Copyright Reform Poll

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by shalym

...which just reinforces my statement that it has been published, and I can still prevent other people from copying and pasting my words to another place.

Oh, absolutely. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my post.

Putting your creative output into a fixed form triggers copyright protection.

If you just tell someone a story, that isn't protected by copyright. But if you make an audio recording of the story, that is.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by shalym

Why can't you?

Consult a lawyer or local cop to explain it to you. I'm not a lawyer, but if you send me a reasonably equivalent fee ($300/hr , 2 hour minimum, see my sig for payment options) I will be happy to explain. It will be, as a wise man once said, "One paragraph of stunning clarity."

As for the Bruce Springsteen example, the song had already been published. He was exerting his rights as the copyright holder.

You are, I hope, aware that under our current laws, copyright exists the moment a copyrightable work is set in tangible form? That it currently does NOT require publication, or even a copyright notice, for exactly the reasons I support? He was INDEED exercising his right as the copyright holder, and he could have done so even if he never published the song (for the unimaginative who insist on examples--and will no doubt contrive and offer a toothbrush solution to the example that doesn't address the real issue-- say for example the recording engineer who made the first demo tape with the Boss, and who also volunteered on the campaign, liked the song and wanted to use it. Springsteen could STILL say no by his right as the copyright holder. That's the way it actually is, and I think that's important to preserve in any reform.

For those who only care about money: that protection also prevents that engineer from recording his own version of the song and releasing it before the Boss gets around to publishing his version.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by shalym

YES. You created it, and you published it on the internet, on this forum. If someone else copies this text at a later date and you don't want it copied, you can make them take it down.

I agree

YES...of course.

I agree.

again...YES, of course.

NO. Explain how a PRIVATE matter like that constitutes PUBlishing, which involves the PUBlic..

From a random Google search (which basically matches every other definition I've read):

Publication is the act of offering something for the general public to inspect or scrutinize. It means to convey knowledge or give notice. In Copyright law, publication is making a book or other written material available to anyone interested by distributing or offering it for sale.

Fortunately our current laws give the creator copyright without regard to publishing, so the work is indeed protected, which is what I'm arguing to preserve.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by issybird

At the top of the poll in my browser it says:

This poll will close on May 1st, 2020 at 04:30 AM

That would be EDT, so adjust it to suit your local preference.

Thanks, I didn't see that.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hildea

I'm not sure I understand you? If you're saying that 80 years after birth is too little because many people live longer, I'd be fine with, say, 110 or 120 years after birth.
I trust you are not arguing that publication date could be earlier than the author's birth date (at least barring time travel, which would complicate copyright terms considerably)

If the author was say 81, then 80 years after birth would mean there is no copyright. Now 80 years after date of first copyright would work.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ApK

I agree

I agree.

NO. Explain how a PRIVATE matter like that constitutes PUBlishing, which involves the PUBlic..

From a random Google search (which basically matches every other definition I've read):

Fortunately our current laws give the creator copyright without regard to publishing, so the work is indeed protected, which is what I'm arguing to preserve.

From your post, in the definition that you quoted:

In Copyright law, publication is making a book or other written material available to anyone interested by distributing or offering it for sale.

So if I create a story, or a piece of music or art and sell it to someone, or make it available to a person by giving or loaning it to them, that would seem to be distributing it or offering it for sale, wouldn't it?

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But you can't force Mobileread to take it down. When you signed up, you agreed to grant Mobileread a "royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive permission to publish, use or edit your entry in any way deemed appropriate by us. You also grant us the right to translate your material into other languages."

In addition, the writer can state that all coyrights are placed in the public domain.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

In addition, the writer can state that all coyrights are placed in the public domain.

The copyright holder may do what they want with their creations, subject to the limits of contracts into which they enter.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by shalym

From your post, in the definition that you quoted: So if I create a story, or a piece of music or art and sell it to someone, or make it available to a person by giving or loaning it to them, that would seem to be distributing it or offering it for sale, wouldn't it?

Shari

No. "for the general public" and "available to anyone interested" are the operative phrases. If my daughter paints a picture and gives it to me for the fridge, no, it's not been published.
If I write a letter of reprimand and give it to HR, it's not been published. Etc, etc, etc.


ApK

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ApK

No. "for the general public" and "available to anyone interested" are the operative phrases. If my daughter paints a picture and gives it to me for the fridge, no, it's not been published.
If I write a letter of reprimand and give it to HR, it's not been published. Etc, etc, etc.

ApK

Ok...if your daughter paints a picture and gives it to you, and you then give it to a museum, because you realize that it's a major work of art, has it been published? If so, was it published when it was given to you, or to the museum, or when it was created?

Shari

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ok...if your daughter paints a picture and gives it to you, and you then give it to a museum, because you realize that it's a major work of art, has it been published? If so, was it published when it was given to you, or to the museum, or when it was created?

Shari

Under Canadian law, it was copyrighted when it was created. OTOH, the Copyight Act specifically states that "(d) the exhibition in public of an artistic work." is not included as publication. OYAH, here it may get iffy, since giving you the painting could be construed as making it available to the public which constitutes publication.

Then we get into the moral rights. If you think copyright is murky, moral rights start off murky and wander off into tenebrous.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by hildea

As for the discussion about the right to not publish something, I have one real life example: One of my favourite authors used to write fan fiction. When she got her first deal for original fiction to be commercially published, she informed her fans that she would take down her fan fiction, made a PDF with all her fanworks available for a limited time, and then removed it all. It's very, very obvious that if I published any part of her fanworks anywhere, I'd be going against her wishes. The law should protect her wishes regarding her works.

I have no interest in fan fiction. But the idea of giving authors the right to take away freedom to read goes against the whole idea of giving the public more good books to read, which I consider the only legitimate purpose of copyright.

Do you think taking down the old books was in the public interest? If so, what interest was served? Some careerist consideration on the part of the author?

Now, it may be that she was ashamed of the her youthful writings for some good reason. I might sympathize personally. But I don't think copyright should be driven by sympathy. I also don't think it should be driven by fiction. Fiction authors so often write a whole book even without having any revenue stream lined up. I think it is nice that copyright lets some tiny number of fiction authors be able to write full-time. But there still would be a lot of good fiction sold (albeit at tiny prices) without copyright. By contrast, non-fiction requiring a lot of research probably won't be written unless someone is willing to pay out an advance on the basis of a proposal. And the death of newspapers will complete itself if they can't put up pay walls. That's where copyright is essential.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But the idea of giving authors the right to take away freedom to read goes against the whole idea of giving the public more good books to read, which I consider the only legitimate purpose of copyright.

Do you think taking down the old books was in the public interest? If so, what interest was served? Some careerist consideration on the part of the author?

For. A. Limited. Time. That's the mechanism by which copyright serves its purpose. For a limited time, the creator controls their creation. They are free to profit from it, or they are free, for what ever their reasons, to take the risks of creation, even if they are not ready to share it with the world, safe in the knowledge they are in control. Perhaps they will then be free to create great works that would otherwise never exist.
Then AFTER copyright expires, you are free to take it, slap it on a lunchbox , sell it, totally ignore the creators values to your heart's content!

[MarjaE]

I think authors and other creators deserve strong protections starting when they create a work, and until publication. That could come under privacy law instead of or alongside other law.

With fair use, etc. most proposals involve weaker protections following from publication, and until these also expire.

[boe]

I would like to see some "middle ground" between copyright and public domain, expanding and better defining what is now called "fair use". For example, I think we should be free to download a movie from 10 years ago or a book from 30 years ago without paying a fee, as long as we are not profiting from it.
Better still: funding and expanding online libraries such as archive.org and enabling them to "lend" many copies of the same work without paying for multiple licenses.

As for the poll, I went for fixed length OR lifetime of the author (if applicable). Obviously fixed legth should be shorter than life, ideally 30-50 years IMO, and should be applied to corporations.