View Single Post
Old 11-26-2010, 04:43 AM   #8
rogue_librarian
Guru
rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rogue_librarian ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
rogue_librarian's Avatar
 
Posts: 973
Karma: 4269175
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Device: Pocketbook Basic 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw View Post
Surely you are not denying that computers make it possible for you to disseminate material to the the public?
Of course not, they do. But unless you actually do publish something you're not a publisher, and not subject to any applying copyright provisions. Just like owning a printing press doesn't make you a publisher per se.

Quote:
If we cannot trust people not to strip DRM when they agree not to, how are we to trust them not to distribute to the public even if they say they wont?
Trust? Our legal system really doesn't rely on that. If they do publish or disseminate content that way they're usually in violation of copyright law, and subject to a civil (or possibly criminal, if done for profit) suit, and that's that. It's always been that way.

Quote:
But I do think that people need to better understand the real differences (or lack) between paper books and ebooks.
I see a lot of cherry-picking on behalf of the publishers. "It's like a book!" Obviously you can't read it on two devices at the same time, or get a replacement when it's damaged, or do anything else that a regular book wouldn't allow you to. You must pay full price, too (cartell pricing has only recently arrived in the US, we've had it for ages in Europe). "It's not a book at all!" You're only licensed to read it, of course you mustn't re-sell it, lend it, give it away... or do anything else you could do with a book, but not a file.

Quote:
I'd say that patent law still achieves it in the realm of real (physical device) manufacturing, but I'd say it's been incorrectly applied in the case of software (in some jurisdictions).
No argument here, although there are some fringe cases (bio patents, genes and such) that have me worried. The problem lies in the application, no thorough checks for prior art are made, etc.

Quote:
I'd have to say, yes, at the moment it is still playing its part.
I'm not so sure. It's playing it's part, i.e. it's an incentive to creators, but the balance between creators' rights and the general public is way off. The way it currently works it's basically a money-making license for big corporations.

Quote:
But the ever increasing spread of the Internet makes me wonder how authors of the future may earn their way.
That is a very good and valid question. Unfortunately I don't have an anser to it, either. I am not anti-copyright, I just don't think that the ever-increasing terms of protection really serve the authors. Currently copyright protection is life + 70 years before the work reverts to the public domain: how does that serve the original creator? If it were life + 10 years, or 30 years after creation, or something inbetween, wouldn't that be just as good and serve the same purpose, namely to provide an incentive to the creator, possibly (hopefully) allowing him to live off his work?

Last edited by rogue_librarian; 11-26-2010 at 04:47 AM.
rogue_librarian is offline   Reply With Quote