"If you can afford an ebook reader, you can afford ebook prices"

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I used the word disgusting in response to your use of it first. I hate to get childish here but you started it. And yes I did and do take offense. I note that you're only sorry if i took offense not sorry you made offensive comments.

Fair enough. I do argue rough, I didn't mean to insult you though. Just your views. But I suppose it's kind of moot, as what is a person if not the sum of their beliefs? So I'll take back my apology in that case as I don't have much respect for such beliefs, like I don't have respect for pro life beliefs and other things. I'm just a person that has little use for people with different value systems of my own.

In the spirit of 100% capitalism why should I respect copyright at all?

I view pure capitalism as doing everything you can to make money and look out for your own self interests, but respecting the right of others to do the same. That you want to be paid as much as possible for anything you create (and thus spent time you could have spent not working and doing other stuff) makes you respect that others have the right to do the same. And thus you either pay other's asking prices, or you do without the things they created and own the rights to. Just like you expect them to do without things that you created if they aren't willing to pay your price for them.

[Iphinome]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Pure capitalism has no respect for the rights of others, child labor, dumping toxic waste without safe disposal, cornering the market on a necessary good to inflate the price leaving people who can't afford it to die. Capitalism is greed take what you can as much as you can that's why we even in capitalist countries pass laws for the public good that put limits on capitalism. We have public schools so that everyone can learn a basic set of skills regardless of ability to pay we have other socialist things like fire departments and public libraries because pure capitalism hurts people on a large scale. We found a balance. Copyright as it is is unbalanced You rail about the rights of authors but attempt to take away any reason why anyone should respect them. The people aren't getting anything out of respecting copyright laws when copyrights were 7 years they did, when they were 14 and 28 years even they did. Now they don't. Telling them to pay for it is not the same thing. The ability to enjoy something for a fee or to enjoy something given free (beer) is not the same as having something free to use (libre)

Do you also advocate for lifetime patents? The drug companies would love you forget the life saving prescription drugs imagine what a bottle of aspirin would cost. Shouldn't a patent have the same lifetime rights and them some that copyrights have? Certainly a new invention like a cure for cancer has more of a benefit to society than a Stephen king book should the inventor not be able to charge as much as they want into infinity and perhaps only to people who agree with them politically or are the same religion or race? They invented it they have the moral right to control it and milking it for anythign or in any way you choose is capitalism and i have to respect it no?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Do you also advocate for lifetime patents?

Yes I do. A creation is a creation. Gets more more complicated since many patents go to companies rather than individuals though. So you'd have to change it so companies couldn't own rights to creations, only the members of the team who invented it, and patent could only last their lifetimes.

Drug research is a tough issue obviously. That's something that probably shouldn't have went private, and should have been done publicly by government agencies since it's something that should be tied to public health and not to profit in the private sector. But C'est la Vie.

[Iphinome]

But we haven't gotten into why a creation is a creation I don't deny your right to make as many copies of it as you want as long as you live but why on earth should I not make copies. Patents are public, I could build my own copy of your better mousetrap in my garage and use it around my house, you can't stop me. You could stop me form giving them away probably, selling them, certainly but you can't own an idea once you let it out of your skull. The best you can hope for is an artificial monopoly and I've yet to see you give any justification as to why it should be for life, clearly people invent things with only 20 year old patents, clearly they invented and wrote books before patents or copyright existed at all. If 20 years of revenue or 56 years of revenue isn't good enough for you, well that's a shame but I don't think that'll keep others from creating as it didn't stop them in the past.

[dmaul1114]

Because if someone writes a great book, makes a great album, makes a great movie etc. it is their creation.

If they wanted to do it for the common good, they could have never copyrighted it and just given it to the public.

If it stops selling after a few years, they can start giving it away (assuming they didn't sign away ownership to a publisher).

But if it's something that keeps selling, then they have a right to keep selling it until they die and maybe a bit beyond (for their families).

Sure, their will always be jackasses making illegal copies etc. But they (or publishers they contracted with) should own the rights to making official copies and selling them for profit.

They shouldn't make money for 20 years, or 56 years etc. and then suddenly have it stop (even though it was still selling). It's their property and they should get as much out of it as possible during their lifetimes. If it can sell and make them money for their whole lifetimes, they should reap the benefits of creating something that's so great it can keep selling across decades. Not have to sit around as others make money of their creating once its in the public domain and anyone can copy and sell it etc.

You have a view that leans toward the common good. I live a life about self interest, and again spend every second of every day on activities that benefit myself directly on indirectly. I'll never create anything for the common good. I'll create it because it benefits me in some way, and I better not see others making money off of it during my lifetime!

Since I feel that way, I strongly support copyrights for others who are creating stuff.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Because if someone writes a great book, makes a great album, makes a great movie etc. it is their creation.

If they wanted to do it for the common good, they could have never copyrighted it and just given it to the public.

If it stops selling after a few years, they can start giving it away (assuming they didn't sign away ownership to a publisher).

But if it's something that keeps selling, then they have a right to keep selling it until they die and maybe a bit beyond (for their families).

Sure, their will always be jackasses making illegal copies etc. But they (or publishers they contracted with) should own the rights to making official copies and selling them for profit.

They shouldn't make money for 20 years, or 56 years etc. and then suddenly have it stop (even though it was still selling). It's their property and they should get as much out of it as possible during their lifetimes. If it can sell and make them money for their whole lifetimes, they should reap the benefits of creating something that's so great it can keep selling across decades. Not have to sit around as others make money of their creating once its in the public domain and anyone can copy and sell it etc.

You have a view that leans toward the common good. I live a life about self interest, and again spend every second of every day on activities that benefit myself directly on indirectly. I'll never create anything for the common good. I'll create it because it benefits me in some way, and I better not see others making money off of it during my lifetime!

Since I feel that way, I strongly support copyrights for others who are creating stuff.

Wrong, since things are automatically under copyright, this post is copyrighted by me, whether I want it or not.

You have not explained why they should be given a monopoly over something for life. You say they should but not why. Ultimately you believe in excess. Grab everything you can and damn everyone and everything else. I believe in moderation, 56 frakking years all for you then you return it to the world that was kind enough to allow you any kind of monopoly when they didn't have to allow you squat, the US constitution allows copyright laws but in now way requires them. Your argument is a list of reasons why copyright should be abolished because you object to its purpose to promote science and the useful arts. Why aren't you sitting here telling disney to pay the estate of Hans christan Anderson for the little mermaid and Buster Keaton for steamboat willy. Why don't you pay Isac newton a gravity royalty everything you drop something. If something is selling why shouldn't I sell the same thing cheaper your idea or not you talk about what society should be doing for you and refusing to acknowledge that you owe anything for what your being given. What right do you have to copyright without paying for it, doesn't that make you another "jackass" using without paying?

The cost of copyright is its limits, fair use, limited monopoly, public domain. You want rights they come with duties. You buy your copyright with the promise to let go after the time limit. Without said promise you're not entitled to the protection. TANSTAAFL cobber, are you going to pay for your copyright.

[dmaul1114]

You've yet to show how getting rid of copyright moves forward science or the arts.

I work in science--the social sciences anyway. Work is always moving forward, we just have to cite others work. If we want to read research findings in books or journal articles, we have to buy the book, subscribe to the journal or use the library to get copies to read.

For the arts, anyone can read a book and be inspired by it--copyright or not. They can buy a copy, or check one out from the library for free. One can buy an album, or hear songs on the radio to influence their musical skills etc.

The only thing that can't be done is stuff like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies if the person is still alive and doesn't consent to it--which they may, look at all the remixes in the music industry. And I'd hardly call that stymieing creation, since true creation is making something new. Not editing or remixing existing material. That's at best partial creation, and at worst less talented folks trying to cash in on the name recognition of popular works.

Creation isn't stymied by making people pay for works under copyright, or making them get it from the library or hear it on the radio etc. if they somehow can't afford to buy the book or cd etc.

And yes, one buys a copyright with the agreement to let go when it expires. I won't argue that, as that's the whole point. I just think they should remain where they expire at death (or a bit beyond) or not a second sooner.

[Iphinome]

Sampling and the like in the music industry are covered by statutory licenses permission doesn't need to be given. I wasn't arguing that copyright as intended doesn't promote science and the useful arts, I was suggesting copyright as you want it doesn't promote science and the useful arts.

Pride and prejudice and Zombies is something new you never thought to put zombies into Victorian era society tales. You didn't think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer but Joss Wheadon read Dracula and did and didn't have to face a copyright infringement lawsuit from the Braham Stoker estate for using a vampire that can die if you cut off its head, but he brought new things to the table and mixed in other sources in his own unique way. Creation comes out of an environment. You use pride and prejudice and zombies as an example because you don't like it, your personal taste doesn't make something unworthy but you're so hung up on money money money. The value of the public domain is not being free (gratis) it's in being free (libre) everyone who's work you pay for has taken form the public domain in some way it doesn't have to be a blatant ripoff or straight retelling like Cinderella or Forbidden Planet, it doesn't have to be a remix like Star Wars (and aren't Kirosauwa's films still under copyright?) When you make any allusion to something that came before you've used the public domain even the general use characters have attributes from people who have remixed them before, prince Charming's white horse came form somewhere, for that matter riding a horse came from somewhere and the name prince charming and the idea of the heroic prince.

You keep accusing everyone else of no respect for rights and wanting something for nothing. Copyright has a cost.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I was suggesting copyright as you want it doesn't promote science and the useful arts.

And you've failed to say why. There's unprecedented levels of creativity in today's society, and copyrights last 70 years past death.

Having a copyright doesn't prevent people from accessing the material. They can buy it. If we're talking books, movies, CDs, these things are quite cheap. If they can't afford it, there's libraries, radio, broadcast tv etc.

Pride and prejudice and Zombies is something new you never thought to put zombies into Victorian era society tales.

But the author didn't HAVE to just remix that book. He could have got the idea and wove his own Victorian society tale that involved Zombies. But he took the easy way out and just remixed a famous book as he knew the famous name would sell more copies and was the only chance at making a buck.

Nice ingenuity and way to cash in for sure. But limited creativity at best.

And again, I'm not saying stuff should NEVER enter the public domain. It should--just upon the author's death or a short time after.

You keep accusing everyone else of no respect for rights and wanting something for nothing. Copyright has a cost.

I see little to no cost to society from copyrights that expire at (or shortly after the holder's death), for the reasons above. It's not like copyrights make material difficult for people to consume legally. Most of this stuff is cheap, and if not most can be consumed freely in a variety of forms that don't involve owning your own copy.

[Iphinome]

Copyright doesn't exist to encourage consumption copyright doesn't care if people buy your work it cares about work being released into the public domain. Creation not consumption not consumerism. The cost is to stifle the creativity of others pride and prejudice and Zombies was creative it's a good argument for a strong public domain no the author didn't have to remix the book the author also didn't have to write anything at all.

Every year someone has to wait is a cost to society of the creativity that comes form building on an older work, just as every year something is under patent is a cost in cheap medicine or a better mousetrap or a better whatever with a new doohickey that would never had appeared if not for the first invention, no car without carriage no carriage without wagon no wagon without wheel. No Buffy without Dracula. No new books without freedom to build on what came before. No reason to give you an artificial monopoly when I won't have the freedom to build on it.

And for the love of the gods stop claiming gratis is equivalent to libre a work that i can access without cost is not free for me to use as I like. If you want the benefits of copyright an patent you pay the cost of copyright and patent. You argue that people should pay when something is copyrighted, well the cost of copyright itself must then be paid and that cost has been clear from the beginning at least in the United States, public domain.

[dmaul1114]

Fair enough. I disagree with that vehemently because I care MUCH more about a creator's right to have sole control over their creations until they die or decide to relinquish control than I do for the public to have it in the public domain for people to do whatever they want with it.

I see value in the public domain, but not over that of the creator. The public domain can wait at least until the creator's death. I don't see the creator as owing anything to the public--if he wanted to make the work for the public he'd have never paid for an official copyright in the first place.

But again, we're not going to agree here and neither of us is going to give an inch as we both have very strong and firm beliefs on the topic.

I keep saying I'm done with the topic, and I will be this time as I'm tired of posting the same stuff over and over. So I'll through this and the DRM thread on ignore so I can resist the temptation! And will try to avoid copyright discussion here period for a while as I've wasted too much time on it lately.

Peace and goodnight!

[Iphinome]

One does not pay for an official copyright it is automatic this post is copyrighted by me no action needed to be taken the act of typing it gave me copyright.

There is no creator's right just an artificial temporary monopoly. It was thought such a thing would be good for society, the past 30 years aside, traditionally laws on this subject were intended to find a balance not protect profits. What can we offer people in order to get a bigger public domain? But of course greed came in, it became what can i do to avoid the public domain to not pay for copyright protection and wonder of wonders piracy increased.

Imagine people not respecting laws that showed them no respect. Imagine people who claim to owe nothing and do nothing for society claiming society owes them protection for their profits.

Is it immoral to steal from a thief?

[moober76]

this kinda stimulates my interest more on ebook.. that was an honest say, but then again it depends on different insights..

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'm not sure you're clear on what's considered "derogatory treatment" of a work.

For example, in the UK: "Treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director".


You're complaining, which is not related

Sorry just saw this, I'm not sure if we have an equivalent there's liable which covers publishing false statements about someone but as far as I know distortion especially for satire would probably be fair use as is criticism.

No anything out of copyright can be distorted folded mutilated or spindled. It's completely free (libre).

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

No anything out of copyright can be distorted folded mutilated or spindled. It's completely free (libre).

Only because copyright is life+, hence anything out of copyright also always has had it's moral rights (life) expire, in countries with moral rights. If the term of copyright is shortened, then this will (once again) not be true.

As I said, this is speculating on the consequences of shortening copyright.