U.S. Supreme Court may revoke the right to resell

[Giggleton]

Although the journal/love letter problem is interesting I don't think it applies, since with a time limited copyright we would just assume that at the end of the copyrighted time the journal/love letter would enter the public domain...

We can just assume there are private and public documents.

Copyright came about during a time of low technology, when it was actually hard to copy something, now that it is easy we no longer need it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Copyright came about during a time of low technology, when it was actually hard to copy something, now that it is easy we no longer need it.

Just the opposite, actually. In the past copyright only had to protect authors from people who owned printing presses, now we also need to protect authors from people like you...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is what stops someone who has accessed your private documents publishing them.

In what way? I really think other laws cover that situation. But even if that is not the case why would the law protect from someone that is hostile and want to publish your private information? Why do they not just publish on the net anonymously?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Just the opposite, actually. In the past copyright only had to protect authors from people who owned printing presses, now we also need to protect authors from people like you...

Correction, from people who owned printing presses and then tried to sell their copies.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

In what way? I really think other laws cover that situation. But even if that is not the case why would the law protect from someone that is hostile and want to publish your private information? Why do they not just publish on the net anonymously?

Someone wants to write a tell-all biography of you.
They manage to get hold of your diary/private papers.
Copyright in those papers prevents them being able to publish the book and make money off it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Someone wants to write a tell-all biography of you.
They manage to get hold of your diary/private papers.
Copyright in those papers prevents them being able to publish the book and make money off it.

Get hold of in what way? If they steal them I would be very surprised if they could use them.

And copyright does not stop quotations from the papers. So I do not see how copytight can stop spreading of information since by fair use you can quote from the papers.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by tompe

Get hold of in what way? If they steal them I would be very surprised if they could use them.

And copyright does not stop quotations from the papers. So I do not see how copytight can stop spreading of information since by fair use you can quote from the papers.

There are lots of ways this could happen, mostly involving you allowing people to see the journals. You let someone read your journals and they not only read them, but publish them. You give certain scholars access to the work in your library. You share the journal with people in your writing group. Etc.

Copyright wouldn't stop fair use copying of bits and pieces in other documents, and it's not really designed to keep your journal *secret*. But it would prevent wholesale reproduction and copying.

This is a *very* common concern. Assume that Ronald Reagan (Or Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower) kept a diary, and the diary is housed in their presidential library. The heirs may well want scholars to have access to the documents for their own research purposes, but wouldn't want Joe Scholar to publish Reagan's Diaries in their entirety.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Copyright came about during a time of low technology, when it was actually hard to copy something, now that it is easy we no longer need it.

Entirely the opposite; copyright law became necessary when technology (in the form of the printing press) permitted the easy mass reproduction of works. The greater the ease of reproduction, the greater the need for such protection.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Entirely the opposite; copyright law became necessary when technology (in the form of the printing press) permitted the easy mass reproduction of works. The greater the ease of reproduction, the greater the need for such protection.

No, read some of the early cases and you will find they are mostly full of big publishers whining about copies being sold, not about copies being made.

[HarryT]

I don't think there were any "big publishers" in the 17th century.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't think there were any "big publishers" in the 17th century.

It's all relative, not everyone could afford a printing press.

At any rate, do we have to wait for a court case that may revoke the right to share??

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

No, read some of the early cases and you will find they are mostly full of big publishers whining about copies being sold, not about copies being made.

I don't know what cases you mean. Dates are relevant here.

At least in the US, penny newspapers and junk mail both started in 1833. Before than, copying was expensive relative to other costs of publication. Ever since the printing press advances of the early 1830's, book manufacturing costs have been tiny relative to other costs of publication.

My larger point is that you are floating around here at about 100,000 feet, where the triumph of regulated capitalism, and human selfishness, are still open questions. As I have said before, there can be fun in raising such fundamental issues.

But authors are nearer sea level, where lower (or, with piracy, zero) book prices would cause a choice between poverty and churning out potboilers.

Of course authors have always had trouble making money. I recently read a outstanding biography of Pearl Buck, who wrote 70 often mediocre books after producing a great one. Here's a quote:

I must buckle down and make as much money as I can . . . you may see many more potboilers from now on!"

Let's just not make it worse.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't know what cases you mean. Dates are relevant here.

But authors are nearer sea level, where lower (or, with piracy, zero) book prices would cause a choice between poverty and churning out potboilers.

Basically, the day after the printing press was invented people were making copies and publishers were concerned about those copies being sold for less than what they were charging.

Now that we can distribute copies without a distribution cost, or at least a marginal one we should be able to make and distribute as many copies we wish to right? As long as there is a payment link in the text that trackbacks to the author.

The above does not advocate piracy.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Basically, the day after the printing press was invented people were making copies and publishers were concerned about those copies being sold for less than what they were charging.

I just borrowed Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from from Gutenberg to Gates (2009) from the Philadelphia Library -- as an eBook -- and defer any comment on the accuracy of your comment until I've read up on the fifteenth century. If the book proves boring, I won't finish it, but I think I can get that far

Originally Posted by Giggleton

As long as there is a payment link in the text that trackbacks to the author.

Most books I read are created not just by an author, but by a team often including an editor, cover art artist, typography designer, proofreader, index creator, translator, agent, etc., etc. This means that the voluntary payment you suggest has to go not to an author, but to the organization that got all those people together. Since you must know that it takes a proverbial village to create most non-fiction books (and some fiction), why do you exclusively focus on the author?

As few are the people who would voluntarily donate to authors, even fewer will donate to a full-service publisher. Yes, a few people would, just as a few donate to their Linux distribution. But the more organizations are out there asking for donations, the less money each will get.

I'm all for donations as an optional business model, so long as the remaining options aren't limited to living off your spouse and starvation.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The above does not advocate piracy.

This is semantics. I think that by now you know what copyright advocates mean when they use the word piracy. And you advocate changing the law to allow it.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Since you must know that it takes a proverbial village to create most non-fiction books (and some fiction), why do you exclusively focus on the author?

I am certain that most books are written by one person, with perhaps a few friends doing some pre-publication reads. The fact that you may never read or even know that these books exist is irrelevant.

Everything else is just business, garbage from the past millennia that needs to be taken out.