I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Property is treated very differently in the US. Property can not be taken from someone without due process or just compensation, yet the term of copyright is set by Congress and can be changed at anytime. I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to see any laws passed by Congress saying that you can only own a house for 20 years and then anyone can move in with no compensation.

Not just me saying so: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=491466

And the government can do things regular folks can't. The government via imminent domain can take my property and give me whatever the GOVERNMENT thinks it's worth (not the market, not me, the government).

Other than that, nobody can take my copyright away. If they copy my works without my authorization, they have infringed my copyright.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Copyright explicitly belongs to the holder. It can be sold. It can be inherited. It is not a physical thing and so there are different labels for it's treatment, but they all amount to "property".

If you want to say "I didn't steal your property" and instead think "I infringed on your copyright" -- more power to you. Theft is theft no matter the label

[Greg Anos]

For example, the baseline Berne is life + 50. Maybe any extension to Berne period copyright should be subject to a annual tax. Don't pay the tax, the item fall into the public domain.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by leebase

Not just me saying so: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=491466

And the government can do things regular folks can't. The government via imminent domain can take my property and give me whatever the GOVERNMENT thinks it's worth (not the market, not me, the government).

Other than that, nobody can take my copyright away. If they copy my works without my authorization, they have infringed my copyright.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Copyright explicitly belongs to the holder. It can be sold. It can be inherited. It is not a physical thing and so there are different labels for it's treatment, but they all amount to "property".

If you want to say "I didn't steal your property" and instead think "I infringed on your copyright" -- more power to you. Theft is theft no matter the label

Yet in the US, it doesn't quite work that way. It is legal to buy a used book. You got no extra money.

Ok. the copyright was transferred. Yet if I disassemble the book, and scan and proof it, for my own use, and the destroy the original, did I violate the copyright? I had one copy in physical format, now I have one copy in virtual format. One copy, either way. Does format shifting count as copyright violation?

Lots of possibilities. . .

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yet in the US, it doesn't quite work that way. It is legal to buy a used book. You got no extra money.

Ok. the copyright was transferred. Yet if I disassemble the book, and scan and proof it, for my own use, and the destroy the original, did I violate the copyright? I had one copy in physical format, now I have one copy in virtual format. One copy, either way. Does format shifting count as copyright violation?

Lots of possibilities. . .

Ralph:

You are conflating two topics. The "copyright" issue has nothing to do with buying a used book. The author assigned or licensed his/her rights, under his copyright, to a publisher. (Or him/herself). The book was published. Someone bought it first-hand. The publisher collected the dough, did its split with the author. Subsequently, the book was re-sold (which it can be, as private, physical property). Period. That has NOTHING to do with the author's copyright, because by being sold, another copy is not being created. The first buyer loses the right to use it, and the 2nd buyer now has that right. That's all. The "copyright" wasn't transferred. Only one authorized copy of the book. Not the same thing.

We've already discussed what happens when you scan it for your own use and destroy the original, several pages ago. Nothing has changed in the last four pages. We discussed format shifting, and while it's technically illegal, in some jurisdictions, the likelihood of prosecution for a single-use copy, made from a licensed version (which is subsequently destroyed) is non-existent.

That doesn't affect copyright--not the author's rights, nor the publishers. It only affects infringement, if and when you then distribute the copy you made. That's all.

Hitch

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I can't think of any property other than "real estate" which one is taxed merely for owning. If you own a chair, there's no "chair ownership tax". What did you have in mind?

The county property tax, for businesses in Georgia, tax all property that the business owns. This includes chairs, desks, showcases, computers and even inventory. I consider inventory an expense until I sell it. Governments seem to consider inventory an income even if you do not sell it.
Apache

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Apache

The county property tax, for businesses in Georgia, tax all property that the business owns. This includes chairs, desks, showcases, computers and even inventory. I consider inventory an expense until I sell it. Governments seem to consider inventory an income even if you do not sell it.
Apache

Is there depreciation in your area? That opens up a whole new can of worms.

I once saw a court decision which supported inventory taxes on the basis that until it is sold/consumed/whatever, it is property that you own however temporarily. Yet another reason for JIT.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What category does copyright fall in? Clearly the type that government ownership records are kept in. Which makes it reasonable to tax.

I'm sure it would often more difficult to prove one's case without such records but that doesn't mean that works that have no 'government ownership record' are in the public domain. If for some inexplicable reason someone found and decided to publish my super-secret diary I could go after them for copyright violations even though said diary's existence and author has not been officially recorded.

The fact that copyright also applies to private writings is actually the one reason I'd be a bit concerned about a relatively short copyright term with no exceptions.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Ralph:

You are conflating two topics. The "copyright" issue has nothing to do with buying a used book. The author assigned or licensed his/her rights, under his copyright, to a publisher. (Or him/herself). The book was published. Someone bought it first-hand. The publisher collected the dough, did its split with the author. Subsequently, the book was re-sold (which it can be, as private, physical property). Period. That has NOTHING to do with the author's copyright, because by being sold, another copy is not being created. The first buyer loses the right to use it, and the 2nd buyer now has that right. That's all. The "copyright" wasn't transferred. Only one authorized copy of the book. Not the same thing.

We've already discussed what happens when you scan it for your own use and destroy the original, several pages ago. Nothing has changed in the last four pages. We discussed format shifting, and while it's technically illegal, in some jurisdictions, the likelihood of prosecution for a single-use copy, made from a licensed version (which is subsequently destroyed) is non-existent.

That doesn't affect copyright--not the author's rights, nor the publishers. It only affects infringement, if and when you then distribute the copy you made. That's all.

Hitch

My point is what does a copyright consist of? A licence to the end purchaser? Something attached to a physical embodiment of a copy? What actually are you paying for when you buy a copyrighted item. This is more interesting to me than the chance of prosecution.

When a copyright holder insist that "it's mine, I have total control", where does that control really end, and the purchaser's rights (if any) begin?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What category does copyright fall in? Clearly the type that government ownership records are kept in. Which makes it reasonable to tax.

Nope. In any country which is a signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright exists automatically the moment the work is created. No “government ownership record” is needed.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope. In any country which is a signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright exists automatically the moment the work is created. No “government ownership record” is needed.

Actually, that's not completely true. In the US, any treaty requires legislation that implements the treaty. That legislation could require the copyright holder to register with the government. Certainly, that would mean that the US would be in violation of the Berne Convention, but that's a different matter. Countries violation treaties they have signed and approved all the time, frequently with no negative consequences. It really comes down to if some other country is willing to play hardball over the matter and if the US cares enough to worry about it. With regards to books, it's not likely that the US would care enough. What drives copyright in the US is movies and music. The US very much cares enough in those cases.

In theory at least, the US could implement a "orphaned works" solution that technically violates the Berne Convention as long as some major market for US movies or music doesn't try to play hardball. Of course, in reality, there isn't enough influence pushing for orphaned works solutions for the US to take this step. A much more likely solution is that the copyright office or courts decrees that orphaned works has some sort of fair use safe harbor, but I'm not holding my breath over that either.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Not just me saying so: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=491466

And the government can do things regular folks can't. The government via imminent domain can take my property and give me whatever the GOVERNMENT thinks it's worth (not the market, not me, the government).

Other than that, nobody can take my copyright away. If they copy my works without my authorization, they have infringed my copyright.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Copyright explicitly belongs to the holder. It can be sold. It can be inherited. It is not a physical thing and so there are different labels for it's treatment, but they all amount to "property".

If you want to say "I didn't steal your property" and instead think "I infringed on your copyright" -- more power to you. Theft is theft no matter the label

You confuse lawyers throwing out novel legal solutions with actual court cases. Lawyers twist the law to get the results they want. It only matters if they can convince a judge and jury to agree with them. Many IP lawyers and corporations insist that copyright and patents is property. It doesn't make it so.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope. In any country which is a signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright exists automatically the moment the work is created. No “government ownership record” is needed.

Just try to take a copyright violation to court in the US without having registered the copyright with the library of congress.

In the US you
1) have to register the copyright to file the claim in the court system. No registration then no filing of an infringement claim.
2) If the filing occurs after the infringement you can only claim actual damages rather than statutory damages. That means you have to prove actual damages.

This is not how most other countries interpret the Berne convention. Also, the Berne copyright period of life+X only apply for works first published after 1977. Anything published before that have periods set by the laws that were in effect before 1977 as modified by later extensions. None of which are life+X. That's why everything published in 1923 just had its copyright expire n the US regardless of the death date of the author.

Greg

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You confuse lawyers throwing out novel legal solutions with actual court cases. Lawyers twist the law to get the results they want. It only matters if they can convince a judge and jury to agree with them. Many IP lawyers and corporations insist that copyright and patents is property. It doesn't make it so.

Given the definition of the World Intellectual Property Organisation that Intellectual Property is "a category of property", I’d regard their viewpoint as “definitive” on the matter. They have 191 member states and administer 26 international treaties, so I think their word on the matter can be taken as authoritative.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Just try to take a copyright violation to court in the US without having registered the copyright with the library of congress.

In the US you
1) have to register the copyright to file the claim in the court system. No registration then no filing of an infringement claim.
2) If the filing occurs after the infringement you can only claim actual damages rather than statutory damages. That means you have to prove actual damages.

This is not how most other countries interpret the Berne convention. Also, the Berne copyright period of life+X only apply for works first published after 1977. Anything published before that have periods set by the laws that were in effect before 1977 as modified by later extensions. None of which are life+X. That's why everything published in 1923 just had its copyright expire n the US regardless of the death date of the author.

Greg

Don't confuse the existence of the copyright with the ability to prosecute a case for infringement. the copyright does exist, under US law, at the time of creation. What does not exist is the right to sue for infringement, unless/until the copyright is registered. That's because the registration is a form of legal notice. It has to do with legal defenses.

That does not mean that the copyright doesn't exist at the time of creation. It does. But without legal notice (the registration) you cannot sue. It's a way to try to limit frivolous infringement suits. One does not change the other.


Hitch

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What category does copyright fall in? Clearly the type that government ownership records are kept in. Which makes it reasonable to tax.

In addition, it tends to deprive the copyright holder the tendency extend copyright forever. It changes the equation from holding onto something that maybe, someday, be worth something of value, because the cost of holding it is zero, to determining whether or not it is worth the ongoing cost to maintain the copyright. A self correcting solution to keep copyright as a wasting asset. . .

This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with you - I think it would be reasonable to not only reduce the maximum copyright length, but also to introduce a requirement to renew copyright after a certain length of time in order to keep it.

However, given that the Berne convention explicitly prohibit a requirement to register works for copyright, I don't see any prospect of a renewal requirement being introduced anywhere.

The best we can hope for is a return to the Berne convention minimum of life+50.

[Edit: I just saw your idea of requiring registration for copyright length > life+50. I'd prefer to just see copyright length reduced to the Berne minimum.]