France: All your books are belong to us

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Mandate renewal every X years. Failure to renew places the work in public domain. That resolves the issue of orphaned works.

And who will handle the renewing? Copyrighter 5000? Or will people be involved in the process? It's been tried before and didn't seem to do much of anything.

[Ninjalawyer]

[QUOTE=Kali Yuga;1986666]This law applies to out-of-print works that are as recent as 11 years old.

Unless you're going to suggest a 5-year copyright term as ideal, this law is not addressing a duration issue.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

If I were to draft a new law on this subject, why would I limit myself to books that are decades old? Wouldn't it make more sense to start more recently to prevent obscure works from being lost?
Or, you could stipulate that the government agency will scan out-of-print books, but not distribute them until the copyright expires.

It's pretty clear that the goal is to make out-of-print material available, not to archive it for future use as public domain.

Legislation can have more than one goal; and if book preservation is one goal, why wait until the end of the copyright period when the book might already be lost?

As far as archiving for future, I would also be okay with that although I like the idea of making books available sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It can be; just change the law.

That would benefit no one; even the select few corporations with enduring works they could capitalize on forever would be hurt be losing access to future public domain works. Your suggestion is really just nonsense.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ya, he sure does, except for the fact that:

(a) copyright isn't a property right;

What are you talking about? Of course copyright is property - you can own it, you can sell it, you can leave it to your heirs.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

What are you talking about? Of course copyright is property - you can own it, you can sell it, you can leave it to your heirs.

You can say "it's definitely property", but actually whether it is or not is a very interesting question, one that has been the subject of academic debate for over a 100 years. Me stating the opposite was a little glib admittedly.

Copyright is definately like property in the sense that you can exclude others from it, but it is unclear how much it makes sense to import concepts of tangible goods into the sphere of copyright.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Copyright is definately like property in the sense that you can exclude others from it, but it is unclear how much it makes sense to import concepts of tangible goods into the sphere of copyright.

You can say, I do not want you to copy something. But that does not mean that I am not allowed to copy that thing.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The new law deals with works that were published as recently as 2001 -- i.e. 11 years ago.

It's not a duration issue.

Well, it is partly - it does refer to works published before 2001, but as the blog linked to in the article makes clear, only if they're not currently being distributed or currently published in a printed or electronic form. In other words, they're out of print. The same situation described in the thread by vice-versa still stands - the author[s] of a book must not be less than the amount paid to the publisher. So it's not really the land grab for authors' rights that the Register is making it out to be - it might be that in the case of a book that didn't make it big in print that an author might actually benefit.

OTOH, that very interesting blog does make it clear that are enough issues about it that authors should be very wary indeed. For instance, even though the author can't be paid less than the publisher, it seems that the publisher might be paid twice - once through royalties, and once through these payments, and the payment organisation will also cream off some of the profits. More importantly, it seems the authors won't be given any warning that their book has been entered onto the database, and I'm sure most authors have more to do than check it every day on the off-chance that this has happened.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

You can say, I do not want you to copy something. But that does not mean that I am not allowed to copy that thing.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

@Ninjalawyer:

Attached is something for you to use in your next round with Giggleton.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

You can say, I do not want you to copy something. But that does not mean that I am not allowed to copy that thing.

Yes, it does. You are allowed to jump to the moon. It's not possible, but you are allowed to try. You are not allowed to make illegal copies, even if you are capable of doing so.

Copyright law is not "I do not want you to copy something". You care confusing "may not" with "can not".

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

@Ninjalawyer:

Attached is something for you to use in your next round with Giggleton.

love it!

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Yes, it does. You are allowed to jump to the moon. It's not possible, but you are allowed to try. You are not allowed to make illegal copies, even if you are capable of doing so.

Copyright law is not "I do not want you to copy something". You care confusing "may not" with "can not".

The law is a human institution.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The law is a human institution.

Last I checked...we are humans...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The law is a human institution.

We're humans. We deal with human institutions.

You said:

You can say, I do not want you to copy something. But that does not mean that I am not allowed to copy that thing.

To speak of being allowed to do something is to appeal to human institutions. What possible other institution could you be referring to?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

We're humans. We deal with human institutions.

You said:



To speak of being allowed to do something is to appeal to human institutions. What possible other institution could you be referring to?

Yes we deal with human institutions. But you must understand that everything is subjective because it is thought of by humans. Myself saying copyright is meaningless is just as valid as you saying copyright has meaning.

The other institution I am referring to is the creators. In the beginning was the word.

[Greg Anos]

This law appeals to my sense of whimsy.

If you research the History of the Berne Convention, the people pushing it the hardest were the French. Now, they're stepping all over it.

Gotta love it....