Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

I must disagree the stature of Anne broke a monopoly wherein a publisher (book binder) would gain control of a book and not allow anyone else to print the same book in perpetuity. It limited the control of a single work to set number of years, I don't remember off the top of my head what it was I think it was 21. But it did nothing for or against authors who got a 1 time payment for selling the book. It has nothing to say about preventing derivative works. Basically it created a free market starting at the moment copyright expired.

Later the 1790 law in the US added the idea that people could demand payment for 14 years is someone used their work or patent but it was an idea closer to a statutory license than an ability to block use. You didn't withhold sale to maintain a competitive edge, you found someone using your patent who hadn't paid and you'd send them a strongly worded letter asking for the fee. That's closer to the freeloader you often speak of, someone who didn't want to pay the fee but without the fanatical control of who can do what with whatever. It isn't what you talk about these days where formats can be withheld and types of use denied.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

I'd like to see some data supporting branding promoting innovation rather than just promoting the idea of paying for a logo and having the product be secondary. Consider the "apple tax" the guts of apple products are stock parts anyone could get from their manufacturers, anything innovated that's added is covered under patent but it isn't the logo that produces the innovation. See my post with the fashion industry talk it addresses this topic directly and should probably be better discussed there.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But it's been twisted into another endless pirate/copyright thread....

Yes, by you.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, by you.

Sorry Dawn, but you are wrong again.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry Dawn, but you are wrong again.

this is the point where the discussion changed

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=69

you dragged an argument from a different thread into this one after the other one was closed. People responded. Dawn is correct.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

this is the point where the discussion changed

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=69

you dragged an argument from a different thread into this one after the other one was closed. People responded. Dawn is correct.

Uh, wrong. My posting was clearly stated as what it was, note the "Not to get too far off topic"

It wasn't "people" that responded, it was YOU with your same ol' horse beating that you pull out in virtually every thread you post in. That's when it went off topic and stayed off topic.

And with that, I'm outta here cause this thread is going to get closed anyway....

[HansTWN]

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.

If, as some of you claim, Iphinome's views are those of the "vast majority" then soon millions of letters will be arriving at lawmakers' offices and the laws will be changed. Apparently, not enough people seem to share that view, though.

[DawnFalcon]

Hans - No, again, you haven't read carefully enough. Kennyc is claiming his claims such as "no public domain" are the current state of affairs, and that the actual status quo is what she should work to "get to".

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If, as some of you claim, Iphinome's views are those of the "vast majority" then soon millions of letters will be arriving at lawmakers' offices and the laws will be changed. Apparently, not enough people seem to share that view, though.

If you read my post above, you will see that I argue the "vast majority" of people hold no views on the matter. Most people don't think too hard about complex ideas like copyright or philosophy. Even most of those whose rudimentary ideas on the subject are close to Iphinome's are probably not politically active enough (either out of apathy or due to cynicism about the political system) to try to petition their public representatives. So by the time it is all said and done, those representatives only see a minor fraction of their constituency actually caring and opposing the relevant laws, and therefore feel they can ignore them with impunity. And the sad part is, they are largely right.

[Iphinome]

the vast majority are pretty ignorant of the details of copyright law. I recently informed a small buisness owner about what penalties they were by using photos of the products they sell without the photographer's permission. It never occurs to them that little things like using a manufacturer's photo of a product you're selling can land you in hot water. When they learn they often start to care at least in my limited experience.

But there are people out their who hold views similar to mine, not the exact details but the basic philosophy. The entire free software movement. Free meaning libre. Authors like Cory Doctorow and his readers, the majority of the posters on Slashdot and boing boing. We do write and call our lawmakers, I do write and call my lawmakers about this. It isn't that we're not trying its that we're being outbid and when the candidates both oppose your views on copyright there are still other issues to vote on.

The side of the argument I'm on are in a bad position but we do try.

[DawnFalcon]

Assuming the apathy of the electorate is a dangerous game for politicians, Jamie.

Cyberdemocracy is taking off at a pretty good clip here.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I've already explained the natural rights to something you create.

You made up some BS claims, but I don't see how that counts as explanation, exactly.

Please pay attention.

Please stop being condescending.

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

That might apply to tangible objects (in a lot of cases, anyway), but not to copyrighted works. Calling such copyright violations "theft" is uniformed or, at best, intellectually dishonest. "Theft" always includes the taking away of a physical object in such a way that the original owner no longer has possessions of it. This is, be definition, impossible with virtual goods. You can steal a physical copy of that work, a book, a CD, but not the work itself.

They create the works, that act of creation automatically grants them the right to do whatever they want with that creation ...

There is no "automatic" here. They only have the rights we as a society give them.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

You made up some BS claims, but I don't see how that counts as explanation, exactly.



Please stop being condescending.



That might apply to tangible objects (in a lot of cases, anyway), but not to copyrighted works. Calling such copyright violations "theft" is uniformed or, at best, intellectually dishonest. "Theft" always includes the taking away of a physical object in such a way that the original owner no longer has possessions of it. This is, be definition, impossible with virtual goods. You can steal a physical copy of that work, a book, a CD, but not the work itself.



There is no "automatic" here. They only have the rights we as a society give them.

Some might give it a different name. What is being stolen is not the file per se, it is the exclusive right to create legal copies of that file. Only copies created under fair use are exempt. When you buy a ticket to a concert and then at the door they say "we won't let you in" have you they not "stolen" your right? You might give it a different name, but in the end it is some sort of theft.

Copyright is not a "priviledge" bestowed on authors by society -- it is an automatic right (that is why they call it a right) being given to every author to control every copy of his or her work (again, with fair use exceptions). Just because the technical means exist to easily copy doesn't give people the right to freely copy. Only the author can sign this right away to a third party or just declare the work to be part of public domain.

If I practice and create perfect copies of your signature (or I just scan and paste your signature to the bottom of a document) that is ok if I don't cause you any financial harm -- I might just sign a drive to extend the length of copy rights in your name ? You still have your signature.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Copyright is not a "priviledge" bestowed on authors by society

Of course it is. Copyright laws come from society in the absence of those laws there would be nothing to prevent someone from copying, expanding, integrating into and distributing. Even now the distribution is the only thing covered by the laws. There's no natural ability to control ideas that leave your head, for most of human history it was keep it a secret or let the world do as they like with it. The name copyright is just misleading.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If I practice and create perfect copies of your signature (or I just scan and paste your signature to the bottom of a document) that is ok if I don't cause you any financial harm -- I might just sign a drive to extend the length of copy rights in your name ? You still have your signature.

I could probably make a case for your attaching someone's name to something falsely in writing as being libelous. And if the petition had legal weight behind it like signatures needed to put something on a ballot, fraud.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What is being stolen is not the file per se, it is the exclusive right to create legal copies of that file.

Only you can't steal that. It doesn't fit any definition of theft that I am familiar with.

Only copies created under fair use are exempt.

Ah, so a bit of stealing is OK? Let's face it: a copyright violation is just that, a civil offence with civil remedies. It's not a crime in the strict sense, though, and certainly not theft.

When you buy a ticket to a concert and then at the door they say "we won't let you in" have you they not "stolen" your right?

No, they haven't. The have violated my contractual right to attend the concert. Again, not a crime, just a case for civil remedies (Small Claims Court, most likely).

You might give it a different name, but in the end it is some sort of theft.

It's not. Sure, call things what you want, but a spade, a shovel and and an entrenching tool are different things... I can't help it if this requires a bit of abstract thinking.

Copyright is not a "priviledge" bestowed on authors by society ...

Actually, that is precisely the point I was trying to make, beautifully worded: So, yes: Copyright is a privilege bestowed upon authors by society.

If I practice and create perfect copies of your signature (or I just scan and paste your signature to the bottom of a document) that is ok if I don't cause you any financial harm

If you don't use it fraudulently, ie trying to impersonate me, there is probably no law against it. Certainly the signatures of famous people are collectible, or so I've heard. Signed books, too, are regularly passed on without consent (or knowledge) of the original signator.