Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I think I'm missing your point; even in your own example there's a limited term of copyright, not forever.

I suppose it wasn't even a copyright but rather a trade privilege, as it had to be specifically conferred on him.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

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?

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here. I am not for eternal copyright like Tubemonkey. I am just saying that his position is very consistent, I see the inherent logic and that it is a very slippery slope to just legislate people's rights away. Of course, physical and intellectual property are not exactly the same. But why should society provide more protection for the physical kind? It seems unfair. Human beings are not ants, it is not human nature for the individual to sacrifice everything for the sake of the advancement of society (even though some special people do, of course). Human society exists for the betterment of the individual and for the protection of the individuals rights. In exchange the individual pays taxes and abides by the laws of society.That is how I see it.

But as a practical matter, I think life +50 is plenty, few works have any monetary value left after that, anyway. And there are many other problems with eternal copyright, as others have so often pointed out.

As far as my example goes, what wanted to point out is that the origins of copyright were centered on the author's rights. There was no contract with society or obligation to society involved. I am sure the reason for the time limit was not the public good. The only ones who benefited from expiration were the printers, the public had to pay either way to get a copy.

[Ninjalawyer]

Ah, thanks for the clarification!

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If they have to write for free society loses just as much as the authors.

Ever notice how the pro-extreme-copyright segment always seems to go to the "if we don't increase copyright protection as much as possible, authors would never get paid" argument? Sad.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Ever notice how the pro-extreme-copyright segment always seems to go to the "if we don't increase copyright protection as much as possible, authors would never get paid" argument? Sad.

From what I have read in this forum, only Tubemonkey is a proponent of eternal copyright. And for him it seems to be a matter of principle. I wasn't really arguing for an increase from current levels.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

I am not talking about either prices or DRM schemes here. Those are simply misuses of the powers that copyright grants and that would be true even if copyright was much shorter than it now is. Specifically I am talking about the notion that copyright should be treated the same as physical property including the notion that tubemonkey has that it should be perpetual.

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)

Again, I am not supporting people breaking copyright. Authors should have a fair chance to receive compensation for their work. What I and most others here are arguing is that copyright terms are currently unreasonably long (too long actually for the benefit of all but an elite few authors).

That being said, by its very nature copyright must treat its subject different than physical property. You referenced the baker. Yes, it would be wrong for me to steal bread from him; no one however would complain if I watched how he made bread, and then made my own bread in an identical fashion. In other words, copying his bread is perfectly legal. If we applied the same standards to books, it might be illegal to steal copies of books, but it would be perfectly legal to make your own copies and sell them.

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.

Again, we are talking about the term of copyright here. I don't think many of us support abandoning copyright, or if we do it should be replaced in a way that allows authors to still receive compensation for their work.

What we are talking about is the notion that copyright should be perpetual (which you said you don't believe in anyway) or even just really long. In a culture where new art has always been built on top of older art, overly lengthy terms of copyright are becoming harmful to development of new culture.


--
Bill

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

...You referenced the baker. Yes, it would be wrong for me to steal bread from him; no one however would complain if I watched how he made bread, and then made my own bread in an identical fashion. In other words, copying his bread is perfectly legal. If we applied the same standards to books, it might be illegal to steal copies of books, but it would be perfectly legal to make your own copies and sell them.

Or if the replicator from Star Trek were a reality: If I make an exact copy of his loaf of bread but he still has his original loaf then nothing was stolen. If I attempt to sell my replicator versions of the bread, then the baker has a valid complaint. If I keep the bread within my own home then it is beyond the scope of the baker (or anyone else) to decide whether I have committed any crimes or broken any laws. This is what seems to be lost on so many. A limited copyright (like 10 years) is okay with me but it does not extend to the walls of my home unless it can be proven I am selling the item for profit...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

It's hard for me to think of much land, in any country, that has legally transferred from one owner to another by some non-violent legal process going back to 1512. What I am missing?

The UK? Most of Western Europe?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Or if the replicator from Star Trek were a reality: If I make an exact copy of his loaf of bread but he still has his original loaf then nothing was stolen. If I attempt to sell my replicator versions of the bread, then the baker has a valid complaint. If I keep the bread within my own home then it is beyond the scope of the baker (or anyone else) to decide whether I have committed any crimes or broken any laws. This is what seems to be lost on so many. A limited copyright (like 10 years) is okay with me but it does not extend to the walls of my home unless it can be proven I am selling the item for profit...

Um actually, even if you sell bread outside your home the baker has no reason to complain... unless of course his bread is protected by some aspect of intellectual property, and unless he has developed a new way of baking, or has his trademark incorporated into the bread.

As for the latter, at least under current copyright law, if you make a full copy of a book that you say borrowed from a library, you are violating the law even if you don't profit from it.

--
Bill

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Um actually, even if you sell bread outside your home the baker has no reason to complain... unless of course his bread is protected by some aspect of intellectual property, and unless he has developed a new way of baking, or has his trademark incorporated into the bread.

Why shouldn't his recipe and cooking instructions be just as protected as IP as a book, or a song? Sure, his recipe has only minor differences from any other bread recipe, but those differences are enough to bring customers to him instead of his competition.

What makes his bread less proprietary than, say, a 12-note ringtone tune?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

You referenced the baker. Yes, it would be wrong for me to steal bread from him; no one however would complain if I watched how he made bread, and then made my own bread in an identical fashion. In other words, copying his bread is perfectly legal. If we applied the same standards to books, it might be illegal to steal copies of books, but it would be perfectly legal to make your own copies and sell them.

Bill

Well, let us take services. You get on a bus and don't pay. You sneak into a movie theater and you don't pay. The bus would drive even if you are not on it, the movie would play anyway. So, by your logic, you wouldn't have taken anything. And the baker sure as hell wouldn't let you watch if he had any reason to believe you would copy his bread, by the way.

Yes, we have to change with digital items. We have to change our attitudes. What copyright grants is the exclusive right to make copies. You can make a copy --- but that copy is illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to exist (fair use exceptions aside). I think this "I take one but they still have the original left" argument is an excuse. You take one and you wind up with something illegal on your hands. It is much easier to take than physical items, but for the "taker" it is the result is the same. Only the impact on the other side is different.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, we have to change with digital items. We have to change our attitudes. What copyright grants is the exclusive right to make copies. You can make a copy --- but that copy is illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to exist (fair use exceptions aside).

Stipulated. But that doesn't make the second copy "theft," any more than breaking into someone's house and smashing their TV is "theft." Different type of illegal activity.

I think this "I take one but they still have the original left" argument is an excuse.

No, it's a major part of the objection to "it should be treated like physical property."

Physical property can only be used by a limited number of people at a time--often one. If you make a chair, you can sit in it, or someone else can sit in it. (I suppose if you're very good friends, both of you can sit in it.) If you make a book, you can read aloud to six people, or a dozen, or, a good loudspeaker, to several thousand at once.

When you no longer want someone else to use your chair, you can take it away. When you no longer want someone to use the ideas in your book, you can't to much about that except maybe hope their memory is limited.

You take one and you wind up with something illegal on your hands. It is much easier to take than physical items, but for the "taker" it is the result is the same. Only the impact on the other side is different.

The question is, why is it illegal? It's not illegal to watch someone exercising, and then do the same moves for your own benefit, even though you're copying something they may have created. You haven't deprived them of anything. What makes "words written on paper" so much different from "movements done by the body" that one is legal to copy and one isn't?

(Semi-rhetorical question. I have answers; I don't know what your answers are.)

If I take away your chair, you no longer have a place to sit. If I make a copy of your book, what do you lack?

The common answer is "a sale," but you didn't have a sale before, and me wanting a copy is not the same as me being willing to pay for it. If I wasn't going to pay for it, what do you lack? Why is it more moral to read my friend's copy instead of making a copy for myself?

Note: that has nothing to do with keeping a copy, or distributing it. What's inherently wrong with the *making* of a copy? Who is harmed by it, and how?

(Again: I have my answers; I don't know what someone who thinks "copies are theft" would think.)

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why shouldn't his recipe and cooking instructions be just as protected as IP as a book, or a song? Sure, his recipe has only minor differences from any other bread recipe, but those differences are enough to bring customers to him instead of his competition.

What makes his bread less proprietary than, say, a 12-note ringtone tune?

Bread baking isn't the best of examples. Even when two cooks follow the exact same instructions and use the same ingredients, there will always be noticeable differences. For example, when I follow my mom's gingerbread recipie, hers comes out perfect every time. Mine (because I have to flour my bundt pan) comes out moist on the bottom instead of the top and has these annoying little white scabs on it. We're following the same instructions and using the same ingredients, but looks different and can taste different too.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The UK? Most of Western Europe?

Did you see #41? murrarypaul makes a point there, seemingly in support of what I wrote, that I hadn't thought of.

My mind was more on political upheavals such as Henry VIII giving church lands to his nobles, the English Civil War, the Restoration, the French Revolution, and the end of the Papal States.

Of course, some land has been more or less handed down in the same ownership chain for 500 years, as murraypaul notes in #42. Just not most.

Getting back to books, a lot of great authors didn't have children (Brontës) or have no surviving descendents (Shakespeare). I don't see who today could speak for them. Where survivors exist, there's no real reason to believe they would respect, or even know, the author's preferences for how to deal with his or her literary property. I don't even see who could say whether Hemingway would want his stuff DRM'd.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Getting back to books, a lot of great authors didn't have children (Brontës) or have no surviving descendents (Shakespeare). I don't see who today could speak for them. Where survivors exist, there's no real reason to believe they would respect, or even know, the author's preferences for how to deal with his or her literary property. I don't even see who could say whether Hemingway would want his stuff DRM'd.

I can imagine how that would go. The bill template would generously give the royalties to the government, for later blame shifting and conspiracy theories about the government plotting to seize all royalty money.