Confessions of a Book Pirate

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The comparison of a house mortgage against a book (where anyone can do without it and if they do buy it we're talking 25 dollars or so) really doesn't work for me. The public doesn't need or deserve a work for free just because a person died. Yes, copyright can be taken to extremes, but really. A house an mean quality of life and survival. A book is a luxury. So are most forms of art, be they movies, paintings or whatever.

With a house, if the mortgage can't be paid, it is simply sold and any profit if there is, DOES get passed to the heirs.

I did not say a house mortgage. I said an unsecured mortgage (one with no collateral). I used mortgage to stand for a long-term debt. You may prefer bond if you wish.

My point is, that the hallmark of any fair deal is that if you turn the terms around, it would still be considered by most people to be a fair deal. So, I am turning the terms around. Instead of money going in, I describe money going out with the same terms. After all, from the public's viewpoint, the money is going out. And when I look at it that way, it sure doesn't seem to be a fair deal....

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I did not say a house mortgage. I said an unsecured mortgage (one with no collateral). I used mortgage to stand for a long-term debt. You may prefer bond if you wish.

My point is, that the hallmark of any fair deal is that if you turn the terms around, it would still be considered by most people to be a fair deal. So, I am turning the terms around. Instead of money going in, I describe money going out with the same terms. After all, from the public's viewpoint, the money is going out. And when I look at it that way, it sure doesn't seem to be a fair deal....

However your forgetting that from the publics point of view they have been making money from every sale of the book and had the choice as to if they pay any money out or not.

ask if you would be happy for a small sum of money to go into the public purse and get something nice to read for a voluntary payment?

[kennyc]

Boy, this topic do get people going don't it?

I appreciate the civility of the discussion as well. Nice job guys!

[llreader]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Most civilised countries also charge some kind of sales tax, therefore for every sale of his book the public receive money thus reclaiming that wealth for the collective, however once copyright expires the family get nothing.

With that lump sum in the bank that say a big business man has genrated no one comes and takes it away from his family?

why not? if you can justify taking something of value from the great great great grand children of an author why not the great great great grand children of a business man?

Absolutely. They didn't write the book, he did. The money he made during his lifetime can be inherited. Why should they, or whoever chiseled him out of the ownership rights (which happens) benefit for 2-3 generations after his death? It makes no sense. The government has already protected his copyright for his lifetime.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Information is something that exists (in reality) as a relationship between two or more physical entities.

Yes, information exists-- but values for information do not. A flower is a physical object that can be observed and measured. "Wow, that flower is pretty" can't be observed, or measured. A child eating a piece of cake can be observed and measured. His sister thinking that it isn't fair that he got the bigger slice can't. The atoms that we are made of do not care one whit whether they were part of John Wayne or John Wayne Gacy. The universe does not care about our value systems or our feelings because those things matter only to a few hairless apes infesting the surface of an infinitesimal speck of dust-- the said values of said apes having changed many times in the eyeblink of time they have existed, will change many times in the time they have left, and will be of absolutely, positively no importance whatsoever in the eyeblink that it takes the apes to become extinct.

Every last single human value, inclusive of "right" and "wrong" is subjective opinion with no objective ("objective" meaning outside of human perspective) meaning or value whatsoever. And even looking at human societies as a whole over all of history, you would be very hard pressed to find a single concept that is universal to all those societies. I'm not arguing that-- because there is no objective morality-- there should not be moral constraints placed on people by the conditioning of their societies for the good of the functioning of the collective. But to think that there is anything "real" about those morel constraints is just silly.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by stustaff

However your forgetting that from the publics point of view they have been making money from every sale of the book and had the choice as to if they pay any money out or not.

ask if you would be happy for a small sum of money to go into the public purse and get something nice to read for a voluntary payment?

No, it isn't the money, it is the book itself. In order to encourage him to write the book, the government gave him an artificial right to exploit not just his handwritten copy that he created, but every other copy that anyone creates for the period of the copyright. That is his payment. And the government can set the terms of the payment, 14 years, lifetime, life +14, whatever. The author has no natural "right" to prevent other people from copying his works, and does not set the terms of the agreement. That is just the way it is - it is written into the copyright law.

After the payment is made, the book belongs to everyone.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, see that's another mistake you've made. This is not a debate.

This is abuse. Argument is down the hall.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I firmly believe that if your anarchist views become codified into laws, the world would suffer greatly.

...
...
...
...
...anarchism codified into law.
...
...

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

They claim artist will always create art regardless of whether they do it for money etc. and that even without the protection of art afforded by our current laws we'd still have great literature and art.

Well, those are two separate claims, of course, but surely the number of great works of literature and art that were created prior to 1710 does lend some credence to the belief that copyright law as currently understood (and I'd argue that current copyright law bears much the same relation to the Statute of Anne that a tomato does to an apple) isn't a necessary prerequisite to the creation of great literature?

If we start from there, look at the social and technological changes that resulted in the creation of the concept of 'copyright' and whether or not more recent shifts require us to change our understanding of it, and if so in what ways, we might end up having a productive discussion.

Or we could stand around in a circle chanting "Four legs good, two legs bad", that works too.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'll say again, there is a difference in people and corporations.

Well, no - corporations are people. The big difference is that they're immortal people, which rather throws a wrench into "Life+X" copyright.

[pietvo]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

But to think that there is anything "real" about those morel constraints is just silly.

IMHO that is a highly subjective opinion.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

..

Every last single human value, inclusive of "right" and "wrong" is subjective opinion ...

Well, it you wanna go all philosophical we can not bother with the rest of the discussion. What is really real?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Well, no - corporations are people. The big difference is that they're immortal people, which rather throws a wrench into "Life+X" copyright.

That's my point. legally they are defined as a people.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, it you wanna go all philosophical we can not bother with the rest of the discussion. What is really real?

I've already said what is real-- "real" is atoms, forces... things studied by physicists. "Real" is things that would be measurable by any competent observer or any type, anywhere in the universe. One could argue that human tastes, morals, and values are "real" in that an alien could observe the chemical reactions happening within discrete areas of the human brain within given emotional states. But those emotional states within a human brain do not define a measurable, objective reality, as saying "right is always right and wrong is always wrong implies." For instance, while you argue that it is good for the individual to retain rights to their creative work, others may argue that the needs of the many outway the needs of the few, or the one, while doing weird finger gestures. Or (carefully inching around the outskirts of Godwin) how the US is fully convinced that we are the good guys in a war against bloodthirsty evil monsters intent on taking over the world-- while the islamic extremist, on the other hand, are fully convinced that they are the good guys in a war against bloodthirsty evil monsters intent on taking over the world. (And before you say that they target civilian populations and we don't-- tell that to the hundreds of thousands of civilians we targeted and killed in bombing Germany and Japan in WWII-- but we were "right" because it was our side doing it, while the other side is "wrong" because their side is doing it.)

You can pretend to yourself that there is objective right and wrong-- and you know it-- for the rest of your life. But that will not make it true.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Well, no - corporations are people. The big difference is that they're immortal people, which rather throws a wrench into "Life+X" copyright.

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's my point. legally they are defined as a people.

Not to derail the thread even further but........

From a legal standpoint and with regards to any legal proceeding involving humans and any form of "corporation", it is the human that is defined as a corporation and not the other way around.

It is because of this legal technicality that defines the "natural person" as a "corporate entity" that such proceedings can even take place in the first place. Under the law, "business" can only be transacted between like entities. As there is no way a "corporation" can be defined as a "natural person", it follows that the "natural person" must be defined as a "corporation" in order for the business to legally take place.

It is also the reason why, even though there is no law which explicitly requires citizens of the USA to pay personal income tax, you all must* pay tax anyway.

Cheers,
PKFFW
*I say "must" because it is actually quite easy and legal to avoid paying any personal income tax if one knows what legal paperwork to fill out.