Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Quexos]

I most certainly hope not.
The day this happens is the day books will be sold a thousand dollars apiece cause there will be no other way to get them. We'll be at the total mercy of the big 6 as you call them. And we'll have to read what they say we can and when they say we can and at the price they say.
Reminds me of the movies back in the 80's when it could be 2 sometimes 3 years before we saw a movie hit the big screen here after its release in the US because there was no alternative.
And NO this is not off-topic, you can't look at one side of the story without looking at the other.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Okay: I can't. Online sharing is a MYTH. No author has to worry about losing any money through piracy. It's all a figment of a lot of people's imagination. YOU WIN. Congratulations, the ebook industry is fixed.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Reminds me of the movies back in the 80's when it could be 2 sometimes 3 years before we saw a movie hit the big screen here after its release in the US because there was no alternative.

I remember those times as well AND also TV shows were the same as well.

Originally Posted by Quexos

And NO this is not off-topic, you can't look at one side of the story without looking at the other.

Pretty much my line of argument as well.

The problem is Steven has an axe to grind over this issue. He has been grinding it for a while now and pretty soon there will be no more axe left to grind.

Until the big six publishers and the music/entertainment industry make changes to the way they operate, nothing is going to change no matter what slant or fancy metaphor you put on it.

I am afraid at this stage of the game, winter is coming to hell.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Okay: I can't. Online sharing is a MYTH. No author has to worry about losing any money through piracy. It's all a figment of a lot of people's imagination. YOU WIN. Congratulations, the ebook industry is fixed.

It was never broken to start with. There has never been a better time to be a writer.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And if the product is not available, no whining and sueing pirates who do put it out there. Get It Out There Yourself! THEN you have the moral grounds to sue.

What happens if I don't want my work available as an e-book because I've produced a carefully crafted work where I regard the specific typography, layout, artwork and even the specific paper as crucial to the book? Who are you to say I have no rights to restrict the circulation of MY work???

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by elcreative

What happens if I don't want my work available as an e-book because I've produced a carefully crafted work where I regard the specific typography, layout, artwork and even the specific paper as crucial to the book? Who are you to say I have no rights to restrict the circulation of MY work???

How do you stop the physical dissemination? You don't control the used book market, you don't control the various library systems, you don't control the private lending of physical product.

Yet you want total control of all digital doppelgangers of the work, to the point of making it not available.

<Shrug> That is simply not possible considering today's technology. I think of Trademark...use it or lose it.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

How do you stop the physical dissemination? You don't control the used book market, you don't control the various library systems, you don't control the private lending of physical product.

Yet you want total control of all digital doppelgangers of the work, to the point of making it not available.

<Shrug> That is simply not possible considering today's technology. I think of Trademark...use it or lose it.

Never said control of physical dissemination... lending, reselling or giving away doesn't change the physical production of a physical object... but why should I be forced to let some third party redo the object into an inferior digital version when the original is produced as a specific art object with its physicality intrinsic to its content... I'm not talking about general works, I'm hypothesising the production of a specific item where the physicality is intrinsic to its concept and value as an artistic expression... such an object doesn't require control of digital doppelgangers as such a thing can't exist, it simply requires no inferior attempt to copy the item...

You were the one stating that just because a person produced a book didn't give them any right to stop a third party digitising it even if it wasn't legally available in digital format... never mind today's technology, that's still wrong, morally, ethically and legally... there are many things that I can do but it doesn't mean that such actions are necessarily valid/correct/ethical/moral/legal just because I can do them...

[Quexos]

Well stopping a book from being available to some and only making it available to others is morally wrong and has no valid bases. It's discriminating to tell a person you cannot read this because you live in a certain area.
If you want your work to be in a specific type of paper and in a specific type of book for artistic reasons, that's all your right and it's probably a good thing to put some artistic value to the media but in today's global economy if you can get such a book somewhere, you can get it somewhere else too and wishing to limit the availability of such work to some people only is morally wrong, discriminating and in some cases elitist.

Originally Posted by elcreative

Never said control of physical dissemination... lending, reselling or giving away doesn't change the physical production of a physical object... but why should I be forced to let some third party redo the object into an inferior digital version when the original is produced as a specific art object with its physicality intrinsic to its content... I'm not talking about general works, I'm hypothesising the production of a specific item where the physicality is intrinsic to its concept and value as an artistic expression... such an object doesn't require control of digital doppelgangers as such a thing can't exist, it simply requires no inferior attempt to copy the item...

You were the one stating that just because a person produced a book didn't give them any right to stop a third party digitising it even if it wasn't legally available in digital format... never mind today's technology, that's still wrong, morally, ethically and legally... there are many things that I can do but it doesn't mean that such actions are necessarily valid/correct/ethical/moral/legal just because I can do them...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Well stopping a book from being available to some and only making it available to others is morally wrong and has no valid bases. It's discriminating to tell a person you cannot read this because you live in a certain area.
If you want your work to be in a specific type of paper and in a specific type of book for artistic reasons, that's all your right and it's probably a good thing to put some artistic value to the media but in today's global economy if you can get such a book somewhere, you can get it somewhere else too and wishing to limit the availability of such work to some people only is morally wrong, discriminating and in some cases elitist.

Rubbish... if I produce an item of artwork that requires being in a certain physical form then that is my right - it's my artwork - if you don't like it in that form... tough, make your own artwork... I'm not limiting its availability to anyone but if it's put in another form then it no longer represents the intrinsic idea... nobody is entitled to have everything in this world in any form that they choose... get real... you just reminded me why I put you on ignore originally...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Well stopping a book from being available to some and only making it available to others is morally wrong and has no valid bases. It's discriminating to tell a person you cannot read this because you live in a certain area.
If you want your work to be in a specific type of paper and in a specific type of book for artistic reasons, that's all your right and it's probably a good thing to put some artistic value to the media but in today's global economy if you can get such a book somewhere, you can get it somewhere else too and wishing to limit the availability of such work to some people only is morally wrong, discriminating and in some cases elitist.

You are looking at it all wrong. Nobody wishes NOT to sell you a book. Amazon and others from the US are contractually obligated not to sell to Europe. And your European governments want to collect those big VAT and other taxes. So, it is partially the European social services (financed by your high taxes) that prevents worldwide sales. And most of Europe has legal price fixing for books. It is that European governments and book sellers DON'T want you to buy in the US but locally at higher prices.

The American sellers would love to take your money. And, of course, there are easy way around regional restrictions.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Never said control of physical dissemination... lending, reselling or giving away doesn't change the physical production of a physical object... but why should I be forced to let some third party redo the object into an inferior digital version when the original is produced as a specific art object with its physicality intrinsic to its content... I'm not talking about general works, I'm hypothesising the production of a specific item where the physicality is intrinsic to its concept and value as an artistic expression... such an object doesn't require control of digital doppelgangers as such a thing can't exist, it simply requires no inferior attempt to copy the item...

You were the one stating that just because a person produced a book didn't give them any right to stop a third party digitising it even if it wasn't legally available in digital format... never mind today's technology, that's still wrong, morally, ethically and legally... there are many things that I can do but it doesn't mean that such actions are necessarily valid/correct/ethical/moral/legal just because I can do them...

What is copyright? It a grant of limited monopoly to ecourage the creation of new intellectual products. It is done for the long term benefit of the public (to whom the product will eventually revert), not the creator. It is an economic construct, not a moral one. As such, one should be able to show economic harm before going to court. If there is no effort to make a product available for profit, no economic harm can be shown. If you want to have a situation for prevention of a product from being produced digitally, then I would recommend a continuing tax/fee be paid to the copyright authorities. Then you can show harm (the tax/fee costs) for a court case. This is more detail that I planned to go into, but you wanted an answer...

All forms of real property get taxes in all sorts of jurisdictions, I'm very tired of I.P. people thinking they don't have to pay for anything, but get all the benefits of their creation, and endless control.

T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are looking at it all wrong. Nobody wishes NOT to sell you a book. Amazon and others from the US are contractually obligated not to sell to Europe. And your European governments want to collect those big VAT and other taxes. So, it is partially the European social services (financed by your high taxes) that prevents worldwide sales. And most of Europe has legal price fixing for books. It is that European governments and book sellers DON'T want you to buy in the US but locally at higher prices.

So Region Lockouts on DVDs are because companies don't want to pay taxes? That doesn't exactly make sense. Sure the prices are higher because of the taxes, but if they work like sales taxes do in America then the goods aren't taxed until they're sold to the consumer. The only thing the seller feels, arguably, is reduced sales due to higher prices.

The American sellers would love to take your money. And, of course, there are easy way around regional restrictions.

From where I'm sitting, it looks more like they're trying to maintain their role as gatekeepers and censors instead of selling books. In the case of not releasing stuff over there, its probably so they can try to build up demand to a frenzy and then release at a higher price than over here. Doubly true if ACTA says what people are saying it does; imagine border guards confiscating smuggled copies of Twilight that someone wanted to sell in a country where it hasn't been released yet?

Am I the only one who's read at least part of Jane Government ?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What is copyright? It a grant of limited monopoly to ecourage the creation of new intellectual products. It is done for the long term benefit of the public (to whom the product will eventually revert), not the creator. It is an economic construct, not a moral one. As such, one should be able to show economic harm before going to court. If there is no effort to make a product available for profit, no economic harm can be shown. If you want to have a situation for prevention of a product from being produced digitally, then I would recommend a continuing tax/fee be paid to the copyright authorities. Then you can show harm (the tax/fee costs) for a court case. This is more detail that I planned to go into, but you wanted an answer...

All forms of real property get taxes in all sorts of jurisdictions, I'm very tired of I.P. people thinking they don't have to pay for anything, but get all the benefits of their creation, and endless control.

T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.

The only thing a creator owes to society is to pay his taxes on profits from the sales of his books. It makes no sense that a craftsman has undisputed control over his works, but an author does not.

Copyright is as much for the benefit of the creators as for society. And it is not necessarily in society's best interest to see that people get freebies. That does not create value, protecting authors usually does (not always, of course).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The only thing a creator owes to society is to pay his taxes on profits from the sales of his books. It makes no sense that a craftsman has undisputed control over his works, but an author does not.

A craftsman does not have control over the use of his works after he's sold them. You don't get to sell a chair and say, "this chair cannot be used to make porn movies."

Copyright is as much for the benefit of the creators as for society. And it is not necessarily in society's best interest to see that people get freebies. That does not create value, protecting authors usually does (not always, of course).

"Get people freebies" is not directly in society's interests. "Allow the pool of publicly-available arts, literature & scientific discovery to grow" is. Keeping a stranglehold on that growth for the profit of a few, most of which are big corporations, is not in society's interest.

I'll take seriously the yelling about "digital theft" when the retroactive changes to copyright law are reversed--and everything published in the US before 1978 gets put into the public domain. Extending copyright on existing works was mass theft from the public.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I'm so disappointed that this topic has gone sour; we're back to the same old "ebooks should be free!" "copyright is BAAAD!" "It's Disney's fault!" parroting-- including disagreement of whether or not there actually is a problem--and not discussing the topic at hand.

I'm done trying to steer this ship back on course, so: Have fun in the rocks ahead! I'm just gonna borrow this here dinghy...

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.

And that is exactly what you and like-minded allies want... a free lunch, ownership of everything whether you created it or someone else did... actually I never even mentioned copyright in this context... I was simply putting a hypothetical case in which I wanted creative control over my own work and it required production in a specific form because that form was intrinsic to the production... apparently that doesn't matter either if YOU want it then that's your right, nothing immoral with distorting someone else's work and vision as long as you have your rights - typical 21st century attitude, all rights and no responsibilities...