U.S. Supreme Court may revoke the right to resell

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JoeD

What are laws but words on a page?

Well we have natural laws, such as the natural right to read whatever we can.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well we have natural laws, such as the natural right to read whatever we can.

I'm not sure what you mean by natural? But the right to read is restricted in some countries or for certain content and that restriction is in turn governed by laws.

Laws much like national borders are what people want them to be and are willing to fight over them been and with laws much like national borders not everyone gets what they want.

Whilst they may be a line on a map or words on a page, that's not all they are or mean.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I'm not sure what you mean by natural? But the right to read is restricted in some countries or for certain content and that restriction is in turn governed by laws.

Laws much like national borders are what people want them to be and are willing to fight over them been and with laws much like national borders not everyone gets what they want.

Whilst they may be a line on a map or words on a page, that's not all they are or mean.

By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??

That's what laws are based on in general though aren't they? It's just that what feels right for some doesn't feel right for others. So we end up with a point where a group has to decide which right is going to be considered right for everyone.

It's not possible for everyone to do what they feel is right because everyone's idea of right and wrong does not always mesh (see any news site for examples :P)

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??

Damn straight it does. No one but me have the right to read my journal, for example.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by K. Molen

Damn straight it does. No one but me have the right to read my journal, for example.

A journal is not published so is not a counter example here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

A journal is not published so is not a counter example here.

It is, though, a perfectly valid example of the importance of copyright. One of the often-overlooked aspects of copyright law is the right to keep private things private by choosing not to publish them that it grants.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is, though, a perfectly valid example of the importance of copyright. One of the often-overlooked aspects of copyright law is the right to keep private things private by choosing not to publish them that it grants.

Well if you do not publish it is private. I do not believe you can give a reasonable scenario were copyright laws help keep things private.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well if you do not publish it is private. I do not believe you can give a reasonable scenario were copyright laws help keep things private.

It is what stops someone who has accessed your private documents publishing them.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??

I'm sure that, to someone who wants to restrict your rights to read certain books, it just feels wrong to let someone read anything they want.

Certainly this isn't limited to totalitarian governments. I know some very religous people who feel that it's simply *wrong* to want to read certain books (and are appalled at my letting my kids read whatever they want, instead of "guiding" them.)

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is, though, a perfectly valid example of the importance of copyright. One of the often-overlooked aspects of copyright law is the right to keep private things private by choosing not to publish them that it grants.

This, of course, makes irrelevant the most prominent of the justifications for copyright's restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge; namely that it promotes the creation of new works (and hence enhances the store of human knowledge) by giving authors the profit from them.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by tompe

A journal is not published so is not a counter example here.

Of course you are right that my example was slightly absurd, but Giggleton didn't say anything about the material having to have been published ("...the natural right to read whatever we can." - embhasis mine) and from what I've read of his writings here I wouldn't put it past him at all to be of the opinion that anything written down should be something anyone can read.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??

I can see an instance where allowing someone to read what they want instantly for free (author's rights aside) could be harmful.

Someone wants to read the latest James Patterson perhaps. One assumes they have read all the other James Patterson books either second hand or through the library and will not read anything but James Patterson to make this an urgent need and do not have any cash. Is it good for them to restrict their reading this way and if they do get and read the book, what then? A great wailing and gnashing of teeth until the next book is released? What will they do.

Reading choices have always been restricted to what is available and/or affordable. Most fiction books (not all) are available to anyone in most democratic countries for little or no cost. Maybe they have to read the paper book, but not many have died from that. Millions of people have read paper books for years without any significant loss of freedom or brain damage, maybe a few cases of eyestrain from over-reading, but probably no worse than over-reading ebooks.


The truly destitute, those who cannot read even if literate, as they are too cold and hungry to concentrate on anything else are much more deserving of your attention than those who have devices capable of reading ebooks. Maybe they and yourself are very poor by your standards, but if they can worry about reading exactly what they want, they aren't by mine.

Helen

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

This, of course, makes irrelevant the most prominent of the justifications for copyright's restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge; namely that it promotes the creation of new works (and hence enhances the store of human knowledge) by giving authors the profit from them.

Not really.

The right to not publish a work is more of a side-effect (possibly an important one) of copyright. And I suppose you can use copyright to defend your journal, but there are other laws that help protect privacy.

Your point I think is the key one. Copyright is a time-limited monopoly on a work as enticement to publish and make it available to read. The monopoly allows the author to profit from the work so that they can do two things:

1) Get rewarded for the work done.
2) Possibly make a career out of fields that produce work like this (books, art, software, etc).

The catch is that the work needs to enrich the public domain at some point. And I think this is where copyright has failed to deliver on the original promise. The monopoly is not very time-limited anymore, and if you "hit it big", residuals in some industries are big enough to set you up for life as long as you can keep profiting off of it.

And Giggleton's point about natural laws may be somewhat valid, but it is difficult to reconcile a capitalist economy with "everything creative is public domain". The end result is that you actually disincentive creation of works if the idea that anything I create is automatically the public's the moment I publish it. Mostly because I'm trading the opportunity cost of things such as home and shelter doing work that I can pull an income from, versus something where I may only ever get paid for the first copy, and depends completely on how honor-bound people are to compensating me for the effort it took to create that work. Copyright's intent is to try to compromise between a money economy and enriching the society through works.

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??

Yes, it does.
There is a name for a lawless society; it's called "anarchy".

Or, as someone once said "Your rights stop where my nose begins"