant? Would Ms. Austen have written her culturally significant books if she were not able to charge people for reading them?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I am not judging any book, all we have are the potentials of a text towards the advancement of our culture. Every text might contain this potential.

Some texts really don't contain this potential.

How can we not be dealing with the universe? A book is after all a view of the universe through the eyes and mind of the author.

A book is no more a view of the universe than an ant has a view of a continent.

Would Jane Austens books have been more culturally significant if they were freely distributed at the the time of their writing? Did the printing monopoly play a role in making Ms. Austens books so culturally significant? Would Ms. Austen have written her culturally significant books if she were not able to charge people for reading them?

Dickens certainly wouldn't have written if he couldn't sell his books. He wouldn't have been able to do so. There might we a few wealthy people who could afford to write as a hobby. But if you had your way, those would be the only people writing. You would silence everyone who had to make a living.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I am not judging any book, all we have are the potentials of a text towards the advancement of our culture. Every text might contain this potential.

I don't agree that every text is as equally likely to advance our culture in some significant way. But lets say we grant this. In that case, shouldn't the author have the right to make something for their efforts?

Even more important, don't we need a mechanism to determine which works grab the national psyche and thus are better or worse now significant parts of our culture?

How can we not be dealing with the universe? A book is after all a view of the universe through the eyes and mind of the author.

A view of something is not the same as the the something itself.

Would Jane Austens books have been more culturally significant if they were freely distributed at the the time of their writing? Did the printing monopoly play a role in making Ms. Austens books so culturally significant? Would Ms. Austen have written her culturally significant books if she were not able to charge people for reading them?

Would anyone have bothered to publish them if they was no way to make money off of them?

--
Bill