Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

QuantumIguana, Tubemonkey's position is logical and simple. Someone created something, so they are free to do with it as they please.

What is logical about that? A simple counter example is creating another human being.

Also creation is not done isolated. You use material, breath air, live in an environment and so on when creating. Also the problem with the initial ownership of land which is a serious philosophical problem with many answers (one being that there can not be any motivation for it) leads to the question not being simple and easy to answer since all creation is based on that you own something used in the creation.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

What is logical about that? A simple counter example is creating another human being.

Also creation is not done isolated. You use material, breath air, live in an environment and so on when creating. Also the problem with the initial ownership of land which is a serious philosophical problem with many answers (one being that there can not be any motivation for it) leads to the question not being simple and easy to answer since all creation is based on that you own something used in the creation.

Good one about creating another human being

Now as for private property, it is one of the most basic premises of the societies almost everyone on earth lives in these days (now that the other systems have virtually disappeared). You are, of course, free to question the system as such, but that is more of a matter for the politics and religion forum.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Good one about creating another human being

Now as for private property, it is one of the most basic premises of the societies almost everyone on earth lives in these days (now that the other systems have virtually disappeared). You are, of course, free to question the system as such, but that is more of a matter for the politics and religion forum.

The other systems were destroyed by force--which is what's happening to the "intellectual property" that lies under our common culture; it's being taken from the people who live with it and through it, and control is being assigned to corporate shareholders.

How long before copyright infringement lawyers go after "derivatives" like "I had a dream about being rescued by Spiderman and I posted it on my blog?"

[grumbles]

If you are going to take the attitude that copyright should be infinite, then to be consistent then you will also have to take the position that patents should be as well. The consequences of that would be quite ugly.

Since all creative work is based on previous work, all works would become derivative works. You would not be able to create anything new without paying royalties to the original copyright holder. I suggest that those in favour of infinite copyright read Spider Robinson's Melancholy Elephants.

[carld]

Creative works are to do with as the author pleases.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The other systems were destroyed by force

Which one of them was destroyed by force? Eastern Europe? China? The old systems (not recognizing private property) in these countries was destroyed by reformist forces from within. The people had enough. Cuba is next on the list, and North Korea is a real success story, of course.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Good one about creating another human being

Now as for private property, it is one of the most basic premises of the societies almost everyone on earth lives in these days (now that the other systems have virtually disappeared). You are, of course, free to question the system as such, but that is more of a matter for the politics and religion forum.

Lets keep in mind however that private property rights are rarely absolute. Yes, in theory one may have perpetual ownership of a property, but in practice, property can be stripped for a variety of reasons. More than one person has found the state taking their homes or businesses to suit what it thought was a higher purpose (it would be bad enough if it was for roads, or military use, but these days it is likely for "economic development".

Intellectual property is also a totally different beast. Property in the traditional sense is a limited resource. Only one person can occupy a particular space or have physical possession of a physical object. In contrast, many people can have read stories or parse the design present in a patent application. Indeed, the very mechanism of copyright is to create artificial scarcity.

And this brings us back to the notion that copyright is a social contract. The more odious the terms of copyright, the less likely that people are going to perceive them as being fair. When a critical mass is reached people might decide it is better to just pirate because they don't believe the social contract is fair. In an age when information can be copied essentially for free, this would effectively end copyright.

In other words, it is ultimately in the interest of copyright holders to ensure that most everyone (but the most hard core pirate) see the terms of copyright as being fair to the general public. An author may believe his heirs should have perpetual rights to his work, but lets be clear, the public does not hold to such nonsense. Push too much nonsense on them and they will push back.

--
Bill

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Lets keep in mind however that private property rights are rarely absolute. Yes, in theory one may have perpetual ownership of a property, but in practice, property can be stripped for a variety of reasons. More than one person has found the state taking their homes or businesses to suit what it thought was a higher purpose (it would be bad enough if it was for roads, or military use, but these days it is likely for "economic development".

Intellectual property is also a totally different beast. Property in the traditional sense is a limited resource. Only one person can occupy a particular space or have physical possession of a physical object. In contrast, many people can have read stories or parse the design present in a patent application. Indeed, the very mechanism of copyright is to create artificial scarcity.

And this brings us back to the notion that copyright is a social contract. The more odious the terms of copyright, the less likely that people are going to perceive them as being fair. When a critical mass is reached people might decide it is better to just pirate because they don't believe the social contract is fair. In an age when information can be copied essentially for free, this would effectively end copyright.

In other words, it is ultimately in the interest of copyright holders to ensure that most everyone (but the most hard core pirate) see the terms of copyright as being fair to the general public. An author may believe his heirs should have perpetual rights to his work, but lets be clear, the public does not hold to such nonsense. Push too much nonsense on them and they will push back.

--
Bill

What you say makes sense from a practical point of view. With new technologies and digital items you depend much more on the honesty and cooperation of others. So I see no point in pushing things to the limit, and agree that publishers are currently abusing matters with prices that are higher than the pbooks and draconian DRM schemes.

That doesn't change my personal belief in the basic premise that the "social contract" is more of a smoke screen to make it sound more friendly. I don't think intellectual property should be treated different from physical property, even though it can be easily copied. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean we should do it or condone others doing it. Now many people's works can be easily distributed in digital form, not just writers. Why should society protect and value their contributions less because of it? And why should they be held up to a higher standard of social obligation than someone who bakes bread? (I don't mean that to sound derogatory in any way)

Today's society needs citizens with higher standards. Should "hey, I think that price is too high so I just take it" or "the chance that I will caught is virtually zero" really be our guiding principles here? Yes, there are plenty of abuses on the other side. But since when do the misdeeds of others justify our own?

Authors create value. If the books are sold they get money to spend and society gets additional tax income. If they have to write for free society loses just as much as the authors.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

It was a law that gave these rights in the first place so why is it wrong for the law to take them away or change those rights?

Overall I might be fine with that as long as it isn't ever going to be my rights or my property and I cannot be punished in future for something I did when it was considered legal and moral when I did it.

The only way I see to protect my rights is to stand up for and abide by the rights of all.

Some people have more than others including rights, but taking away rights because you do not agree with them is seldom a good thing for society as a whole. One group gets stripped, then another and the process does indeed end in anarchy. Hope I am not stepping over the political line here and have tried not to.

Helen

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Good one about creating another human being

Now as for private property, it is one of the most basic premises of the societies almost everyone on earth lives in these days (now that the other systems have virtually disappeared). You are, of course, free to question the system as such, but that is more of a matter for the politics and religion forum.

What I questioned was the claim that some choice in how to handle these questions was obviously the correct one as you claimed.

[latepaul]

There are a number of examples where "You create something therefore you own it" doesn't apply with physical property. If I build a sandcastle on a public beach do I own it? If I hire you to build a wall in my garden do you own it?

The later is very relevant because creating something as a part of work-for-hire is one of the alternatives to copyright when it comes to creators making a living.

The natural law angle is a funny one because I think we're so immersed in the current system (which has obtained for hundreds of years now) that it's hard to see what's truly natural. However it doesn't take much imagination to think of some person in an earlier time in an oral tribal culture being totally baffled at the idea that your words can be controlled once they leave your mouth. The idea that the stories told around the camp fire somehow "belong" to the teller rather than to all or none. I'm reminded that some indigenous peoples would have a similar problem with the idea that you can own land. Land is where you live and move it's not something you can carry with you and put in your pocket.

So whilst it seems normal to us that a creator has "ownership" over their work I'm not sure how universal that is.

Going back to the "I created it therefore I own it" argument and my counter-examples I suppose someone would say that the key is the resources used. If I owned the sand I'd own the castle, since I own the materials and paid for your time I own the wall. I think that's a reasonable response but it leads me to think about what are the resources, the raw materials used when creating non-physical items. Did you really create it ex nihilo or does your crime novel owe maybe a little to Dashiel, Chandler, etc? The resources from which we create is the culture we live in the books, movies, art and ideas we encounter and breathe in every day and a huge part of that is the public domain.

Of course one can be inspired by a copyrighted work but there are restrictions on what you can do - that's the whole point of copyright - so to have those restrictions end (at some point, we can argue the exact term), seems to benefit society as a whole and so is a way for the creator to pay forward the benefit they received.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

"Mein Kampf" is a perfect example for the value of eternal copyright in some cases. This rambling drivel should disappear from the face of the earth and we would be better off for it. But of course, in most cases life +50 or life +70 seems more than enough. Only a few choice works will be popular enough to still attract people who value them enough so that they want to spend money on them. If we had eternal copyright, then most works which are not commercially viable anymore would just be forgotten. Of course, I can understand Tubemonkey's position that it is wrong to just make a law to take away people's rights "for the good of society" after a certain period. So what is best? Perhaps requiring a payment to extend the copyright after a certain number of years. You don't pay, your copyright expires.

Those who enjoy reading that POS are rarely concerned about copyright. As it isn't illegal to own the book and to sell physical copies that were printed legally (still plenty of tose around) the whole thing doesn't amount to more than an annoying display of the nanny state.

Eternal copyright is a nonsense. Even no copyright at all would be preferable. Any new development would grind to a halt if copyright and patents were eternal.
The promotion of "intellectual property" as something akin to human rights is driven by rent-seeking corporations that want to get eternal revenue from the intellectual property they own. In the case of Disney this is quite ironic as there is no other company that has plundered the shared cultural heritage of mankind as shamelessly as Disney. Artists should be careful what they are asking for. As most art is derivative artists themselves could soon drown in compensation demands if copyright protection were too extensive.

[Thasaidon]

[QUOTE=latepaul;2028923]The natural law angle is a funny one because I think we're so immersed in the current system (which has obtained for hundreds of years now) that it's hard to see what's truly natural. However it doesn't take much imagination to think of some person in an earlier time in an oral tribal culture being totally baffled at the idea that your words can be controlled once they leave your mouth. The idea that the stories told around the camp fire somehow "belong" to the teller rather than to all or none. I'm reminded that some indigenous peoples would have a similar problem with the idea that you can own land. Land is where you live and move it's not something you can carry with you and put in your pocket.

So whilst it seems normal to us that a creator has "ownership" over their work I'm not sure how universal that is.

---------------------------------------------

There are still tribal peoples who within living memory would have also not understood ownership of something you can carry with you and put in your pocket.

I remember seing a documentary some years ago about a people in the Amazon who thought in exactly that way.

[Ginge Club]

I console myself with the thought that if copyright periods stay as they are I'm going to be dead (and long dead at that) before my copyright runs out. Plus, if anyone ever transgresses and inflinges on my copyright I'd be flattered more than anything. The question of who ought to own a work in eternity is an interesting one. Does (insert the name of your your favourite genius) own their songs or not in that sense? Did they originate with him/her, or should the credit go to their muse? What is a muse by the way and where do they live?

George

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We discussed this previously in other threads, the first Western example of copyright I know of was granted by the king of Spain to Antonio Pigafetta in 1523 (Pigafetta was the chronicler for Magellan's expedition and the king did not want to pay him, so he gave Pigafetta 20 years copyright on the published expedition record...

I think I'm missing your point; even in your own example there's a limited term of copyright, not forever. Doesn't that suggest that copyright is different than normal property law, was always recognized as such, and then that difference was codified? And in any event, laws have shifting purposes; tax law wasn't initially used to benefit stay-at-home moms either, but that doesn't stop that from being one of its (many) purposes.

I'm just not quite following how you can agree with Tubemonkey but also cite examples that show that copyright and property rights are different and have been recognized as such for hundreds of years. Where exactly is it that you believe that copyright law flows from (natural rights? God?) if not the common law and copyright legislation, and why do you think it should be given such special treatment?