EU Piracy Report

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

NO...I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that if someone wants to keep control of their work in any way, then yes...why shouldn't they have to pay a very nominal fee to keep control of it. I have to pay a (not nominal) fee to keep control of my property. Nobody is "entitled" to make money off of your work--I'm not saying that in any way, shape, or form. I actually said that if you don't want to publish it, you shouldn't have to, as long as you do *something* to acknowledge that you want to keep it. I would even go so far as to say that as long as the creator is alive, no fee would be needed.

What about authors who die with no heirs? Or heirs that just don't care about their works? In that case, the work would revert back to the public domain. If the heirs wanted to keep control, they would have to pay the fee. Again...this would enable the heirs of classic works to keep control for far longer than they currently can.

I'm not saying that ANYONE but the author (or heirs) should be able to profit from the work...as long as the author (or the heirs) cares enough to keep the work.

Shari

How is $20 nominal?
To some people that would mean the difference between eating and starving.

But I guess guarding one's WORK not property is more important.
Please go pay your boss for the privilege of working there.
Obviously you think people should pay to protect what they created.
Did you know when you bought your house that there are fees involved with ownership? You chose to buy not rent.
Did you know there were fees to be able to drive your car?
Those are choices you made. You own and don't use public transportation.

You do not make money off your house, one does make money off their books.
Writing is work. Buying a house is not work.

They are not the same.


Now please tell me what out of print book is so important that someone needs to make sure it is available as an ebook.

Just one example.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

...Now please tell me what out of print book is so important that someone needs to make sure it is available as an ebook.

Just one example.

I think you are missing the point, it is a case of both the author and those who granted rights to them (i.e. the general public through their government representatives) both having rights on their respective sides of the gift of copyright (a gift as it is free). It is not a case of what book is so important in the world of writing that it needs to be available.

It would seem a simple expectation to me that if a rights holder is leaving a work out of print that those of us who granted them their exclusive right in the first place should perhaps have the right to continue to have easy access to the work should we want to. In fact some authors take it upon themselves to allow that to happen for no monetary return to themselves.

As just one example, I have an eBook copy of an autobiography that has been out of print but the rights holder has subsequently allowed an eBook of that to be prepared and made available by others free (it is made available for free download from their nation's electronic text collection so there is no profit motive anywhere). In my case I have a print copy from when it was first released but there is no requirement that be so if one wants the eBook.

It is not a work that meets your criteria of being "important enough in the world of writing that it needs to be available" as no book will meet that criteria, but it is in fact an important biography for study (it is the most important one out of many on its subject person) and is of quite wide interest. This right holder seems to believe that their being given a right incurs a responsibility to manage that right with a concern for the ongoing interests of those who granted them that right in the first place.

[AnotherCat]

It occurs to me that it is likely a little recognized fact that conferring exclusive rights to authors comes at a cost to everyone else; they get their gift of rights for free, but it is a burden on the taxpayers of the nations where those rights lie.

For example, as part of the TPP trade agreement negotiations New Zealand was required to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years. The cost of that to the nation was costed at around NZ$55million per year over the long term. That in a country of population a little under 5 million, so the cost of that extension is around NZ$11 per person per year over the long term (Source of the cost: NZ Government Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade TPP benefits and implications analysis).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Here's a simple question, which I put in my other post: if I write a book, and I copyright it, and NEVER publish it--is it the position of the "anti-copyright-dura" folks, that they're then entitled to that book, in some X amount of time?

Is that manuscript MY property, and that of any heirs and designees, or theirs? There's always a lot of kerfuffle about how the book is OOP, yadda, yadda. If the entire question somehow is being tied to the duration of copyright--then, X years after my death, who OWNS or is entitled to that unpublished--but copyrighted--manuscript?

Since copyright is a function of law and government, it's necessary to specify which laws and government we're discussing in this hypothetical, and when.

Let's take a manuscript written in the USA last year.

The mere act if writing it down has meant it's copyright. The manuscript containing the written work is clearly private property. No one can copy the work whether or not the government gets involved, because there's only the manuscript. It can be retained unpublished indefinitely.

But what happens if someone surreptitiously obtains a copy of the work? Can they publish it? Well no. The work is in copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years.

What about after that lifetime plus 70 years? I beleive that in current USA law, the work then loses its copyright, and anyone able to obtain a copy could legally publish it.

Your position seems to be that this limitation is unfair. Personally, if the author and their heirs has chosen to neither publish nor destroy the manuscript for at least 70 years, I don't see that they should have the right to prevent publication.

The actual manuscript, of course, remains the property of the heirs. They have just lost the monopoly on publication.

[doubleshuffle]

Since the idea behind copyright is giving an incentive to creativity, the whole idea that it should persist for a long period after the author's death is just wrong.

There is a great interview with German author Arno Schmidt from the late sixties or early seventies. He's as strong a proponent of copyright as you can find in this interview, because his latest work has been pirated and he is livid about it. He's so furious that as a listener (I've heard the audio of the interview) you are worried he might have a heart attack. He leaves no doubt about the fact that he thinks book pirates are scum, and he has tons of great arguments to support the point.

Then, near the end, he is asked about the then current plan to extend copyright from Life +20 to Life +50, and he replies that he finds it preposterous. Life +20 is plenty, he says, enough for the author's heirs get a fair share, and then the work should fall to the public domain.

I agree with Schmidt. Why should generations of heirs make money from a book their ancestor wrote?

[Dutchbook]

Originally Posted by Apache

Wasn't Roman Law enacted by Roman Government?
Apache

Roman law was enacted by a people's tribune (read: random people in the marketplace), based on their moral opinions. It wasn't until 529-534 that the government tried to codify a set of rules.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by shalym

If I did make money with my house or my car, I would have to pay income tax on that.

If I don't pay my property tax, then the town/state can foreclose and sell them to anyone they want.

The $750 per year is ONLY for property tax--insurance and registration are an added expense.

As to your second question, the only things that there are in the world that are essential to everyone is water, food, and oxygen. Anything else is a want. So no...there is no book that is "absolutely a must for everyone". So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

Shari

Isn't property tax for general upkeep of the town/city and car tax for upkeep of the roads? (Honest question, not sure how it works in America)

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by shalym

In my case, at least, the kerfluffle isn't about works that are being deliberately held back, really. It's more about works that aren't being made available because nobody is really sure who controls the rights. If a nominal fee had to be paid every few years to maintain copyright, that wouldn't happen.

Shari

As it stands now this becomes tricky with things like diaries etc, virtually everything becomes copyrighted as soon as it is produced.

Simplest way to implement a fee now is to change the way things work so copyright is for anything published and data protection laws for anything unpublished, this would mean getting the Berne convention changed though, as it's exactly this case it was created to stop (Prior to Data Protection Laws though).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Simplest way [...] getting the Berne convention changed

If the simplest way is to change a 130-year-old international treaty with well over 100 signed up members, I don't think it's going to ever happen.

The best we can hope for is that the extension of copyright terms to longer than specified in the Berne convention is eventually rolled back.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

How is $20 nominal?
To some people that would mean the difference between eating and starving.

But I guess guarding one's WORK not property is more important.
Please go pay your boss for the privilege of working there.
Obviously you think people should pay to protect what they created.
Did you know when you bought your house that there are fees involved with ownership? You chose to buy not rent.
Did you know there were fees to be able to drive your car?
Those are choices you made. You own and don't use public transportation.

You do not make money off your house, one does make money off their books.
Writing is work. Buying a house is not work.

They are not the same.


Now please tell me what out of print book is so important that someone needs to make sure it is available as an ebook.

Just one example.

As I said in an earlier post, $20 per year in the US *is* nominal. It's less than 50 cents per week. My unemployed sister who is a full time student could afford $20 per year...if it was something that was important to her.

Shari

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Since the idea behind copyright is giving an incentive to creativity, the whole idea that it should persist for a long period after the author's death is just wrong.

There is a great interview with German author Arno Schmidt from the late sixties or early seventies. He's as strong a proponent of copyright as you can find in this interview, because his latest work has been pirated and he is livid about it. He's so furious that as a listener (I've heard the audio of the interview) you are worried he might have a heart attack. He leaves no doubt about the fact that he thinks book pirates are scum, and he has tons of great arguments to support the point.

Then, near the end, he is asked about the then current plan to extend copyright from Life +20 to Life +50, and he replies that he finds it preposterous. Life +20 is plenty, he says, enough for the author's heirs get a fair share, and then the work should fall to the public domain.

I agree with Schmidt. Why should generations of heirs make money from a book their ancestor wrote?

Sorry, Doubleshuff, but I disagree. An author, unlike other people who work, takes his or her recompense, for their work, over a much, much longer period of time. If you work, most likely, you are compensated either weekly or biweekly or monthly.

An author may work the same period of time as you--let's say, for a typical, full-length, decently-written novel, a year. In that year, you get paid your due for that labor's period. The author may not make that money for a much longer period.

You can leave whatever you earn, in your LIFETIME, to your children, your pets, your local charity, or whatever you want.

If you leave your children money--say, in a trust--they can live on that money, or, they can live on interest or investment income from that money.

Why should the author's children be denied the same right? If the author's estate's VALUE is made up of money AND copyrighted material, why should they be deprived of the value of the copyright material?

Why should your children be allowed to inherit your money or your property? Why are YOUR children more entitled than a writer's?

Every time this discussion comes up, authors and other content creators are always--always--magically relegated to some lesser class than EVERYBODY else. Everyone seems to feel that they're entitled to take that person's creative endeavors from them, or from their heirs, etc.

I don't get it.

@AnotherCat:

I can tell that you're not from the US. Your idea is that the government "grants" copyright to writers, as if they are the ultimate arbiters of what's right. In the US, we feel that law exists to codify rights with which we are already imbued, like the codification of the rights to free speech, worship, etc., in our Bill of Rights, etc.

I'd argue that copyright law exists to protect the pre-existing rights of creators to their OWN BLOODY creations. It's not some magnanimous "grant" of rights from The Government.

Copyright law exists for the simple reason that without it, people wouldn't bother to create valuable (by which I mean, provides value to the reader, of whatever kind, fiction, non-fiction, etc.) written products like books. Why would they, if those could be taken by anyone who wants it? Without recompense? We ALL, ALL, want payment for our labors. There's hardly anything indecent or abnormal or GREEDY in that.

ALL of us can create wealth of some type that can generate income after death--period. Why should authors be some lesser class of individuals?

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

As I said in an earlier post, $20 per year in the US *is* nominal. It's less than 50 cents per week. My unemployed sister who is a full time student could afford $20 per year...if it was something that was important to her.

Shari

Maybe in your circles $20 is nominal. I know more people that would lose those rights than could keep them. Like I said $20 is not always nominal. Some people barely live paycheck to paycheck and wouldn't have the extra funds.
Sometimes $5 is not nominal.
I hate when people say x dollars in nominal or x is cheaper than y in the US.
Neither is accurate.
Yes, for some people $20 is nothing. For others $20 is a lot of money. That depends on your social status. Have you ever had to bum food because you didn't have enough to get through the month? Have you ever had to make a deal with your landlord to pay your rent in chunks? If not, then please don't tell me $20 is nominal. I know a few people that work and still have to go to the food bank for food.

Shari, we seem to live in two different worlds. You think $20 is nothing and I have seen too many instances where $20 is a lot of money.

I have also seen our region have upwards of 50% unemployment because the jobs left. They are back now.

This conversation reminds me of the mushroom/meat debate.
Some people were claiming that Portobello mushrooms were cheaper than meat in the US. That statement is false. Here Portobello mushrooms are $7.58 a pound. Meats start at $2.97 a pound.

There is no US when it comes to money. It is all regional and social class.
That includes everything from housing to food to starting incomes.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by shalym

As I said in an earlier post, $20 per year in the US *is* nominal. It's less than 50 cents per week. My unemployed sister who is a full time student could afford $20 per year...if it was something that was important to her.

Shari

Shari:

With all due respect--and without pointing this person out--there's a person that frequents these forums, all the time, who could not POSSIBLY pay that, to retain some relative's rights. His/her living situation is such that literally, pennies count. That's an American, living with some physical issues with a spouse with an emotional/mental challenge. That's just ONE person, from these forums.

How many others do you think there are, that are like that, in the USA? A country where we had some horrible number of people, a %, on foodstamps, not that long ago?

I can, easily, afford $20/year. But not everyone can, and I don't make the mistake of thinking that it's a pittance to everyone.

Moreover, just on principle, no, I don't agree that the heirs and devisees of an author should be OBLIGATED to make the book available during its copyright period. If they want to, great. But why should they pay for it, just to HAVE it? That's what you're saying--to keep what they've inherited, even if it's not earning a dime, they have to pay for it. Sorry, but...again, that feels awfully cavalier about someone else's property--intellectual or otherwise. And bear in mind--if that copyright is construed to have value, those selfsame heirs/devisees may WELL have paid the infamous Inheritance Tax on it, as well. In fact, probably did--so, now, the author paid taxes on any advance and any royalties, while he was alive; his heirs will (possibly) pay Inheritance tax on that self-same already-taxed money that they inherit, and now they're going to pay a tax--er, fee--to keep the copyright that is, under your scenario, NOT earning them any money?

Man. That just feels egregious to me. And the "publishing police" I mentioned earlier--who's doing that? You said, if they don't make the book available, they have to pay a fee. Who enforces that? Who assesses and collects it? That would be some type of enforcement arm--the publishing police, whatever you call them. Whoever they may be. So, back to my question--I get pissed off, as an heir, and I print, and "publish" 5 copies, to my relatives. Does that get me off the Fee hook?

The logistics of it are truly mind-numbing to think about. The IRS isn't already intrusive enough into our lives?


Hitch

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Shari:

With all due respect--and without pointing this person out--there's a person that frequents these forums, all the time, who could not POSSIBLY pay that, to retain some relative's rights. His/her living situation is such that literally, pennies count. That's an American, living with some physical issues with a spouse with an emotional/mental challenge. That's just ONE person, from these forums.

How many others do you think there are, that are like that, in the USA? A country where we had some horrible number of people, a %, on foodstamps, not that long ago?

I can, easily, afford $20/year. But not everyone can, and I don't make the mistake of thinking that it's a pittance to everyone.

Moreover, just on principle, no, I don't agree that the heirs and devisees of an author should be OBLIGATED to make the book available during its copyright period. If they want to, great. But why should they pay for it, just to HAVE it? That's what you're saying--to keep what they've inherited, even if it's not earning a dime, they have to pay for it. Sorry, but...again, that feels awfully cavalier about someone else's property--intellectual or otherwise. And bear in mind--if that copyright is construed to have value, those selfsame heirs/devisees may WELL have paid the infamous Inheritance Tax on it, as well. In fact, probably did--so, now, the author paid taxes on any advance and any royalties, while he was alive; his heirs will (possibly) pay Inheritance tax on that self-same already-taxed money that they inherit, and now they're going to pay a tax--er, fee--to keep the copyright that is, under your scenario, NOT earning them any money?

Man. That just feels egregious to me. And the "publishing police" I mentioned earlier--who's doing that? You said, if they don't make the book available, they have to pay a fee. Who enforces that? Who assesses and collects it? That would be some type of enforcement arm--the publishing police, whatever you call them. Whoever they may be. So, back to my question--I get pissed off, as an heir, and I print, and "publish" 5 copies, to my relatives. Does that get me off the Fee hook?

The logistics of it are truly mind-numbing to think about. The IRS isn't already intrusive enough into our lives?


Hitch

Again...I never said that the heirs (or the author) had to make a work available. This whole idea is designed so that orphan works stop happening. You think that $20/year is too much? Fine. How about if they just have to fill out a renewal form every year to acknowledge that someone still cares about the work? Is that too much to ask as well?

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Shari:

With all due respect--and without pointing this person out--there's a person that frequents these forums, all the time, who could not POSSIBLY pay that, to retain some relative's rights. His/her living situation is such that literally, pennies count. That's an American, living with some physical issues with a spouse with an emotional/mental challenge. That's just ONE person, from these forums.

How many others do you think there are, that are like that, in the USA? A country where we had some horrible number of people, a %, on foodstamps, not that long ago?

I can, easily, afford $20/year. But not everyone can, and I don't make the mistake of thinking that it's a pittance to everyone.

Moreover, just on principle, no, I don't agree that the heirs and devisees of an author should be OBLIGATED to make the book available during its copyright period. If they want to, great. But why should they pay for it, just to HAVE it? That's what you're saying--to keep what they've inherited, even if it's not earning a dime, they have to pay for it. Sorry, but...again, that feels awfully cavalier about someone else's property--intellectual or otherwise. And bear in mind--if that copyright is construed to have value, those selfsame heirs/devisees may WELL have paid the infamous Inheritance Tax on it, as well. In fact, probably did--so, now, the author paid taxes on any advance and any royalties, while he was alive; his heirs will (possibly) pay Inheritance tax on that self-same already-taxed money that they inherit, and now they're going to pay a tax--er, fee--to keep the copyright that is, under your scenario, NOT earning them any money?

Man. That just feels egregious to me. And the "publishing police" I mentioned earlier--who's doing that? You said, if they don't make the book available, they have to pay a fee. Who enforces that? Who assesses and collects it? That would be some type of enforcement arm--the publishing police, whatever you call them. Whoever they may be. So, back to my question--I get pissed off, as an heir, and I print, and "publish" 5 copies, to my relatives. Does that get me off the Fee hook?

The logistics of it are truly mind-numbing to think about. The IRS isn't already intrusive enough into our lives?


Hitch

Once again, from the top - Copyright is not property! It does not, nor ever have, followed the rules of property! I don't know how much more clear I can make this.

It is a right granted by the government for a limited term. Not forever. Not for your descendants. It is granted to creators to encourage creation. Dead people don't create!!!. Nobody makes you create. That's a choice, with rights and responsibilities, <and a time limit>. You know that going into the business. It's not magical power, it's just work and talent.

I'm a professional programmer. I have been for over 35 years. I get no royalties. I own no copyright from my professional work. What I did get was a paycheck, for services rendered. Right now I get paid very close to 6 figures a year for my skills. I also hold a few personal copyrights, because I was feeling brisk. they are effectively worthless. I could care less what happens to them.

If you want to play the copyright game, it's a free country. But the rules of the game are what they are. You got to work within them. And they shouldn't change after the fact, just to please you, while cheating somebody else.

Now, if despite everything I've said above, you expect copyright to be treated as property, then expect to get the bad side of property as well as the good side. And that means paying taxes on the property, and registering it with the government to be taxed. No register, no copyright. Just like a fallow piece of land. It produces no income, but it still get taxed (in most jurisdictions), and your ownership of the land must be registered to maintain your ownership! Your copyright can produce absolutely no income, but it would still be taxed. (How much would be determined by the government.)