If you had a vote for copyright?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Gods and stars, not another recommendation to go back to the Patronage system! Patronage benefited less than a single percent of potential artists, and left all the rest without means for self-expression, forcing most of them to abandon artistic careers; in short, it was a very inefficient system...

Without it, most potential inventors/creators never got out of their farms or other menial jobs.

The number of artists able to make a living during the patronage era had nothing to do with the regime of copyright. Before the industrial revolution, it required approximately 80 percent if the population just to produce sufficient food. The urbanization rate, or the percentage of people who lived in cities of 2,500 or more people, was less than 5 percent. Plain and simple, it was technology that enabled a large creative class.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is exactly the point -- copyright was not a contract between the author and society (the general public), as so many claim, because back before e-books the general public could not take advantage of PD books. Copyright was really designed to protect authors and their agents (printers/publishers), period.

If that was correct, copyright would have been eternal, rather than for limited times. Copyright was intended to give authors an incentive to create books. But it was not made et

You claim that the general public could not take advantage of public domain books before e-readers. This isn't true. The public took advantage of public domain books every time they read a book which was based on a public domain work.

The idea of copyright being a contract between the author and society goes back long before e-books were even an idea. Copyright goes hand in hand with patent, and patent is certainly a contract between the inventor and society. The inventor gets exclusive rights to a their invention for a limited time, and in exchange, the inventions is available to all when the patent expires. It is the same way with copyright, the author gets exclusive rights to the book in exchange for the book eventually becoming public domain.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You claim that the general public could not take advantage of public domain books before e-readers. This isn't true. The public took advantage of public domain books every time they read a book which was based on a public domain work.

For a member of the public, how did you get your own personal free copy of a PD book before e-books? You still had to pay the printer/publisher. There may have been several choices instead of only one, but you could not get a free copy and would still have been at the mercy of the market.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For a member of the public, how did you get your own personal free copy of a PD book before e-books? You still had to pay the printer/publisher. There may have been several choices instead of only one, but you could not get a free copy and would still have been at the mercy of the market.

But you were paying for the publishing not the content as people still do today. I have dead tree copies of a fair number of PD works.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For a member of the public, how did you get your own personal free copy of a PD book before e-books? You still had to pay the printer/publisher. There may have been several choices instead of only one, but you could not get a free copy and would still have been at the mercy of the market.

The Public Domain has nothing to do with getting free books.

The concept of the Public Domain existed LONG before people even imagined e-readers. Free books are simply a fortunate by-product of the computer. The computer allowed people to "print" their own copy.

The public domain is our culture. It is what we all can freely make use of without requiring anyone's permission. Disney mined the public domain heavily for their movies. The public benefited by when they watched these works based on public domain sources. Disney owns their version of Snow White and Cinderella, but the original public domain sources are available for anyone to use and adapt however they see fit.

People have been using and adapting Aesop's Fables for over 2,000 years. That's one way the public has benefited from the public domain. The public benefits every time they pick up a work which builds on the public domain.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

But you were paying for the publishing not the content as people still do today. I have dead tree copies of a fair number of PD works.

Obviously, yes. What I wanted to say is that it didn't matter to you, you had to pay for PD and for copyrighted books. The fact that a book was in PD did not make a difference to the reader, you could not get it for free. Therefore, for us readers PD didn't matter before ebooks. So any references to the time before ebooks don't apply now.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Obviously, yes. What I wanted to say is that it didn't matter to you, you had to pay for PD and for copyrighted books. The fact that a book was in PD did not make a difference to the reader, you could not get it for free. Therefore, for us readers PD didn't matter before ebooks. So any references to the time before ebooks don't apply now.

It mattered because before I had a kindle I enjoyed plays like Rent, and movies based on old stories. How many film versions of Cinderella come out per year? Heck my own dvd collection has Ella Enchanted, Ever After and the Princess Diaries. And two version of Les Miserables.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

It mattered because before I had a kindle I enjoyed plays like Rent, and movies based on old stories. How many film versions of Cinderella come out per year? Heck my own dvd collection has Ella Enchanted, Ever After and the Princess Diaries. And two version of Les Miserables.

One reason that Shakespeare is performed so often is that it is in the public domain, so no one has to pay to perform it. Anyone who goes to see Shakespeare in the park is benefiting from the public domain.

Cinderella is constantly being remade and reimagined. It it wasn't for the public domain, this wouldn't be possible. Cinderella would only ever be what the original work was.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

One reason that Shakespeare is performed so often is that it is in the public domain, so no one has to pay to perform it. Anyone who goes to see Shakespeare in the park is benefiting from the public domain.

Cinderella is constantly being remade and reimagined. It it wasn't for the public domain, this wouldn't be possible. Cinderella would only ever be what the original work was.

Yes that was sort of the point. I enjoy and have enjoyed works based on things in the Public domain not just the public domain works themselves. The public domain mattered before I bought a kindle.

It even mattered in my classes. Not only can a teacher freely photocopy 30 copies of the raven when needed but more than a few assignments involve rewriting or adding to public domain works as a way of making sure students understood it along with a chance to flex a creative muscle or two.

I had to do such copyright unfriendly things as add a stanza of my own to the end of poems or add a scene to a play (fan fiction OMG!) I've had to paraprhase or modernize, heck in AP English I had to do crossovers and write interactions between characters in different works. The type of stuff control freaky modern copyright doesn't care for. Culteral and educational value.

[Giggleton]

Time is relative to the observer. What does forever mean anyway? Until the end times?

A system that enabled that kind of copy protection would have to be extremely robust, able to know what you are reading and sharing at all times. Basically we would all have to be constantly connected to the network as some sort of organic extension of the digital. The likelihood of that happening is unknown of course.

To me forever is the time between me thinking that I want to read a book and actually reading the book. To someone else it might mean until the universe dissipates back into nothingness.

Trying to fully do away with copyright will be harder than attempting to extend the life+ whatever copyright terms currently in place. An end of copyright would also require an end to the global economic system as it currently runs. You can copy anything you wish, but you can no longer sell anything you wish, no one would be able to sell anything, well any sort of "creative" work. Whatever that means.

That sounds crazy.

So take the easy route? Extend copyright a few more years in order not to deal with the real problem??

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

It mattered because before I had a kindle I enjoyed plays like Rent, and movies based on old stories. How many film versions of Cinderella come out per year? Heck my own dvd collection has Ella Enchanted, Ever After and the Princess Diaries. And two version of Les Miserables.

No doubt those movies would also have been made if they could have just paid off the copyright holders. As movie budgets go, that is the smallest part. And for the most part, would we not prefer to see some new ideas, rather than rehashing old ones?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

One reason that Shakespeare is performed so often is that it is in the public domain, so no one has to pay to perform it. Anyone who goes to see Shakespeare in the park is benefiting from the public domain.

Cinderella is constantly being remade and reimagined. It it wasn't for the public domain, this wouldn't be possible. Cinderella would only ever be what the original work was.

Performance fees, no doubt. You are right, I can also think of classical music in this context. But our main topic here is books...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Yes that was sort of the point. I enjoy and have enjoyed works based on things in the Public domain not just the public domain works themselves. The public domain mattered before I bought a kindle.

It even mattered in my classes. Not only can a teacher freely photocopy 30 copies of the raven when needed but more than a few assignments involve rewriting or adding to public domain works as a way of making sure students understood it along with a chance to flex a creative muscle or two.

I had to do such copyright unfriendly things as add a stanza of my own to the end of poems or add a scene to a play (fan fiction OMG!) I've had to paraprhase or modernize, heck in AP English I had to do crossovers and write interactions between characters in different works. The type of stuff control freaky modern copyright doesn't care for. Culteral and educational value.

Most of that is protected as fair use, already.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The Public Domain has nothing to do with getting free books.

The concept of the Public Domain existed LONG before people even imagined e-readers. Free books are simply a fortunate by-product of the computer. The computer allowed people to "print" their own copy.

The public domain is our culture. It is what we all can freely make use of without requiring anyone's permission. Disney mined the public domain heavily for their movies. The public benefited by when they watched these works based on public domain sources. Disney owns their version of Snow White and Cinderella, but the original public domain sources are available for anyone to use and adapt however they see fit.

People have been using and adapting Aesop's Fables for over 2,000 years. That's one way the public has benefited from the public domain. The public benefits every time they pick up a work which builds on the public domain.

You just described free (libre) books. What you meant is the public domain has little to do with getting free (beer) books.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Most of that is protected as fair use, already.

Educational is considered fair use, but the problem with fair use is that it's an affirmative defense not a grant of immunity. If a copyright holder wants to stop you then you get to pay to defend yourself.

Now if there were an anti-slapp for fair use shifting the burden to the copyright holder to show that someone isn't fair use when bringing a suit....