If you had a vote for copyright?

[HarryT]

Well, it seems like a ridiculous idea to me, but nobody's stopping you from setting up these not-for-profit organisations you describe. If they can turn out printed books more cheaply than mainstream publishers can, the publishers will soon stop publishing the classics. Go for it!

[Sil_liS]

[QUOTE=murraypaul;1929816]Again, how does the existence of a non-free copy of a book prevent the existence of a free copy of a book?
I never said that the existence of a non-free copy of a book prevent the existence of a free copy of a book, so I don't know why you are asking this.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

People are making money publishing editions of PD works. Other people are able to read those works for free. At the same time!

But authors are still losing from this, and copyright law is supposed to support the authors.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Why, again? There's no copyright protection, so there's no profit to be made. Why would then he keep it all to himself or burn it down? Childish behaviour? Sadist revenge on mankind? "You made me suffer for lacking my father's talent and having had to go to medical school, now take that you lamers!"

Makes no sense. He would just give it away to fans anyway.

Why? What incentive does he have to sort through the papers, to organize and layout the pieces, and then distribute the final copy? All that takes time, and often money. Most people, aren't that generous, and so generally end up letting it sit. They would find things they'd rather be doing, such as reading, watching movies, spending time with friends and family, etc. It isn't revenge at all, it is simply lack of motivation to work, and yes, most people see it as exactly that, work.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But authors are still losing from this, and copyright law is supposed to support the authors.

How are authors losing from it?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Well, it seems like a ridiculous idea to me, but nobody's stopping you from setting up these not-for-profit organisations you describe. If they can turn out printed books more cheaply than mainstream publishers can, the publishers will soon stop publishing the classics. Go for it!

No, they won't. As you can see, the fact that there are free versions of PD books doesn't stop people from taking those books and selling them. And it doesn't get any cheaper that free.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How are authors losing from it?

As I said before:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

People spend money on books that they should be able to read for free so they have less money to spend on books of authors that are writing books now.

Publishers spend the time of editors and presses on PD books instead of spending them on books that are being written now.

[HarryT]

I would offer the counter argument that the profit that publishers make from publishing PD books helps subsidize their commercial publications, most of which make a loss.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would offer the counter argument that the profit that publishers make from publishing PD books helps subsidize their commercial publications, most of which make a loss.

From what I remember from the old discussions about the costs of books, they weren't adding up to any losses, and they were disregarding the really profitable books.

[pruss]

By the way, of the false dilemma between no copyright and copyright forever, I have to go for no copyright, simply because copyright forever would eventually legally kill precisely those books we most want to keep--namely those that are worth reading after hundreds of years. Take, for instance, the works of Plato. On a copyright forever scheme, the copyright in these would still be owned by Plato's descendants, and hence a translator would require a license from them. But it would not be possible to obtain such a license, because (a) there are too many descendants and at least some of them are likely to have crazy objections or want ridiculous sums of money, and (b) we have no idea who the the descendants are. So there would be no legal way to print the book.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by pruss

By the way, of the false dilemma between no copyright and copyright forever, I have to go for no copyright, simply because copyright forever would eventually legally kill precisely those books we most want to keep--namely those that are worth reading after hundreds of years. Take, for instance, the works of Plato. On a copyright forever scheme, the copyright in these would still be owned by Plato's descendants, and hence a translator would require a license from them. But it would not be possible to obtain such a license, because (a) there are too many descendants and at least some of them are likely to have crazy objections or want ridiculous sums of money, and (b) we have no idea who the the descendants are. So there would be no legal way to print the book.

they are the greeks and copyright on Plato would surely help them right now.

BTW, I find the idea of copyright like life+years makes no sense in the case of companies. Companies like Disney seem to never die at all! Someone should kill them, bleed them until bankrupt. Otherwise, they'll keep milking away what otherwise had genuine artistic attempts by real people, such as Bambi or The Lion King in countless watered down sequels...

Just imagine, Plato Company publishing The Republic XXI!

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

they are the greeks and copyright on Plato would surely help them right now.

BTW, I find the idea of copyright like life+years makes no sense in the case of companies. Companies like Disney seem to never die at all! Someone should kill them, bleed them until bankrupt. Otherwise, they'll keep milking away what otherwise had genuine artistic attempts by real people, such as Bambi or The Lion King in countless watered down sequels...

Just imagine, Plato Company publishing The Republic XXI!

For copyright, not all descendents get a cut. My kids won't share my copyright equally, unless I specify that they're to share it. I could have it to where only my oldest gets it. It is kinda like with most inheritance. Things get divvied up. Johnny gets this, Janey gets that, etc.

As far as copyrights for corporations, the life+years is only for people. Corporations have a separate set of rules. Like in the US, it is life+70, but 120 years if it is a corporation.

[Katsunami]

None of these. Too extreme. I also find that artists have too much advantage of copyrights, earning money on a work done 40 or 50 years earlier. My father also doesn't get royalties of people that walk the streets that he paved 40 years hence, does he? He got paid for paving them, and had to keep paving (and build houses) for a living. Some artists create only a few works that hit the market like a bomb and then they live off them for half their lives or longer. (More often in music and film than in writing, thats true.) I think that is wrong.

Copyright should be 20 years after first publication imho, and then the work should go into the public domain, just like patents. It doesn't matter that bookstores etcetera still earn money off of it because they actually are still doing the work to produce it.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

. Companies like Disney seem to never die at all! Someone should kill them, bleed them until bankrupt.

That's the idea. Precursors to corporations go back to the ancient world, and the first corporations emerged during the middle ages. Basically, a corporation is a legal entity that has privileges that are distinct from its members, one of which is that it survives beyond the lives of its founding members.

The first corporations in the United States where formed by state and local governments to do specific public services, such as maintaining dikes, roads, bridges, and levies. In this way public services could be performed without taxation. After the Erie Canal was constructed, state and local governments went on a canal building frenzy. This speculative fever resulted in a financial crisis in 1837, resulting most of the newly constructed canals going bust.

Public opinion towards government and government projects turned sour, and Andrew Jackson capitalized on that discontent by running a populist campaign against public corporations, arguing that they were the tools of oligarchs for seizing power. By 1847, 40 out of 44 states had passed general incorporation laws which replaced legislative charters, so that any group that satisfied minimal capital requirements could incorporate.

The most important privilege that a corporation has is limited liability. This just means that the owners of the corporation are not liable for any debts or costs imposed by the corporation. That means that if a corporation can't pay its debt, creditors can't seize the assets the shareholders. If a corporation kills a bunch of people, the shareholders cannot be held liable. The privileges of a corporation, such as unlimited life and limited liability, enable them to amass massive amounts of capital and to take huge risks, which allows for things like the construction of railroads and telegraphs.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

As you can see, the fact that there are free versions of PD books doesn't stop people from taking those books and selling them.

Well, sure, they can sell them to readers who don't have eReaders. In a couple years, ten at most, that group will IMHO be too small to support keeping most classics in print. A few people will make money from print on demand, but that will decline as well.

I don't know whose side in the debate the coming collapse of the market for classic PB's favors. But I just wanted to mention it as relevant.

Originally Posted by HarryT

. . . the posthumous works of J.R.R. Tolkein edited and published by his son and literary executor, Christopher Tolkein. We certainly wouldn't have that without copyright protection.

Famous people ordinarily are, in old age, solicited by libraries for their papers. Graduate students and professors read those archives and if they find publishable material, it should eventually be released by a subsidized university press. The resultant books are then mostly sold to libraries. I suppose that this whole process is just a little more likely to happen if copyright extends past the life of the famous man or woman.

As for Tolkien, I gather that he left papers to Marquette University, with holdouts by the Tolkien Estate. Wikipedia downtime is making it hard to get the details at the moment, so I probably did not explain this correctly. But I would think that if copyright expired at death, the works being published by the Tolkien Estate would be published by the subsidized scholarly system.

Having said this, lack of copyright after death would likely lead posthumous works by less celebrated authors to languish unpublished. This is one reason why I think the length of copyright should be based on years since writing rather than years after death. You shouldn't get residuals at age 70 on something you did at age 30, but if you die at 71, we should incentivize the estate to quickly, before copyright runs out, publish any good posthumous works.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Well, sure, they can sell them to readers who don't have eReaders. In a couple years, ten at most, that group will IMHO be too small to support keeping most classics in print. A few people will make money from print on demand, but that will decline as well.

Actually I was talking about the people who download books from Project Gutenberg and sell them on Amazon as kindle books. The books are free, but someone still sells them.