eBook piracy, how common is it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Why would the the estate of a deceased writer profit from the work done by that writer? I can understand copyright continuing while the writer is alive. It is his pension, and it gives him time to write more books (as Zelda nicely worded). But, as soon as the writer dies, he can't write more books and doesn't need the money anymore.

I work. I pay for a pension for when I'm done working (in a multitude of years). That money is taking from my pay, which I get for working.

But, as soon as I die, that pension stops. Even though I might have children and a husband. Why would this be different from writers?

Really? In this country, the widow/widower carries on receiving the pension for their lifetime.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

As they’re not factories, some writers only have one or two good books in them. Allowing copyright protection for only 20 to 40 years strikes me as a bit on the short side.

What about something like Life or 20 years, whichever is longer.

Just a thought.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

actually i consider locking down works which should have entered the public domain for our collective good years ago to be a pretty serious wrong inflicted on *all* of us.

How? How has our culture suffered as a result of other people’s works not being free? I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it’s one of those frequently made statements that really cannot be qualified – imo.

so, a writer should be able to write one book at the age of, say, 20 years old, and continue earning money from it (presumably, enough to live on) even if they never write anything again ? wow, if only that applied to graphic design !! i'd love to make one website and then coast on that till the end of my years as i kept getting paid over and over and over and over for that one site ! (and webdesign is in fact a creative work as well as technical, which requires a lot of study and practice to do well, including ongoing training to keep up with evolving techniques and simply to improve one's craft, so the analogy is not so farfetched...)

Sure, why not? How are you, or society in general, harmed by some now sort of obscure author continuing to profit from his or her work 60 years after publication? The work is available for sale, in libraries at no charge, at used books stores, etc – it’s not as if you wont have access to it until the copyright runs out.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

You’re confusing an individual with a corporation. I’ve already mentioned pensions, so yes, employees continue to receive income after retirement, until and even after their death.

I have a pension with my current employer, if I were to leave today, and go to work for a competitor, I would still, upon retirement, collect a pension.

So do writers, in my country. They have pension, health, schools, and everything like every other citizen.
And they pay taxes, too.

Pension is a total different thing than eternal copyright. And the lack of a Welfare Policy in some countries is not a valid excuse for it.



But, if it's the purpose of copyright, Italian works should not be kept under copyright for such a long time...
Zelda, do French writers have pension and health like other workers have?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

How? How has our culture suffered as a result of other people’s works not being free? I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it’s one of those frequently made statements that really cannot be qualified – imo.



Sure, why not? How are you, or society in general, harmed by some now sort of obscure author continuing to profit from his or her work 60 years after publication? The work is available for sale, in libraries at no charge, at used books stores, etc – it’s not as if you wont have access to it until the copyright runs out.

Actually most copyrighted books are not available at all except perhaps in used book stores. One statistic says that of the 7 million texts, 1 million are available for purchase, one million are available in PD and 5 million are still under copyright but no longer available from a publisher at all.

Dale

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

the difference being that the pension fund comes at least partially directly from a person's wages, which instead of being paid instantly is set aside to be paid out later.

But in effect that is what royalty income is too - income paid later which the writer has already "earned" by writing the book, composing the music, or whatever. Deferred payment for work already done. Very like a pension.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

How? How has our culture suffered as a result of other people’s works not being free? I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it’s one of those frequently made statements that really cannot be qualified – imo.

Consider the fact (that I cannot back up atm) that 30% of all proverbs or idiomatic expressions in the English language come either from the King James Version of the Bible, or shakespeare.
Imagine you could never talk about "taking a pound of flesh" anymore. The (overrated) movie "seven pounds" with W. Smith would instantly be gone. (nothing lost there, you might argue.)
Similarly for Romeo and Juliet: Tchaikovsky wouldn't have been allowed to write his works, Wagner wouldn't have been allowed to write Tristan & Isolde, Bartók wouldn't have been allowed to create his folk-inspired music, and neither would Mozart or Bach, etc. Nobody would've referenced Dante, or Cervantes. Those insipid Disney cartoons wouldn't have had the classical-music-lite background music (Tom & Jerry chasing eachother etc),
Unless, of course, they had paid royalties to the **AA.

[DuneSoldier]

Free Culture available on Feedbooks is all about copyright and how it's changed over time. One of it's central themes is about how the long duration of copyright is hurting America's culture because work isn't being allowed to enter public domain.

I think an author should be required to register their work for a copyright to apply, and that a copyright should last a moderate time say 25 years with an option to renew.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why? Will they not bother writing if they can only get guaranteed control over income from their works for 30 years? Will bands stop playing music if they don't get royalties for fifty years?

85% of all published works are out of print in 15 years. Why should they continue to have a stranglehold on that material after it's not commercially viable?

Until 1870, copyright was limited to 42 years. Until 1910, it was 56 years. Why should better technology, faster information transmission, and more access to published works, lengthen copyright? It seems it should work the other direction--you have a much better chance of reaching a million paying readers today than you did 150 years ago.

Some writers, Ralph Ellison, for example, only publish one major work, in Ellison’s case, Invisible Man, while alive. I see no reason why he should not have been allowed to receive proceeds from its sale at least until the day he died.

In 1870, 42 years was a lifetime.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

What about something like Life or 20 years, whichever is longer.

Just a thought.

IMHO, there's no room for equity or compromise.
We will end up with either infinite or nothing.

I place my bet on the former.

Eventually ISPs will be forced to deep inspect every single connection and Law Enforcers will have special powers to act against "pirates". And they'll use it.
There will always be "pirates", but they'll be just the smarter ones.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Consider the fact (that I cannot back up atm) that 30% of all proverbs or idiomatic expressions come either from the king james bible or shakespeare. Then imagine you could never talk about "taking a pound of flesh" anymore. The (overrated) movie "seven pounds" with W. Smith would instantly be gone. Similarly for Romeo and Juliet: Tchaikovsky wouldn't have been allowed to write his works, Wagner wouldn't have written Tristan & Isolde, Bartók wouldn't have been allowed to create his folk-inspired music, and neither would Mozart or Bach, etc. Unless, of course, they had paid royalties to the **AA.

Lest we forget that Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare was lifted almost piecemeal from an earlier piece entitled Mariotto and Gianozza, which in turn was influenced by earlier stories.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Consider the fact (that I cannot back up atm) that 30% of all proverbs or idiomatic expressions come either from the king james bible or shakespeare. Then imagine you could never talk about "taking a pound of flesh" anymore.

The King James bible is still in copyright in the UK - it has a perpetual "crown copyright". The fact that a work is copyrighted does not prevent one from quoting from it; that's covered by "fair use".

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The King James bible is still in copyright in the UK - it has a perpetual "crown copyright". The fact that a work is copyrighted does not prevent one from quoting from it; that's covered by "fair use".

Exactly.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The King James bible is still in copyright in the UK - it has a perpetual "crown copyright". The fact that a work is copyrighted does not prevent one from quoting from it; that's covered by "fair use".

While that is an interesting exception, I don't see how that would compensate for, let alone negate, the loss we would've experienced if Shakespeare wouldn't have been allowed to write his own version of R&J. (if you forgive my use of hyperbolae)

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Some writers, Ralph Ellison, for example, only publish one major work, in Ellison’s case, Invisible Man, while alive. I see no reason why he should not have been allowed to receive proceeds from its sale at least until the day he died.

In 1870, 42 years was a lifetime.

Beg your pardon, but I really cannot understand why he should.