Copyright is Out of Sight

[Giggleton]

This is pretty interesting, some "nations" are thinking ahead.

What_models_already_exist_in_other_national_initia tives_with_regard_to_copyrighted_and_orphan_works

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

But I thought it was all about me?

yes, it is about me.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This is pretty interesting, some "nations" are thinking ahead.

What_models_already_exist_in_other_national_initia tives_with_regard_to_copyrighted_and_orphan_works

your "thinking ahead" means draconian DRM measures:

"The scanned books can be read only on computers screens in Norway and cannot be downloaded or printed out."

[outlander78]

I thought when I read this ode to piracy that it was a troll job, but I answered anyways. Yup, stupid me. It amazes me that so many other people keep coming back for more as well, and that this thread has yet to be locked.

I appreciate that the moderators let these kinds of discussions carry on, though I suspect we are wasting our time reasoning with either a teenager or a troll.

[spellbanisher]

None of those models are any different from the model in the U.S. Libraries are already allowed to scan copyrighted works for the purpose of preservation. Google also makes many copyrighted works available from authors who did not request to be removed from their registry. Some orphan works can also be seen at computers at libraries with the same restrictions applying to some of the countries in the article. There has also been discussion in congress over (probably not recently though) making academic journals that receive tax payer dollars available to the public without a subscription fee. There is also the creative commons organization, which issues cc licenses that allows artists to reserve only some of their rights (for instance, a creative commons attribution license allows people to freely copy and distribute the artists work as long as the creator gets credit).

http://creativecommons.org/

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by outlander78

I thought when I read this ode to piracy that it was a troll job, but I answered anyways. Yup, stupid me. It amazes me that so many other people keep coming back for more as well, and that this thread has yet to be locked.

I appreciate that the moderators let these kinds of discussions carry on, though I suspect we are wasting our time reasoning with either a teenager or a troll.

Who does it hurt to let the thread continue on? You have a self-righteous mindset. Giggleton is no troll. He has stated his position articulately and passionately. Unlike you, he has actually made an argument. You just engage in ad hominems.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

yes, it is about me.

Wait, I thought I was me?

[Giggleton]

Yes, libraries scan and make their collections digital, yet they FAIL to take the next step and make these collections available to anyone with no restrictions,

http://blog.archive.org/2011/01/29/a...-to-go-online/

That group seems to want to make their literature available to all but are concerned about copyright. If they decide to open their servers for all, might be interesting.

Who is really arguing for restricting the public's access to knowledge??

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

But I thought it was all about me?

No, no it's all about giggles. Happy and free all the time! Laughing and singing money for nothing and your chicks for free!

[elcreative]

Swift analysis... read what I wrote not what you think I wrote... I didn't state authorship was less valuable, I was saying the ability to EASILY copy makes people think authorship/origination is less valuable... if someone creates something then they have total rights to decide on any copy distribution (unless any rights are contractually signed away - usually for money to live) rather than a bunch of "the world shall all be free" woolly headed dreamers who need a lesson in living in the real world... I was trying to be nice but if you want to resort to insults and implications that I'm supporting piracy then I no longer feel the need to be polite to certifiable idiots.

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Swift analysis. Indeed music "composer" is so named for that hand copying tradition.

But the analysis fails to acknowledge authorship, it only deals with the mechanical aspect: painters paint, musicians compose and perform, writers write. Where is authorship in this? I'm pretty sure Michelangelo had many assistants in helping him with his largest works: did he receive same as his helpers? Is the value of his works due to him or to his helpers?

You're certainly not implying that copying is more important than content, are you? If you are, then feel free to copy this paragraph and send it to darknet so that I can become more popular than Stephen King and more erudite than Milton.

It's not because the artist was liberated from the menial task of reproducing his work that his authorship is any less valueable. If you believe that, just drop that pirated popular ebook you're reading and go read some free twits to uncover the hidden meanings of life, the universe and everything...

[spellbanisher]

i don't think anyone but the author's guild is arguing for restricting access. Every professor I know would love their work to be made freely available online, but there is a difference between academic journals and books that are funded primarily by taxpayer dollars (with the exception of professors working for private universities) and works that are created for primarily commercial purposes. No professor writes to get rich, and in fact even though every tenured professor is well-published almost all of them make no money from their books. Novelists and other professional writers, however, are a part of a for-profit industry. I actually think more professors should explore digital and online publishing, because its clear that since college education is seen as a necessity publishers exploit the inelasticity of textbooks to gouge students.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

its clear that since college education is seen as a necessity publishers exploit the inelasticity of textbooks to gouge students.

I mean this quote literally. In order for students to get textbooks, they must submit to the publishers gouging them. That's why so many students are blind to reality.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

i don't think anyone but the author's guild is arguing for restricting access. Every professor I know would love their work to be made freely available online, but their is a difference between academic journals and books that are funded primarily by taxpayer dollars (with the exception of professors working for private universities) and works that are created for primarily commercial purposes. No professor writes to get rich, and in fact even though every tenured professor is well-published almost all of them make no money from their books. Novelists and other professional writers, however, are a part of a for-profit industry. I actually think more professors should explore digital and online publishing, because its clear that since college education is seen as a necessity publishers exploit the inelasticity of textbooks to gouge students.

Would you agree that once we no longer need for-profit industry then we no longer need copyright?

[elcreative]

Cloud cuckoo land again... socialised everything been tried... failed... of course you can live for free and don't need to work or do anything useful but the rest of us live in the real world, we want to be paid for our work and we're prepared to pay for other people's work rather than steal what we need, we're prepared to live in a society that isn't perfect but's a hell of a lot better than many other alternatives...

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Would you agree that once we no longer need for-profit industry then we no longer need copyright?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Would you agree that once we no longer need for-profit industry then we no longer need copyright?

I don't even really know what this means. We don't need a for-profit industry, at least as it applies to art. Civilization is based on excess. We also don't need skyscrapers or air conditioning or airplanes. For-profit industry creates excess wealth, which enables investment in other industries and other thingamajigs.