Quote:
Originally Posted by Happ
Well put. Yes there is a huge difference. And anti-copyright movements are not helping either. On the contrary they are making it worse. Radicals never help making a better world; they just make it more difficult to build a better world, step by careful step.
One can certainly argue that copyright for 70 years after the demise of the author is too much. Hell, I would argue that copyright makes sense only as long as the author is alive. If he is worried about his heirs, go buy them some ISAs or something. But to ban copyright altogether is the sort of madness that helps us not an inch to get to a better world.
|
Agree about banning it entirely, but simple 'solutions' should be checked for flaws before proposing them. Consider the 'Confederacy of Dunces'. IIRC the author died before it was even published-so should be copyright have been limited to his lifetime only? Then there's the story I heard about somebody who invented a portable radio for use by spies during World War II. He patented that, but patents (unlike copyrights) aren't renewable-and his expired before any civilian use was developed. So, according to the story, this guy was the 'father' of the cell phone but never received a dime in royalty payments for the use of his invention. I'm not sure how the details might work, but I'd probably be in favor on a copyright term based on something other than time. (In terms of time, the copyright would last indefinitely-which isn't what I mean at all, making it more complicated to explain.) Right now (my ideas vary from day to day) I'm thinking that maybe we should set a 'reasonable' return to be made from a work, allowing the copyright to remain in force until that amount is reached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happ
Why wouldn’t they? Ah, I know — because they are EVIL. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is not helpful at all.
|
Isn't it? The assertion, in most cases, isn't that the publishers' primary interest is to be unfair, but rather that fairness doesn't enter into their consideration at all. IMO, that is, in fact, EVIL. Also probably true. And pointing that out is helpful-if that is the case. Can you show that it isn't?
OTOH, can we show that it is? Note that in both cases I said 'show'. I don't mean 'prove' because that depends on the standards you require for proof. I'm asking which sides have evidence to support their views. The evidence that publishers aren't concerned about fairness is, IMO, the way in which they hamper fair use by imposing DRM that locks the buyer to a particular format or device. Do you have evidence showing that they are concerned about fairness? (Note that I'm asking for evidence of publishers in general-specific ones, with Baen being frequently mentioned, don't use DRM and are therefore arguably concerned about fairness.)