If you had a vote for copyright?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Educational is considered fair use, but the problem with fair use is that it's an affirmative defense not a grant of immunity. If a copyright holder wants to stop you then you get to pay to defend yourself.

Now if there were an anti-slapp for fair use shifting the burden to the copyright holder to show that someone isn't fair use when bringing a suit....

I was under the impression that fair use was mostly useless? Meaning that it doesn't really make sense. (Not that I think sense is something that needs to be made all the time...) Unfortunately copyright is complicated, some educators are too scared to make copies of information for their students for fear of infringing upon things.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is exactly the point -- copyright was not a contract between the author and society (the general public), as so many claim, because back before e-books the general public could not take advantage of PD books. Copyright was really designed to protect authors and their agents (printers/publishers), period.

No, it wasn't made to protect the authors and their publishers, it was made to protect them from their publishers.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

No doubt those movies would also have been made if they could have just paid off the copyright holders. As movie budgets go, that is the smallest part. And for the most part, would we not prefer to see some new ideas, rather than rehashing old ones?

It's not just about the money. The copyright owner has right to keep the ones who write the script from modifying the work. In the original story the little mermaid dies at the end. If there would have been a copyright owner they could have prevented Disney from changing the ending.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

No, it wasn't made to protect the authors and their publishers, it was made to protect them from their publishers.

Once an author signs a contract with a publisher then copyright protects the publisher.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Once an author signs a contract with a publisher then copyright protects the publisher.

Copyright law is meant to protect the copyright holder.

[plib]

Originally Posted by sonofpendragon

Now things may change soon, but you know why don't you? Four moptoppy chaps from Liverpool have singles and albums rapidly approaching the 50 year mark. The industry, especially EMI, know what they will lose out on if the law doesn't finally change in their favour. Digressing in a way, but, still in the same tent at the county show.

And that's the real meat of it isn't it? It's not the starving minor moptoppy children who are profiting and being protected, it's EMI and "the industry" - who can well afford to buy whatever politicians are necessary to avoid starving.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by plib

And that's the real meat of it isn't it? It's not the starving minor moptoppy children who are profiting and being protected, it's EMI and "the industry" - who can well afford to buy whatever politicians are necessary to avoid starving.

Not that they're at risk of starving. Just as risk of having to milk a different cash cow.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Performance fees, no doubt. You are right, I can also think of classical music in this context. But our main topic here is books...

Our topic is the public domain. Music and plays simply more examples of the impact of the public domain.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

You just described free (libre) books. What you meant is the public domain has little to do with getting free (beer) books.

I described free as in free speech books. The claim was made that the public domain was about free as in free beer books. Free as in beer books are just a side effect of the computer age. I described free as in free speech books because that is what the public domain is all about.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It's not just about the money. The copyright owner has right to keep the ones who write the script from modifying the work. In the original story the little mermaid dies at the end. If there would have been a copyright owner they could have prevented Disney from changing the ending.

I agree. The public domain allows people to reexamine and reinterpret works. If it wasn't for the public domain, no one could ever reinterpret works, the copyright holder would be able to dictate how the story goes.

The public domain is human culture. We've been telling and retelling stories over and over again for tens of thousands of years, reinterpreting the stories as we go. Some of our stories may have been told in one form or another for thousands of years.

If people want to come up with completely original stories, they are welcome to do so. But it is harder than it seems to come up with anything completely original.

[Harmon]

Somewhere back at the beginning of the thread, someone recommended Mark Helprin's book Digital Barbarians. So I went out & got it, & it's a great read. The guy really knows how to use words. And his strong pro-limited copyright argument makes a lot of sense. If you think you are against copyright, you ought to give this book a read.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Somewhere back at the beginning of the thread, someone recommended Mark Helprin's book Digital Barbarians. So I went out & got it, & it's a great read. The guy really knows how to use words. And his strong pro-limited copyright argument makes a lot of sense. If you think you are against copyright, you ought to give this book a read.

Is that the book by the guy that just insults those who hold different opinions than himself on almost every page? The arguments were laughable IMO

No safe harbor is a pretty decent read, although it is probably familiar reading for most of us.

[Harmon]

[QUOTE=Giggleton;1957084]Is that the book by the guy that just insults those who hold different opinions than himself on almost every page? The arguments were laughable IMO
QUOTE]

Nope. It's a book by a highly intelligent, well educated, experienced and extremely literate person. You ought to read it.

[Giggleton]

[QUOTE=Harmon;1958134]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Is that the book by the guy that just insults those who hold different opinions than himself on almost every page? The arguments were laughable IMO
QUOTE]

Nope. It's a book by a highly intelligent, well educated, experienced and extremely literate person. You ought to read it.

We did read it and found it to be mostly garbage. He assumes that whole sense of entitlement to other people's work thing. We are working under the assumption of the infinitely connected instantaneous universe over here, the I don't really exist.

[Harmon]

[QUOTE=Giggleton;1958730]

Originally Posted by Harmon

We did read it and found it to be mostly garbage. He assumes that whole sense of entitlement to other people's work thing. We are working under the assumption of the infinitely connected instantaneous universe over here, the I don't really exist.

Helprin's argument, in a nutshell, is that copyright is what makes it possible for serious writers to have a sustainable economic existence without a day job. His further point is that without that possibility, you will not have very many people who can afford to be serious writers. So he says that if you value serious writing, you have to protect copyright.

I think that most of us on the internet view copyright as a tool used by publishers to maximize corporate profits at the expense of readers, and we assume that writers are part of the corporate side. What Helprin has to say demonstrates that writers are not on one side or the other, but have their own concerns. It's sort of like trying to fit libertarians into the conservative/liberal dichotomy. Sometimes there's a fit on one side, sometimes on another.

I think that on this point, Helprin is doing nothing more than informing us of the economic reality of the situation.