[leebase]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Actually that statement is, if not false, then atleast very much open for dispute.

Everything is up for dispute

Originally Posted by Leyor

Historically copyright has had the exact opposite effect. It arguably resulted in Verdi reducing his effort at composition, while Beethoven who did not benefit from any copyright laws produced a big amount of high quality compositions.

A fantastic example. Would you prefer to return to the time when the arts existed solely as patronage from royalty? Myself, I prefer to be able to use my own money to entice folks into producing works that _I_ like. There may be no prince or princess that likes sci-fi, but millions of us nerds together, using our individually meager means, combine to create a market that can support folks in the production of "art" that pleases us.

You'll have to elaborate on Verdi as I'm ignorant of how copyright discouraged his efforts.

Originally Posted by Leyor

The introduction of Copyright in the UK at 1710 resulted in the UK having a reduced book market with few high priced books (Which I know you like ), while Germany at the same age had a thriving book market, mass producing and benefiting authors, publishers and readers alike.

Do you have sources that I may refer to? I fail to see how ME mass producing a work created by YOU, with no need to compensate YOU, could result in YOU being encouraged to continue producing works at great labor for yourself but of benefit to anyone with a printing press. And, of course, in OUR digital age....you'd work for a long time to create a book...then instantly I copy the file, post it on the internet for instant and free dissemination across the world.

Originally Posted by Leyor

While old historical facts only tells us, well what difference there was before Copyright, it's easy to see today aswell that Copyright in both the music and book industry has allowed recording companies and publishing companies to maintain old business models at the detriment at consumers. It's served as a stopgab hindering progress we as consumers could benefit from.

I do not take the position that our current copyright situation is nirvanna. Only that intellectual property as a concept is VITAL. It is a virtue.

Originally Posted by Leyor

I firmly believe that just as publishing companies theoretically can charge whatever they want for a product, and lobby for comparing information with physical products letting ownership far transcend the creators lifetime. We as consumers can express opinions to the contrary, try to achieve copyright laws more beneficial to us and prices that'll actually allow everyone full access to these books. As long as there's a demand for books, no matter what the pricepoint, smart business people will always find a way to profit from it and some authors will always want to create.

Without copyright, there is no way to profit from authoring books. Consider the millions of dollars spent on creating the movie Avatar. Without copyright, I could instantly create a copy, distribute it across the internet for free, instantaneously. Sure, folks that run theaters could still make some money as some folks are going to pay to see it on the big screen. But the theater need not pay James Cameron one penny.

You think such a movie would be made in that environment?

We see in Smashwords that kind of cr@p with the occasional jewel you get when amateurs write books with little hope of financial return. They can't afford editors. They can't afford any of the process the clearly distinguishes the results of a professional book making industry. And yet, what books are people upset about? They are upset about the price of these professionally created books because THOSE are the books they desire to read. They have all kinds of free and cheap books to choose from but they'd RATHER have the end product of the commercial book industry. Without copyright, there could be no professional book industry.

Lee