[Krystian Galaj]

I don't have enough time to address the whole post today, so I'll have to focus on a few points I can comment quickly.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Posting in forums is hardly comparable to writing a novel, or composing a symphony, or painting a landscape. Nor are you being hampered from posting in this way by copyright laws.

A long journey begins with a first step. The body of interesting posts made up to date by at least a few regulars in this forum would be enough to fill a book for each of them. I don't see why they should not be comparable through the amount of work out into them, and time spent on formulating thought.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

What do you mean "keeps being adjusted"? If you mean the length of time that copyright runs, fair enough, but that's a totally separate issue to whether or not copyright should exist. Copyright either exists, or it doesn't.

Yes, I meant extending length of copyright. I believe it would be best if copyright didn't exist, but since it does, having shorter copyright length is better than having longer one, because the memes get unlocked and return to common pool sooner, hopefully before people forget all about the vibes of old times.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Why should authors, songwriters, painters, playwrights, etc, not be entitled to make a living from their artistic work?

I think they should, but not at the expense of creativity of society as a whole.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Do you really believe that all artistic endeavour should be a hobby, squeezed into whatever time people have left over after doing a regular job, cleaning the house, looking after children, etc, etc, etc?

I believe it would bring more gain than loss to the society. If the approach to the work was rather a "let me try to modify it a bit and see if I can" than "it's made by someone else, so it's not my 'property' and taboo", many more people would at least try to be creative. There was a time, in ancient Greece and again in 18-19th century when sports was something people just did, not a domain of professionals who spent their lives and wrecked their bodies to get results. Sure, the best results weren't as high as they are today, but people did it, not just watched it being done. I'm afraid writing books, stories, essays becomes similarly disconnected from average Joe - and it might be better for Joe if he tried to write or modify a story sometime.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Many, perhaps most, of the artistic works we value in the western world wouldn't exist if their originators had had to do all that. Historically, most artists of all kinds were only able to be artistically creative because either they were born into a family with sufficient money to free them from these day to day needs, or they were lucky enough to attract a rich patron whose money similarly freed them from the need to earn a living in some other way. Even as things are now, there's still a long "apprenticeship" with little money coming in for most who seriously try to be creative, whether that's writing, painting, composing, etc. You would make that "apprenticeship" a permanent state of affairs. How many do you think would persevere without at least the dream of being the next Jane Austen, or Asimov, or J K Rowling, with the possibility of being able to earn a decent living from their writing, and be free to write all of the time, instead of an hour here, an hour there, when other commitments allow?

So you believe people write only to have the book written, and be famous and rich, instead of having pleasure of writing? Many times I have read on these forums that writers write because they like it, or feel they have to. Surely, if people looked at written stories as they look at free source code now, many of those who write just for fame wouldn't start, but many of those who like to play with words would. I don't see why you think the net result would be a loss.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

What is currently preventing those who might only be good at some aspects of writing a novel, to use that example, from getting together with others who are good at other aspects, and writing a novel together? Why does it have to be based on something someone else wrote? There are many examples of books being written collaboratively, for many different reasons. A recent and well known example is DRACULAS, written collaboratively by four authors.

I don't say people don't do it, only that many more people would do it. DRACULAS is written by four authors already established, not by people who just think they might do well if they tried to modify an aspect of the story.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Also - why does the argument "If something else pays better, you're free to go and do it instead" only apply to those with the ability to create a whole novel, and not equally to those who are only good at one aspect of writing?

It does, but there are many more of those who are only good in one aspect of writing than those who have potential in all aspects. When people have to write the whole thing themselves, from scratch, how many more will be discouraged, and will never try to see if they can write?

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

The growing access to "print on demand" publishing for individual authors means that any new author, with minimum outlay, can publish their book both in print and as an ebook, without having to wait for someone else to "cherry pick" it from the ebook bestseller lists. And, indeed, with no copyright laws, what would there be to prevent those doing the "cherry picking" from publishing their own version of the book and keeping all the proceeds? What benefit would there be, there, to the original author?

I believe the benefit would be the satisfaction that their work is there, forming a part of culture, read and worked upon and not fogotten. But there's definitely no guaranteed financial benefit. Thomas Jeefferson once wrote "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." I'm looking at physical things, goods that can't be replicated in such way as property with all that applies. But ideas in my mind can't be such property, are fundamentally different, belong to all of mankind. So I don't see why "cherry picking" should be prevented, and why there should be tangible financial benefits to author. I believe there should be the right to consider the author the creator of this particular mote of ideas for all eternity - but no creative control once the idea is published, leaves the author's brain.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

Ummm... I'd suggest that that is already happening, as more and more independent authors take the self-publishing route. The knowledge that their investment of time and effort to write the book is protected by copyright law is encouraging more and more people to write and publish books. I wonder how many would do so if they knew that as soon as others started to buy their books, those others would be free to produce their own versions?

I must dispute the assumption that the copyright law is protecting those independent authors. It can protect big coprorations once law firms and money are involved, but in case of independent authors they're more protected by obscurity (no one ever heard about them), and the the quality of their works (if those suck). If the thing is good, it's on the darknets. J.A.Konrath's works are there and he admits he isn't doing anything to eradicate them and he doesn't see what can be done. Harry Potter is there, despite the fact that Rowling prohibited the sale of ebooks of HP, saying those should be enjoyed only on paper (example of creative control). Even Rowling can't do anything to get HP off darknets, off the first search page of Google - so how exactly is copyright law protecting independent authors? What you're seeing is what would be if there was no copyright law, in everything but public perception and expectations.

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

What is the problem with her not wanting to publish the books in ebook format? The books are still out there for people to read and enjoy, the films are there for people to watch and enjoy. Nothing has been kept unavailable. She gets paid, we get to read her books. What isn't working there?

She believes the ebooks are an abomination and shouldn't exist, and that books should only be enjoyed on paper. She has the creative control to do that - and also to prohibit the sale of Harry Potter in every conceivable form, should she wish to, for as long as she lives and 70 years after that (in most countries). I believe that's crazy, and people who do create ebooks of Harry Potter and trade them on the Internet, violating copyright, seem to agree, if only unconsciously.