06-22-2010, 11:01 PM | #16 | |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Quote:
-Registration, I don't remember the exact price but I think it was about $30 to register with the Library of Congress. Require registration within say a year of publication to quality -Fines for false claims of infringement -No interference with fair use rights. If you insist on DRM fine but when someone breaks it no crying. -Public interest exceptions added to fair use. What i mean by this is your little medical pamphlet or whatever can be photocopied and passed around in say a flood zone or earthquake. I assume the governments have this sort of info packet already but just in case the public good would trump copyright. I think patents have something like this. -No retroactive extensions to be written into the law. -Limitations on damages. The law allows downloading an mp3 without permission ti have damages of up to $150k. Since they tend to retail for around $1 this seems more than a little excessive even for deliverance. |
|
06-22-2010, 11:06 PM | #17 | |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2010, 11:23 PM | #18 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 2,300
Karma: 1121709
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Amazon Kindle 1
|
Quote:
The proof's in the pudding on that, look how many books uber successful authors like Grisham and King crap out when they haven't had to worry about money for ages. We live in a capitalistic world (with a few communist/socialist countries still in denial) where everyone tries to maximize profit. Quote:
The bottom line for me is I can't accept any system where a content creator can see other people making money off their work during their lifetime without them getting their royalties. There's no right to profit (getting to your quote from earlier) as there's no guarantee a product will sale. But there should be a right not to see other's make money off your creation during your lifetime without you getting a cut. Unless they give permission of course. People are free to give their content away, to grant rights to people to use it without being paid etc. |
||
06-22-2010, 11:52 PM | #19 | ||
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Quote:
Money's nice, I'm not knocking money at all but I tend to believe that people might do things for some other reason. Quote:
Past performance is no guarantee of future gains. Just because there's been a trend of everyone who's born eventually dies doesn't mean it'll always be the case. I'm just waiting for some media company to wheel out a corpsicle as proof copyright shouldn't expire. Limited means limited. No upper bound has been set with life+. The same goes for any term longer than the expected human lifetime. If someone born the day something is copyrighted can't reasonably expect to have that thing pass into the public domain before they die then they in the form of their government have effectively granted an unlimited copyright term. They were granted nothing at all in return. Now then it's impossible to stop others form making money off your work. People will resell it, publishers will take a cut, a bigger one than you'll get. The government will take taxes. Shit happens. I don't see how that in any way justifies a long term monopoly over a piece of human culture. The problem here is you don't favor balance, you load everything to one side and expect everyone to call it fair. You get, the authors get's, the authors have the right to, no one else should be able to... Everyone else is getting nothing in return. An author selling a work isn't a benefit to anyone but the author, the benefit to everyone else only comes when they can do as they like, when it belongs to them not just the author. |
||
06-23-2010, 12:04 AM | #20 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,300
Karma: 1121709
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Amazon Kindle 1
|
Quote:
2. As I said, everyone is free to post stuff online for free. Or grant permission to people to use their material etc. No one has to do it for the money. But if they choose to sell it, and do it for the money, they should have control over it at least until their death. 3. Pertaining to the second half of your post--sure it's impossible to have 100% control. But they should at least have legal rights that prevent publishers from reprinting their book and selling it through legitimate channels with them not getting their royalties. Or someone making a movie of their book without getting the rights first, and paying them if they don't want to give them away. Or a song they wrote being used in a commercial without permission/royalty payment etc. There will always be the second hand market, piracy etc. But copyright can at least last until they die to prevent the types of things I listed under #3 above. Finally, and yes, I stack the deck 100% for authors. Content creators should be the only ones to benefit financially from their creations--at least during their lifetimes. I'll never waver in that belief. Again, everyone has the freedom to decide to not sell their creations and grant others rights to do what they want with it etc. That's always an option, having copyrights last to, or past, death doesn't preclude that in anyway. But in my view the author doesn't owe society shit. They created a product to sell, people either pay to enjoy it or they don't. And once they die society can have the product to do whatever they want with--assuming the creator didn't wave their rights to it sooner. |
|
06-23-2010, 12:17 AM | #21 | |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2010, 12:27 AM | #22 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,300
Karma: 1121709
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Amazon Kindle 1
|
It's a stretch (more like a farce) to call having control over something an individual created a monopoly.....a monopoly is having dominance over an entire industry, not one product you created yourself.
But you're right, society doesn't owe the author anything--they don't have to buy his book. They don't even have to pay for it to read it as they can check it out from the library, or borrow it from a friend etc. I'm an individualist. Nobody owes anybody anything. We're all out to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. We just have the government to make sure people don't infringe on others in doing so. Thus the need for copyright law to make sure others can't take your work and sell it without your permission (to maximize their pleasure) without compensating you for it. In any case we'll just agree to disagree, and I regret getting into this as I'd been trying to avoid copyright discussions on this thread. I get irate over the topic find the sense of entitlement people have in feeling they have a right to do whatever they please with other people's work/creations thoroughly disgusting. I think the majority with such views would sing a different song if they were in the situation of making money off of a creation, only to have it stop and switch to having to watch others making money off of it (with them getting no cut) during their lifetime as the copyright expired while they were still alive. Anyway, agree to disagree, and I'm putting the thread on ignore to resist continuing a pointless debate where neither of us have any respect for the opposing view! |
06-23-2010, 12:51 AM | #23 | |
Samurai Lizard
Posts: 14,270
Karma: 66698846
Join Date: Nov 2009
Device: NookColor
|
Iphinome wrote as part of a post:
Quote:
- Two books by two authors are released in 1950. Both authors are 25 years old when their books are released. - One author dies in a car accident in 1951. His book enters the public domain in 1966. - The other author passes on of natural causes in 2020 at the age of 95. His book enters the public domain in 2035. Despite both books having been released in the same year, one has been in the public domain for 69 years before the other book enters it. There is also the issue of having to track an author down to determine if a book is actually in the public domain. By using the original release date as the basis for copyright makes it clear when a book is under copyright and when it will enter the public domain. |
|
06-23-2010, 01:13 AM | #24 | |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2010, 04:17 AM | #25 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,538
Karma: 264065402
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Taiwan
Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD
|
Sure, the author owes something to society. He/she has to pay taxes on any profit. Just as with any kind of work. That is the trade off for granting that "monopoly".
|
06-23-2010, 04:39 AM | #26 |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Other work isn't granted a monopoly. If a carpenter builds a bookcase they have property rights over one bookcase but any other carpenter can build an identical one and sell it then pay taxes. Taxes on profit are what you pay in exchange for getting the same society as everyone else and for avoiding a prison sentence for tax evasion. A monopoly is something extra what's paid for not only the right over what you have but the ability to stop others from copying and using as they please? TANSTAAFL, what gets paid for the bonus power over the actions of other people?
|
06-23-2010, 04:51 AM | #27 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,538
Karma: 264065402
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Taiwan
Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2010, 05:17 AM | #28 |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
No one can force him to work but at the same time he cannot stop anyone else from recreating his work. A brand name doesn't prevent copies, a logo might be trademarked but everything else would be fair game. Cabinets have long since been invented so there's no patent issues and the design of a utilitarian item is not subject to copyright.
|
06-23-2010, 05:19 AM | #29 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 3,681
Karma: 28297636
Join Date: Dec 2008
Device: BeBook, Sony PRS-T1, Kobo H2O
|
Quote:
Quote:
Doesn't that then imply that you consider profit to be the only incentive worth creating for? I'm a little confused. Cheers, PKFFW |
||
06-23-2010, 05:27 AM | #30 | |
Paladin of Eris
Posts: 3,119
Karma: 20849349
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USAland
Device: Kindle 10
|
Quote:
I then went on to suggest that perhaps people who aren't dmaul1114 might choose to do things for reasons other than it'll put more money in their bank account than any other thing. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are reprints public domain? | bobcdy | General Discussions | 16 | 04-23-2010 10:11 AM |
Public Domain in 2011 | GA Russell | Reading Recommendations | 9 | 04-05-2010 07:48 AM |
Google Public Domain | Vauh | E-Books | 4 | 04-13-2009 10:32 AM |
US Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright | wallcraft | News | 26 | 04-07-2009 02:49 PM |
High Court teaches meaning of "public domain" to heirs of author | JeffElkins | News | 3 | 12-21-2008 08:59 PM |