If you had a vote for copyright?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

People should have access to the works produced, according to the wishes of the creator... that's fair. (Using it as you wish is subject to negotiation.)

That is a mind set that has become common among a set of writers, yet it certainly doesn't match the original purpose for copyright as set forth in the Constitution. The whole point of copyright is that it is a trade off.

Without copyright, an author has absolute of control of a book up until the time it gets published. At that point, from a practical matter, he has zero control over it. People may make as many copies as they like since there is nothing to stop them without the power of the government. That's why until relatively recently, authors made most of their money via magazine and newspaper sales and why so many popular books original appears as series in magazines (note this continued all the way through the late 70's. I originally read some of Zelazny's Amber books as serials in SF magazines).

Copyright gives the author a limited monopoly over the publishing rights, i.e. the rights to sale a copy, of a work for a period of time. After that, anyone can publish the book. That doesn't mean that an author can demand that his books never be sold to a library, or any other such restriction. They can't insist that no one read their book on Sunday, only read the book after 5 pm on a week day, pay the author each time the book is read or any other such restriction.

Over time, many restrictions that people have tried to place on copyrighted material has been struck down by the courts as inconsistent with the purpose of copyright (fair use doctrine and format shifting are examples of this). Copyright isn't a right, it's a government granted monopoly, a privilege if you will, that can be taken away or modified at the whim of the government. Sometimes authors forget this, and forget that copyright is basically a compromise between two parties, the author and the readership.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Question for writers: would you be happy to work for a fixed (set by you) price? Think an artist receiving a commission or a technical author who produces work-for-hire (where they don't retain copyright)...

IOW... the public becomes the publisher, deciding (before they've seen the work) whether it should be done, and based upon whether they thought my price was fair. And the writer doesn't retain copyright. Doesn't sound too attractive to me personally, but I suppose some writers might be interested.

An arrangement like that puts a lot of pressure on the writer to cave to public demands in order to accept their money; so, if the public says, "Write me a 'Harry Potter as a parent' story, or you get nothing," that's what you're stuck with. And more complex concepts won't get past the pitch stage, because the public won't pay for something they don't "get," and probably won't "get" until after they've read it.

So the only writers with a degree of autonomy become the popular 1% with a highly successful track record... and the other writers are consigned to another slush pile.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Over time, many restrictions that people have tried to place on copyrighted material has been struck down by the courts as inconsistent with the purpose of copyright (fair use doctrine and format shifting are examples of this). Copyright isn't a right, it's a government granted monopoly, a privilege if you will, that can be taken away or modified at the whim of the government. Sometimes authors forget this, and forget that copyright is basically a compromise between two parties, the author and the readership.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Some people seem to forget that copyright isn't a natural right, it's a government created tool to encourage people to create; copyright is only useful to the extent that it fulfils its function.

I haven't voted in this thread's poll because unlimited copyright is as damaging as no copyright, the question itself is a false dichotomy and pretty much forecloses any useful discussion on the topic. Frankly, I think copyright should be considered in economic terms, of maximizing benefit, rather than the usual terms of theft versus freedom.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Copyright isn't a right, it's a government granted monopoly, a privilege if you will, that can be taken away or modified at the whim of the government. Sometimes authors forget this, and forget that copyright is basically a compromise between two parties, the author and the readership.

As you say... and in that light, the readership must be aware of the limitations placed upon them, which can also be taken away by the government. Copyright is a two-way street, not just a "limited privilege" granted an author, but a set of rules for the consumer to abide by as well.

Consumers don't have the right to act like thieves and violate an author's copyright when a law created and enforced by the government doesn't agree with them. They are expected to respect and accept copyright, and to treat authors using copyright with the respect and honesty they deserve (since they also have the free alternative to walk away and not read the author's works). And they are expected to challenge their government over unacceptable laws... not to beat up on artists because the laws are unsatisfying.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And they are expected to challenge their government over unacceptable laws... not to beat up on artists because the laws are unsatisfying.

Isn't this a overly dramatic?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

IOW... the public becomes the publisher, deciding (before they've seen the work) whether it should be done, and based upon whether they thought my price was fair. And the writer doesn't retain copyright. Doesn't sound too attractive to me personally, but I suppose some writers might be interested.

Well the thing about this model is that it works with or without copyright. So in terms of what would you do without copyright it's a possible way to reward authors. However it's also an alternative to traditional publishing with existing copyright.

An arrangement like that puts a lot of pressure on the writer to cave to public demands in order to accept their money; so, if the public says, "Write me a 'Harry Potter as a parent' story, or you get nothing," that's what you're stuck with. And more complex concepts won't get past the pitch stage, because the public won't pay for something they don't "get," and probably won't "get" until after they've read it.

No more so than traditional publishing. Until recently you had to convince basically one of a handful of large companies to let you write your book (or buy it once you had) and they would have similar concerns about what sells.

Of course now you can self-publish much more easily. But still, if you're writing something the public doesn't want how does that help? You'll sell a few copies and get it out there but you won't recoup anything for the time you spent.

What this method does is give you a way to pre-finance a project - provided you can pitch it successfully. If you're happy to finance it yourself - by working a day job or living off previous books earnings - then fair enough. And if it's really the kind of thing people won't immediately "get" then perhaps you'll have to do that anyway. But it's likely such a book wouldn't pay for itself anyway (or would take a long time to do so).

So the only writers with a degree of autonomy become the popular 1% with a highly successful track record... and the other writers are consigned to another slush pile.

I think this will always be true whatever the method of selling books. To get autonomy you need to sell enough copies to make enough money to live off and not all books do that.

In my simplistic view it works like this:

Let's say it takes you 3months of writing fulltime to write a book. In the current model based on copyright you invest that time upfront hoping that you'll sell enough to recoup it (and make a profit). In this model your upfront investment is however much it takes to do the pitch. You set your price at whatever you need to cover the writing time (plus profit). If you make it you can sit down to write knowing the bills are paid.

The question is - is it easier to sell a known quantity (finished book) versus pre-selling an idea? Well it's worth remembering that every book is an unknown quantity to some extent before you actually read it yourself. As a reader, I never really know - even with great reviews etc - whether a book is going to work for me. So in some ways buying a book this way is as much a risk as buying it the old-fashioned way.

As I said, I'm really interested to see if this works.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

As I said, I'm really interested to see if this works.

Do you intend to "put your money where your mouth is" (as the saying goes) and try it yourself?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you intend to "put your money where your mouth is" (as the saying goes) and try it yourself?

Yep, have already done so and contributed towards this book.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Isn't this a overly dramatic?

This discussion has always been full of over-the-top drama (and I am a writer)...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Some people seem to forget that copyright isn't a natural right, it's a government created tool to encourage people to create; copyright is only useful to the extent that it fulfils its function.

Copyright itself is, as you say, a legal construct. But the law, at least in Anglo-Saxon countries, is (at least historically) largely organic, and the legal constructs are built around our desires and beliefs concerning what needs protection or control. And I think it is pretty evident that there is a clear moral case for protecting creator rights, and that a majority, although perhaps a diminishing majority, respects that moral case.

I haven't voted in this thread's poll because unlimited copyright is as damaging as no copyright, the question itself is a false dichotomy and pretty much forecloses any useful discussion on the topic. Frankly, I think copyright should be considered in economic terms, of maximizing benefit, rather than the usual terms of theft versus freedom.

Not just economic freedom. Copyright has an impact on artistic freedom, and on the culture. We have to be careful of considering things in merely economic terms - doubly careful because, as with religion & certain political systems, the vocabulary of economics can be stretched to appear to explain everything in economic terms, when it really doesn't and as a result obscures or diminishes these other parts of reality.

What this poll does is force us to recognize that the two extremes are, indeed, extremes, and in our choice of which extreme I think we can discern what we value most about copyright.

I vote "no copyright" because we know from historical experience that we get creativity without it, and because perversely, "copyright forever" stifles the creativity arising from the interaction among those things that are created (i.e., the culture).

My own beef is that current copyright law has been hijacked by corporate interests and moved, for all practical purposes, to the "forever" side. This has been made possible by the emerging digital environment, and the onerous implimentation of DRM. At the same time, I am increasingly certain that the existing implimentation of copyright does not fit the digital environment in terms of achieving the ends that copyright is supposed to.

I can foresee a couple of things happening.

One is that our political representatives continue to "stay bought" by someone, whether the corporate content providers or the corporate content distributors. When the interests of the creators or the public are aligned with one or the other, or both of, the corporate interests, things will work out - as witness the SOPA rebuff. Otherwise, not.

On the other hand, I can imagine that we will figure out ways to sidestep the corporate interests. Piracy is one way, of course. But things like Spotify internet streaming are another. As more & more of these sidestepping processes come into existence, maybe we will be able to build a new copyright construct around them.

(I see that I am standing on a soapbox. I will now slip off...)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I vote "no copyright" because we know from historical experience that we get creativity without it, and because perversely, "copyright forever" stifles the creativity arising from the interaction among those things that are created (i.e., the culture).

This is why the poll is no good: The fact is that, while creators did create with no copyright and patent protection, patent and copyright protection has resulted in (or allowed) the greatest period of creativity and invention since its inception. So clearly, some form of copyright is the best answer for society, creators and consumers alike.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

This is why the poll is no good: The fact is that, while creators did create with no copyright and patent protection, patent and copyright protection has resulted in (or allowed) the greatest period of creativity and invention since its inception. So clearly, some form of copyright is the best answer for society, creators and consumers alike.

I agree that "some copyright" is better than "no copyright." I just think that either is better than "copyright forever."

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I agree that "some copyright" is better than "no copyright." I just think that either is better than "copyright forever."

Which is exactly why this poll was set up like this --- to force you to vote for "no copyright", even if you support a limited copyright. A rigged poll, might call it.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Which is exactly why this poll was set up like this --- to force you to vote for "no copyright", even if you support a limited copyright. A rigged poll, might call it.

You seem to have missed that the point of the poll isn't to gauge what form of copyright is the 'the best', but to force people to think about the two extremes.

No-one's suggesting that the result of the poll means that (at present) the great majority of MobileRead members actually think that having no copyright at all would be the optimum arrangement.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Which is exactly why this poll was set up like this --- to force you to vote for "no copyright", even if you support a limited copyright. A rigged poll, might call it.

"No copyright" isn't the same as "limited copyright" (nor "perpetual copyright"). So that's no logic to choosing either extreme over the other.

But while "none" means "none," "perpetual copyright" can be limited in scope, so it actually covers all versions of copyright, strict to lax, right up until "none."

Therefore, choosing "perpetual" is more logical than choosing "none".

And anyone who chooses "none" is therefore illogical, QED.