Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Sure, if you pose the question as "do you want free stuff and stick it to those greedy corporations" most will say yes, without thinking. But if you turn it around and ask "do you think authors and all those involved in the book publishing and book selling industries should work for free" then the answer would turn out to be very different.

I agree that the first formulation is not very neutral, but yours is not, either. I think a balanced question would be "do you think you should need an author's permission whenever you wish to make a copy of his/her work (where such permission in practical terms usually boils down to paying their asking price), except within the provisions of fair use, except if in order to engage in fair use you need to bypass DRM?" I think that's a pretty good summary of the current legal framework in the U.S. since the DMCA passed.

Of course, if you ask that, most people will give you a blank look. The vast majority of the populace neither knows nor cares for copyright; we who hold these intellectual debates on the internet are in the minority. In practice, publishing lobbies put pressure on politicians to pass laws to their liking since they are unchecked by their constituents in this not very prominent manner, while the same constituents go to limewire, bittorrent, and youtube in order to stream or download copyright content without permission, because there is no practical way to stop them.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why make an arbitrary distinction between physical and digital goods?

Because the difference could not be more pronounced, making the distinction non-arbitrary. Physical "goods" as you call them are non-scarce; once created, everyone can have them with a negligible expenditure of resources, without denying the author of their original copy.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For books society has a great mechanism to help those who cannot afford them. They are called libraries. But you won't convince me that society advances if those who can afford to pay become free loaders.

Those people are not "free loaders", at least of society. Most must work in order to have the ability to pay, and we can assume the work of most contributes to creating utility for the people of the world. By freeing them from having to spend money in order to have goods that do not take money to copy, they will be able to spend or invest their money towards products and projects which DO require the capital and most of which, too, bring utility to people. What removing the artificial scarcity of copyright does is like eliminating the digging and filling of ditches by a paid crew.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Laws (copyright, intellectual property, trade secret, etc) have been put in place to protect those natural rights. Without them nothing would be created or shared with others except by the creator intentionally giving it away or having it stolen.

That's how it was for most of human history, before the advent of copyright. It wasn't too bad... folks like Homer and Chaucer seems to have wanted to compose their works under that system.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Intellectual property laws are actually less artificial then physical property laws such as real estate or water rights.

That's plausible, actually. Of course, just like there are people who think copyright shouldn't exist, there are also people who think "owning" real state one does not live should not be allowed by the state.

...

*looks at the posts above* Oi, I think there may be a couple of duelists in the forum.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Definitely agreed. But we are talking about the right of the author to get paid versus the "right" of other individuals to read for free. I don't see how the author's rights have any negative effect on society. Is it really better for society if works would go into public domain immediately after they are published? Why is it bad for society if an author (or the ones the author assigns the rights to) has a certain period to profit off his/her creation? Is it better for society if the author lives off welfare? Why should the "right" of some individuals to read books for free be more worthy than the right of another individual to be rewarded for his/her work?

...

For books society has a great mechanism to help those who cannot afford them. They are called libraries. But you won't convince me that society advances if those who can afford to pay become free loaders.

Because you're twisting the argument, I'm not accepting your premise. Why should the "right" of some individuals to control how something is used be more worth than the right of another individual to create something new out of it? When you focus only on money you may find it east to demonize people who do what you don't like but free doesn't just mean you don't have to spend money to use something, it means you can use something any way you'd like.

I mean sure you could have a valid debate on weather society would be better if anyone could have any book or any time to read. There's more than just fiction out there but as you point out a library is a good compromise.

A library however doesn't give permission to make fan fiction or paint a scene based on your favorite scene in Stephen King's latest bestseller. Even if you can pay the license to make a derivative work of some kind the copyright holder can still say no I don't like YOUR idea. That slows progress, that's bad for society.

Basically if you think new creations are good for society then every year of copyright/patent is a year delay for another creation. If you believe creating is just a job then I have to ask why any one profession needs to be protected from a free market in what they're selling? If you believe creating is socially useful but people won't do it without some incentives then we can look back to the first part of the paragraph and work out a formula that maximizes the number of creations per year.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Someone creates something of value, sells it, and makes a living. He/she contributes to society. That is good for society. Why make an arbitrary distinction between physical and digital goods? That would only make sense if nobody got paid for any work and everything was free.

It isn't arbitrary nor does treating the two different mean that all economies must suddenly crash. Digital has no scarcity you never run out, it has infinite durability, it can never wear out. An idea is not a chair its closer to a virus. You can give your cold to everyone around you and not feel less sick, never lose anything for having shared your sneezes with the world. If you want to sell or buy digital stuff, cool, growing economy more jobs more people pay taxes libraries get bigger budgets, get bigger buildings with more books, attach rockets to the buildings and then LIBRARIES IN SPACE! How cool is that?

But I digress. Different lays because they are well, different. Real estate laws are different because somewhere down the line people noticed that standing on a piece of ground is not the same as having a trinket in your pocket. Producing an idea isn't the same as producing a hammer. This is not the same as demanding that all things must not have cost.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

*looks at the posts above* Oi, I think there may be a couple of duelists in the forum.

Actually, I'd say that at least one is a nondualist when it comes to physical and intellectual property.

Also, an insight from the Fashion industry. I won't spoil it, but what does that do? Well...


And Kennyc, are you are then agreeing with the statement that there is a failure of the market to provide adequate compensation to the creators of intellectual property?

(Hint: This is a trap question, because this kind of market failure has, historically, a very specific kind of response)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

.....

That's how it was for most of human history, before the advent of copyright. It wasn't too bad... folks like Homer and Chaucer seems to have wanted to compose their works under that system.

...

True, but that was also in a time when it was actually quite difficult to MAKE A COPY, eh?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

... Why should the "right" of some individuals to control how something is used be more worth than the right of another individual to create something new out of it? .....

Basically if you think new creations are good for society then every year of copyright/patent is a year delay for another creation. ....

...

Because it is the creator's right to decide what is does with his creation. End of story. You have no right to my stuff and if you take my property without my permission you are a thief.

For #2 your reasoning is faulty. Creativity is not single threaded.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

True, but that was also in a time when it was actually quite difficult to MAKE A COPY, eh?

Not really or we wouldn't have those things still with us. It wasn't difficult just time consuming. Sit down with a pencil and paper or chisel and stone tablet, whatever medium you like and you'll discover you can do it if you think its worth doing. And the printing press was invented in Chaucer's lifetime. Before that you'd get a cadre of monks, write it down yourself, memorize the story maybe give it your own embellishments at the same time, painters trained by making copies of the maters, the difference today is making a copy is fast thus allowing a publisher to have a million copies ready to sell on release day for a big name author or in the case of a digital file having as many copies as are wanted on demand.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Basically if you think new creations are good for society then every year of copyright/patent is a year delay for another creation. If you believe creating is just a job then I have to ask why any one profession needs to be protected from a free market in what they're selling?

Copyright is not protecting authors from the free market. Copyright is protecting authors from theft. A free market exists when every author/authorized seller can offer his or her books and every reader can decide to buy it or to buy some other book.

If you now buy a machine to print famous companies' logos on a plain t-shirts you would not be taking advantage of a "free market" and furthering competition. Protecting ownership through branding or copyright promotes innovation and product quality. Good for society. You can always choose not to buy or buy something else, we are not essential necessities.

[DawnFalcon]

Except with clothing, the entire point is that branding is the ONLY way to protect it, you can't (well you can in the EU, but NOT effectively: and most don't even try) protect it with copyright. I restate this link.

There is a lot of evidence - from this and many other projects like Creative Commons - that the good of society is not being protected by IP-as-practised. I can also go on at length (but you probably don't want me to) about the Open Gaming Licence and how it's changed the RPG market for the better.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Because it is the creator's right to decide what is does with his creation. End of story.

How so? Once something is made available control is lot, a architect can't control what a building is used for or what color paint goes on the walls why should a photographer decide what can be used in a collage?

Rights don't come into existence just because you decide they should. What's your justification for controlling what other people do when nothing has been done to you. You still have whatever you before except perhaps the ability to decide what actions other people can take.

Originally Posted by kennyc

You have no right to my stuff and if you take my property without my permission you are a thief.

I've not taken anything from you and I consider this quite insulting. I have no interest in your stuff. You are not being personally threatened. What I care about is the greater issue of small numbers of people having the ability to hold up the cultural progress of the whole. My interest is in keeping these unfortunate monopolies short. In avoiding tyranny. Allowing the current generation to draw from the pool of things that came before in a reasonable amount of time just like the previous generation did. You're the one who insists on making this personal against you.

Originally Posted by kennyc

For #2 your reasoning is faulty. Creativity is not single threaded.

If the goal is not to spur creation then how could creation be anything other than just another job? Are you suggesting that this is a special class of people more worthy than others and entitled to special protections?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Not really or we wouldn't have those things still with us. It wasn't difficult just time consuming. .

No difference in difficult or time consuming. Same thing. The point is that the need for copyright was virtually non-existent until the printing press and mass copying/printing abilities existed.

That's what you've turned this thread into right? a copyright discussion right? a public domain vs author's rights discussion, right?

The ability to make a copy is exactly the point. Copyright laws were not needed then.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No difference in difficult or time consuming. Same thing. The point is that the need for copyright was virtually non-existent until the printing press and mass copying/printing abilities existed.

The printing press got traction in the mid-15th Century. The Statute of Anne was 1710. That's a 250-year gap without disaster due to lack of "modern" copyright laws.

And your view of it as an adversarial process is yours: Don't assume others see it as a vs situation.

Once more: In fashion, a hyper-competitive industry, the only protection is essentially the moral rights about attribution. And there is a similar lack of protection for food, cars and furniture: competitive markets which each dwarf the entire media sector.

And they are sectors where scarcity still applies, as it does not in media!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

How so? Once something is made available control is lot, a architect can't control what a building is used for or what color paint goes on the walls why should a photographer decide what can be used in a collage?

Rights don't come into existence just because you decide they should. What's your justification for controlling what other people do when nothing has been done to you. You still have whatever you before except perhaps the ability to decide what actions other people can take.



I've not taken anything from you and I consider this quite insulting. I have no interest in your stuff. You are not being personally threatened. What I care about is the greater issue of small numbers of people having the ability to hold up the cultural progress of the whole. My interest is in keeping these unfortunate monopolies short. In avoiding tyranny. Allowing the current generation to draw from the pool of things that came before in a reasonable amount of time just like the previous generation did. You're the one who insists on making this personal against you.



If the goal is not to spur creation then how could creation be anything other than just another job? Are you suggesting that this is a special class of people more worthy than others and entitled to special protections?

This has nothing to do with buildings. I've already explained the natural rights to something you create. Please pay attention. No one does not lose LOT control, I'm not even sure what that means. Nor does one lose control. That is exactly the point of intellectual property laws in case you missed that.

Again as far as rights. I've explained that. Do you think because you give birth to something you immediately lose the right to it. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say yet.

Can you not tell the difference in the global you and the specific you? If you want insulting just look at some of the things you say to people. If you want to take that as personally speaking to you that is your issue, but I've said this many time and well before you ever showed up here.

I'll say it again so you can think about it some more.

If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

You are welcome to whatever interest you want and are welcome to state it, but so am I and I completely and totally disagree with your position that the public domain is more important than those people who create the works you want to take from them without fair compensation.

I've explained it before but will say it again, without the authors, artists and other creative people there IS NO PUBLIC DOMAIN. They create the works, that act of creation automatically grants them the right to do whatever they want with that creation, it is not your right to take it from them. The intellectual property laws were put in place to protect those natural rights and as a BYPRODUCT provide a means of sharing that work with the public. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that but it is the reality of the situation. If you don't like it the I will advise you again as I have in the past to go do something to change the laws instead of spouting your opinions here.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you don't like it the I will advise you again as I have in the past to go do something to change the laws instead of spouting your opinions here.

Unless Iphinome has a lot of spare money lying around for "campaign contributions", I think it is somewhat unrealistic to expect her to do something that will help change the laws more than what she is doing now; sharing her views and trying to convince people through a public forum.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This has nothing to do with buildings. I've already explained the natural rights to something you create.

You've explained a novel theory which has nothing whatsoever with what is considered "natural rights" as the term is used by philosophers and sociologists.

It's main component seems to be an attempt to lock down the basic fundamentals of today's society into a corporate matrix, a form of hypercorporate rule.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand that but it is the reality of the situation.

No no, I entirely understand that you are unable to discern between intrinsic and extrinsic reality.

Oh, and you are specifically forbidden from stealing any part of this post in a quote.


Jaime Astorga - No, you misunderstand. Kennyc is saying everything he is claiming is the law as it stands. He is saying that she should lobby to change laws back to the actual status quo.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

Unless Iphinome has a lot of spare money lying around for "campaign contributions", I think it is somewhat unrealistic to expect her to do something that will help change the laws more than what she is doing now; sharing her views and trying to convince people through a public forum.

Why? Many things can be done it doesn't take money. My point is that this is probably the last place voicing an opinion against the current copyright laws is going to make a difference.

Hell this topic is not even supposed to be ABOUT copyright laws it supposed to be about an Author who removed their book from being freely available for download. But it's been twisted into another endless pirate/copyright thread....