Books you gave up on ever being ebooks

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ottdmk

The author is entitled to leave the rights to whatever heir he/she so designates. In Eddings' case, the US rights to certain novels were left to a university. To date, said university has shown no interest in exploiting them (or at the very least are really, really taking their time in doing so.)

Precisely. Copyright is an asset and can be exploited (or not) in any way that the legatee desires. A copyright holder has an absolute right to choose not to publish a work that they hold the rights to.

[crossi]

Not absolute, limited, the term set by the government and subject to change. And really needs to go back to the origional 14yrs or so.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Copyright is an asset and can be exploited (or not) in any way that the legatee desires. A copyright holder has an absolute right to choose not to publish a work that they hold the rights to.

You've bought into the idea of ideas as property narrative. Copyright, at least in the US, isn't property, but rather is the exclusive right to copy granted to authors for a limited time in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts. So there are two sides of the bargain. On one side, the author profits from his work. On the other side, the public gains access to that work. Playing dog in the manger hardly advances the arts. I'm pretty sure it isn't possible for an author to profit from his work after he is dead. I'm sympathetic to the idea of that the widow or minor children should get the copyright, but it's not property.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You've bought into the idea of ideas as property narrative. Copyright, at least in the US, isn't property, but rather is the exclusive right to copy granted to authors for a limited time in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts. So there are two sides of the bargain. On one side, the author profits from his work. On the other side, the public gains access to that work. Playing dog in the manger hardly advances the arts. I'm pretty sure it isn't possible for an author to profit from his work after he is dead. I'm sympathetic to the idea of that the widow or minor children should get the copyright, but it's not property.

Will you please define property?
Yes a book is property.
Intellectual property. So art you saying that an author or their estate should give their property away because it might benefit the public? And that the estate shouldn't benefit
Well in that case, a residence could benefit the public.
Should one give their property away to benefit someone else?
Books are no different from a house.
But you do not see a house being given away because the owner died.
But you are saying that someone's hard work should be given away because they are dead.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Will you please define property?
Yes a book is property.
Intellectual property. So art you saying that an author or their estate should give their property away because it might benefit the public? And that the estate shouldn't benefit
Well in that case, a residence could benefit the public.
Should one give their property away to benefit someone else?
Books are no different from a house.
But you do not see a house being given away because the owner died.
But you are saying that someone's hard work should be given away because they are dead.

We aren't talking about books, we are talking about the government granted right to copy books. Copyright, i.e. the right to make copies, i.e. a government granted monopoly.

It is a huge difference. If I want to take your physical book, then once I take it, you no longer have it. If I want to make a copy of your book, then you still have your book. I simply have a copy of it. The right to copy books, isn't a property, it's a law. It's the government saying, if you make a copy of this book, I will punish you. It's no more a property than cussing is.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It is a huge difference. If I want to take your physical book, then once I take it, you no longer have it. If I want to make a copy of your book, then you still have your book. I simply have a copy of it. The right to copy books, isn't a property, it's a law. It's the government saying, if you make a copy of this book, I will punish you. It's no more a property than cussing is.

We've discussed this ad nausiam and nobody's opinion is ever changed by such arguments and counter-arguments. There seems little point in going through it all again. Copyright law is what it is, and while I wish you the best of luck in your renegotiation of the Berne Copyright Convention, I hold little prospect for your success.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

We aren't talking about books, we are talking about the government granted right to copy books. Copyright, i.e. the right to make copies, i.e. a government granted monopoly.

It is a huge difference. If I want to take your physical book, then once I take it, you no longer have it. If I want to make a copy of your book, then you still have your book. I simply have a copy of it. The right to copy books, isn't a property, it's a law. It's the government saying, if you make a copy of this book, I will punish you. It's no more a property than cussing is.

So are you saying that you should be able to copy someone else's words and sell them to make yourself a profit.

I can make a copy of any book I own.. There is no law against that. Personal use is allowed.
What is against the law is if I make a copy and sell that copy. That is violating copyright.
Matter of fact, you can copy a certain percentage of a library book if it is for personal use.

[barryem]

You're all wrong! Intellectual property is whatever we say it is. The "we" in this case is the government who hopefully (wishfully) represents us. If I write a book and you own a house I have as much right to hang on to that book as you have to hang on to your house.

Of course there is the concept of eminent domain. If your house is needed to benefit drivers who need a new highway they'll take it away from you. If my book is needed to benefit humanity ... but wait! Where's the provision to deal with that?

Of course this is all nonsense. The Constitution said 'limited time' which was then defined as 14 years. And it wasn't about ownership. The creator owned distribution rights. No-one can own an idea. That's just silly. Anyway, special interests have lobbied at great expense to turn that Constitutional provision into something that looks like long-term ownership and if we want to remain law abiding citizens we have to let them stick it to us. So folks, bend over and be grateful for the privlige.

If it sounds like I'm against copyright, even in it's silly present form, I'm not. Something is needed and for most of our history what we have is better than nothing at all. I'm not sure that's still true. Maybe! Maybe not! There's a lot to consider. But copyright has always been very artificial and variable and ephemeral and has little to do with anything with a foundation.

The way we do copyrights is dumb as hell. Any changes we make will be equally dumb. The whole idea is dumb. We need it so we do the best we can. That's not very good. It's just the best we can do. But let's do keep griping about it. That's the only chance we have to improve it.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We've discussed this ad nausiam and nobody's opinion is ever changed by such arguments and counter-arguments. There seems little point in going through it all again. Copyright law is what it is, and while I wish you the best of luck in your renegotiation of the Berne Copyright Convention, I hold little prospect for your success.

Fortunately, I live in the good old United States, so I don't have to worry about the Berne Copyright Convention, I just have to worry about the Supreme Court finally recognizing that the words "limited time" have a real meaning, or someone out-bribing the Mouse in Congress.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

So are you saying that you should be able to copy someone else's words and sell them to make yourself a profit.

I can make a copy of any book I own.. There is no law against that. Personal use is allowed.
What is against the law is if I make a copy and sell that copy. That is violating copyright.
Matter of fact, you can copy a certain percentage of a library book if it is for personal use.

Your question is what is property, not if I think that someone else should be able to copy someone else's work and make money. If you are asking if I think that we should have a limited copyright, then I think that we should. I just don't think we should have an unlimited copyright.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Your question is what is property, not if I think that someone else should be able to copy someone else's work and make money. If you are asking if I think that we should have a limited copyright, then I think that we should. I just don't think we should have an unlimited copyright.

It is already limited to life +70.
What do you think it should be?
Oh and I do believe the Mouse is more trademark than copyright.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

It is already limited to life +70.
What do you think it should be?
Oh and I do believe the Mouse is more trademark than copyright.

Look up Steamboat Willie. I think that you will find that you are mistaken.

The original 14 years plus 14 years seems about right to me. It's a pretty rare work that makes significant money past that point. However, my point is more that the value to the public should be as important as the value to the author when it comes to copyright.

[cadele]

Originally Posted by cadele

I have Lisanne Norman's Turning Point (Sholan Alliance book 1) and the later ones in the series, but very annoyingly there is a gap of about 4 books after the first one. Drat that publisher

Well, that was quick work by Daw (or the universe)! Book 2 of the Sholan Alliance is now available.

I just need 3, 4 and 5, pretty please...

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Look up Steamboat Willie. I think that you will find that you are mistaken.

The original 14 years plus 14 years seems about right to me. It's a pretty rare work that makes significant money past that point. However, my point is more that the value to the public should be as important as the value to the author when it comes to copyright.

Ok we were thinking 2 different things.
I was thinking the princesses.
Anyone can use Cinderella, but her description cannot look anything like the Disney version.

Also Steamboat Willie is a film not a book and I thought they had different copyrights and I do believe the Mouse is trademarked as well as copyrighted.
And if I remember correctly, Walt Disney has only been gone 50 years.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Fortunately, I live in the good old United States, so I don't have to worry about the Berne Copyright Convention, I just have to worry about the Supreme Court finally recognizing that the words "limited time" have a real meaning, or someone out-bribing the Mouse in Congress.

The US is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which requires a minimum copyright term of life + 50 years.