Europe votes on anti-piracy laws

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

again, nobody has any business monitering my traffic just in case i might be uploading a book to The Darknet. my privacy is important to me, and i don't want it compromised, and ESPECIALLY not for such issues as potential copyright infringement, since i also have not seen ANY evidence supporting the alarmist proclamations that The Darknet will kill all creation. in fact, the (completely empiric, granted, but nonetheless ONLY) evidence i have seen, would tend to prove the opposite.

That wasn't what I asked you.

If I discover that a person is illegally offering one of my books for download on the internet, do you believe that I should have a right to discover the identity of that person to allow me to prosecute them? I believe that I should have that right. At present, it is denied me unless I am some "mega-corporation" who can afford to take the ISP to court to force them to hand over the person's personal details. That seems WRONG to me. The criminal is seen as having a "right" to anonymity while the rights of the "victim" of the crime (the author) are being ignored.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And no, no one has a "right" to make a living. Just because an author wrote something doesn't mean the public will think it's worth paying for. I'm not talking about piracy, I'm talking about crappy product.

I didn't say that authors have an automatic right to make a living. I said that they have a right to get paid by users of their product. Clearly if nobody uses it, because it's a bad producd, the author isn't going to make any money, copyright law or no copyright law.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An author's income from his work forms his "estate". Suppose an author is married, and dies; is there really anything wrong with their wife/husband and children being able to continue receiving income from the sale of the author's books? If the person had bought shares in a company, they could be passed on in the author's will (and shares are just as "ephemeral" as "rights" to a book). Why single out "intellectual" work as not been permitted to benefit the dependents of the author? It just seems wholy unreasonable to me.

Will the surviving spouse continue to produce new work by the deceased author? Will the surviving spouse continue to do so for 70 years after the death of the author?

This is the point of copyright, to encourage a creator to make more. A dead creator cannot make more and thus does not need copyright protection.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

This is the point of copyright, to encourage a creator to make more. A dead creator cannot make more and thus does not need copyright protection.

That may have been the intent 200 years ago when authors were "gentlemen" who didn't have to work for a living. Clearly, times have changed, and today virtually all authors write to make money, and income from their books is their only "asset". To say that those assets cannot be handed on to their dependents seems WRONG to me.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That may have been the intent 200 years ago when authors were "gentlemen" who didn't have to work for a living. Clearly, times have changed, and today virtually all authors write to make money, and income from their books is their only "asset". To say that those assets cannot be handed on to their dependents seems WRONG to me.

when exactly was writing reserved for wealthy gentlemen who had no need to work ?? there have always been plenty of poor authors, just like there have always been plenty of starving artists. it's never been a good professional choice if your end goal is to get rich. copyright really can't change that, and wasn't meant to, and shouldn't try.

and yes, the authors should be free to pass on *whatever money they earned while alive* to their spouses or children or local dog shelter. but copyright should not outlast them by 70 years. that's not the same at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

and yes, the authors should be free to pass on *whatever money they earned while alive* to their spouses or children or local dog shelter. but copyright should not outlast them by 70 years. that's not the same at all.

Is there really any fundamental difference between intellectual property and "physical" property? You seem to be saying that it's "OK" to pass on physical property to your heirs, but not intellectual property. Why do you make that distinction? Is intellectual property less "valued" than physical property? Is it less work to create it? I don't think it is!

If I build a house, I can pass on the ownership of that house to my children. You're saying that if, instead of building a house, I write a book, I shouldn't be allowed to pass on rights to income from the book to my children? Can you explain what the difference in the two situations is? I really can't see any!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Or don't you believe that anyone has the right to make a living by writing books or music?

Of course there is no right to make a living on any specific thing. Do you really believe there are such rights? If so why should I not be able to make a living on anything I want to do?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... today virtually all authors write to make money, and income from their books is their only "asset". ...

"not many writers manage to make a living from writing"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blast/writing/a...n_author.shtml

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That wasn't what I asked you.

If I discover that a person is illegally offering one of my books for download on the internet, do you believe that I should have a right to discover the identity of that person

Definitely not. Even the police do not have the right to be able to discover criminals. Why should you have it?

Or what do you mean by "right"?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there really any fundamental difference between intellectual property and "physical" property? You seem to be saying that it's "OK" to pass on physical property to your heirs, but not intellectual property. Why do you make that distinction? Is intellectual property less "valued" than physical property? Is it less work to create it? I don't think it is!

Yes, there is a huge difference. IP is a misnomer. It is not a right but a privilege granted to the creator in order to encourage the creator to make more. Go back and read Macaulay. What he said then still applies.
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That may have been the intent 200 years ago when authors were "gentlemen" who didn't have to work for a living. Clearly, times have changed, and today virtually all authors write to make money, and income from their books is their only "asset". To say that those assets cannot be handed on to their dependents seems WRONG to me.

They have income a certain number of years. How did that income not become an asset that can be handed on?

What seems WRONG to me is that the advantage of handing down assets as you want to do is so small compared to the advantage of having the books free to use for everybody.

[Nate the great]

Here is what separates IP from physical property. Physical property exists; you can put your hands on it. IP would not exist without having been legislated into existense.

[HarryT]

I mean, Tommy, that if I have proof that a machine with a specific IP address is offering my copyrighted material for download illegally, I should have a right to be able to obtain the name and address of the person whose internet connection is being used from their ISP. That seems reasonable to me. Why should a criminal be able to hide behind a "cloak of anonymity"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Here is what separates IP from physical property. Physical property exists; you can put your hands on it. IP would not exist without having been legislated into existense.

So what about, say, shares in a company? Shares are a completely abstract concept - they are a measure of "ownership", which certainly isn't anything physical. And yet the law has no problem with you leaving somebody company shares in your will. Shares are just as much "intellectual property" as income from a book is.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So what about, say, shares in a company? Shares are a completely abstract concept - they are a measure of "ownership", which certainly isn't anything physical. And yet the law has no problem with you leaving somebody company shares in your will. Shares are just as much "intellectual property" as income from a book is.

Harry, if "shares" are not something physical, then the entirety of ownership, e.g. the title to your car, is also not something physical. 'nuff said.