The Logic Of Copyright

[Giggleton]

Would something like this work,

Copyright restricts information from those who might need it,
Therefore copyright is unethical.

[J. Strnad]

Just spend a year writing a book, mate, and put it in the public domain. Then I might listen to you.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Would something like this work,

Copyright restricts information from those who might need it,
Therefore copyright is unethical.

Sure it would work, if you are in favor of ending the profession of book writing. Cooywright is society's tool to encourage the public good of book writing. Libraries are the balance of that good enabling the limited abrogation of copyright for the good of those who can't pay for books.

There is far more free or out of copyright books to read than you could possibly read in your lifetime.

Lee

[Leyor]

Cooywright is society's tool to encourage the public good of book writing.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Just spend a year writing a book, mate, and put it in the public domain. Then I might listen to you.

Have you taken a look at the volume of free ebooks available around the network? I'm talking about books released in the last few years, I would guess it is much much more than the number of ebooks released with a price tag attached. We can ignore any future comments about quality, there is garbage on both ends. But we are moving towards something interesting.

Moving beyond copyright is something that has to be done on an individual basis...

[OtterBooks]

copyright is ice cream.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Have you taken a look at the volume of free ebooks available around the network? I'm talking about books released in the last few years, I would guess it is much much more than the number of ebooks released with a price tag attached. We can ignore any future comments about quality, there is garbage on both ends. But we are moving towards something interesting.

Moving beyond copyright is something that has to be done on an individual basis...

Most free books released in the last few years are still under copyright: in fact, copyright is what enables the authors to release them for free without worrying about someone else selling them for profit. Copyright provides the legal framework that allows authors who wish to release their works for free to do so.

Your distaste for copyright is well known, and you're not alone in wishing it abolished; but you would go much farther in your argument if you demonstrated a greater understanding of the subject.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Most free books released in the last few years are still under copyright: in fact, copyright is what enables the authors to release them for free without worrying about someone else selling them for profit. Copyright provides the legal framework that allows authors who wish to release their works for free to do so.

Your distaste for copyright is well known, and you're not alone in wishing it abolished; but you would go much farther in your argument if you demonstrated a greater understanding of the subject.

Copyright is abolished if we want it. (To paraphrase lennon)

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Most free books released in the last few years are still under copyright: in fact, copyright is what enables the authors to release them for free without worrying about someone else selling them for profit. Copyright provides the legal framework that allows authors who wish to release their works for free to do so.

They've been released under Creative Commons licenses, which usually in terms of consumers and the general public gives away claim to ownership.

I don't think it's fair to users of Creative Commons licenses to liken it to Copyright in this particular debate, as it's created explicitly to combat many of the aspects of Copyright we're debating here, mainly how Copyright prevents works from entering the public domain and accessability to the public.

I mean for petes sake, they even call it Copyleft. While you can argue that Creative Commons are derived from Copyright, and in terms of commercial use only share similar aspects, for this purpose you can really only make semantic comparisons.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Leyor

They've been released under Creative Commons licenses, which usually in terms of consumers and the general public gives away claim to ownership.

I don't think it's fair to users of Creative Commons licenses to liken it to Copyright in this particular debate, as it's created explicitly to combat many of the aspects of Copyright we're debating here, mainly how Copyright prevents works from entering the public domain and accessability to the public.

I mean for petes sake, they even call it Copyleft. While you can argue that Creative Commons are derived from Copyright, and in terms of commercial use only share similar aspects, for this purpose you can really only make semantic comparisons.

From the Creative Commons website:

How does a Creative Commons license operate?
A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. CC licenses apply to works that are protected by copyright law.

As I said, copyright law is the legal framework that enables Creative Commons to work. Creative Commons uses copyright law to enable the free dissemination of information, and while one can use a Creative Commons license to put something into the Public Domain, one of the major functions of Creative Commons licensing is to allow the free release of something while maintaining copyright. It empowers authors to give their books away and still be able to sell the movie rights.

[Aurora13]

I think of copyright as protecting ones ideas, writings etc, whereas censorship is suppression of ideas, writings etc.

[DiapDealer]

They've been released under Creative Commons licenses, which usually in terms of consumers and the general public gives away claim to ownership.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the CC license.

[jbcohen]

Aurora is close to sensor according Mirriam and Webster's dictionary to sensor is the examination of ideas to supress expression of ideas that are considered objectionable. Sensor is the supression of objectionable expression of ideas and copyright is, again according to Mirriam and Webster: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work). So sensor and copyright are close. A copyright does not supress the expression of an idea rather supresses the expression of that idea by others so its rather close.

[astrodad]

We need to stop feeding this troll. I would wager that 500 of his 600+ posts are about copyright and his attempt to legitimize his illegal habit.

[elcreative]

I just used ignore a few days ago and it's amazing how much more I'm enjoying MR again...

Originally Posted by jplumey

We need to stop feeding this troll. I would wager that 500 of his 600+ posts are about copyright and his attempt to legitimize his illegal habit.