Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

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

In that case it would be called "copy privilege". It is called copy right because the situation is reversed. Actually it is authors who are granting fair use exceptions to society. Why would authors need society to graciously assign them the privilege of getting the rights to something they have created? The kind of society, where the individual is at the mercy of the government to decide if what is his is really his, that is your ideal? The author has created the work, by natural law it is his.

It is the authors who bestow upon society the right to the works after the protection period expires (yes, I know life +70 is too long) and to certain fair use exceptions in exchange for protection against illegal use by others. All those examples you mentioned are sales or advertising tools. Of course an author can choose to give away 1 or 1 million copies for free.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In that case it would be called "copy privilege".

I am not playing your game of semantics here, sorry. Copyright refers to "the right to make or sell copies", something that you wouldn't have to grant explicitly if the creator simply "owned" his work outright. That said, the English name given to a universal concept is hardly a swaying argument.

Actually it is authors who are granting fair use exceptions to society.

Well, no, but let's keep it at that. You're entitled to your point of view, as senseless as it might appear to others.

The author has created the work, by natural law it is his.

Just one final request: please don't use the well-established term "natural law" in your own, special way.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Well, no, but let's keep it at that. You're entitled to your point of view, as senseless as it might appear to others.

You sure think you are God's gift to the world.

Well, nice to see you have finally run out of arguments. Have a nice day.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In that case it would be called "copy privilege". It is called copy right because the situation is reversed. Actually it is authors who are granting fair use exceptions to society. Why would authors need society to graciously assign them the privilege of getting the rights to something they have created? The kind of society, where the individual is at the mercy of the government to decide if what is his is really his, that is your ideal? The author has created the work, by natural law it is his.

It is the authors who bestow upon society the right to the works after the protection period expires (yes, I know life +70 is too long) and to certain fair use exceptions in exchange for protection against illegal use by others. All those examples you mentioned are sales or advertising tools. Of course an author can choose to give away 1 or 1 million copies for free.

Natural law, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Things like natural rights don't need to enumerated, you have the natural right to urinate there's no law giving you permission you can just let go. Which is why there are laws to prevent you from doing it say in a courtroom. Laws do not create natural rights, they restrict them. There's no natural right to control an idea, there is a natural right to copy you've been doing it since birth, its how you learned language, walking, using a fork. The copyright law restircts this right.

Laws come from society. And yes governments do decide whats yours or at least they decide what isn't yours, any government without that power won't last. They can tax, they can emanate domain, they can seize, they can outlaw. If authors didn't need a grant form society then copyright law wouldn't be necessary, to copy would be impossible. You also need a grant from society to keep your personal possessions, owning something that isn't on your person isn't a natural right either, its a legal one.

Anyway you've already agreed copyright is too long so you've conceded that there is no right to control an idea forever. if it was authors who decided to give things to the public domain then you'd have to say they could decide not to do it after life+70, they can't at least till Disney buys 51 senators and adds another 20 years.

I think you said somewhere you're German, could there be perhaps a language problem here? you seem to have two concepts reversed.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Natural law, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Things like natural rights don't need to enumerated, you have the natural right to urinate there's no law giving you permission you can just let go. Which is why there are laws to prevent you from doing it say in a courtroom. Laws do not create natural rights, they restrict them. There's no natural right to control an idea, there is a natural right to copy you've been doing it since birth, its how you learned language, walking, using a fork. The copyright law restircts this right.

Laws come from society. And yes governments do decide whats yours or at least they decide what isn't yours, any government without that power won't last. They can tax, they can emanate domain, they can seize, they can outlaw. If authors didn't need a grant form society then copyright law wouldn't be necessary, to copy would be impossible. You also need a grant from society to keep your personal possessions, owning something that isn't on your person isn't a natural right either, its a legal one.

Anyway you've already agreed copyright is too long so you've conceded that there is no right to control an idea forever. if it was authors who decided to give things to the public domain then you'd have to say they could decide not to do it after life+70, they can't at least till Disney buys 51 senators and adds another 20 years.

I think you said somewhere you're German, could there be perhaps a language problem here? you seem to have two concepts reversed.

Yes and no. I have not used it in the traditional sense as you explained. However, that someone's creation belongs to that person seems universal to me and not in need of special legislation by society. Even animals have personal possessions. Just ask my bird and my dog! Property is as natural as breathing. What is different with personal property in society is that society defends it for you.

So in the end, I wasn't really far off.

With regard to the other matter, I am confused here. If an author says: "this is my work, everyone is free to publish it, to copy it, to use it in any way" -- isn't that exactly like the work being in public domain already? Sure, theoretically he could retract it. But other than that, for all practical purposes, it is just as if the work was in public domain. So each author can decide for himself. He can also give term limited rights to others. I don't see your problem.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You sure think you are God's gift to the world.

I wonder how you would know? But then, no, gratuitous ad hominem attacks are not a level of discussion I am willing to stoop to.

Well, nice to see you have finally run out of arguments.

Actually, I am just tired of explaining myself again and again. Reason doesn't convince you and the whole discussion has become rather fruitless. Perhaps it's just that I am used to dialog partners that at least make an effort to understand the points I am making. Whatever it is, it's probably me. That's fine. EOD.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes and no. I have not used it in the traditional sense as you explained. However, that someone's creation belongs to that person seems universal to me and not in need of special legislation by society. Even animals have personal possessions. Just ask my bird and my dog! Property is as natural as breathing. What is different with personal property in society is that society defends it for you.

So in the end, I wasn't really far off.

With regard to the other matter, I am confused here. If an author says: "this is my work, everyone is free to publish it, to copy it, to use it in any way" -- isn't that exactly like the work being in public domain already? Sure, theoretically he could retract it. But other than that, for all practical purposes, it is just as if the work was in public domain. So each author can decide for himself. He can also give term limited rights to others. I don't see your problem.

I'll work in reverse. I'm honestly not sure if there's a way to put something in the public domain other than just making the promise that there is. I suppose putting it in writing might make it a contract but I'm not a lawyer. best guess is if someone did make that statement they'd be laughed out of court if they later tried to enforce copyright. But what I was saying is an author can't decide not to allow things to pass into the public domain when copyright expires. That's out of their control. I'm thinking we've run into a bit of a language problem not completely understanding what the other is trying to say.

For the first point it is in fact unnatural. When you were a child did you ever play with your friends games involving your favorite books or tv shows? Pretend you were in the land of oz? Pretend you lived in bedrock with the Flintstones? That's a form of copying there's no thought that someone else owns the rights or not, its just something you like and want to be part of the fun. Your games as a child didn't just belong to the people who inspired them they became a part of your world and you expanded on it. No to say that those games were not yours but belongs to the original authors isn't a natural thing. When you hear a good joke your impulse is to share it with someone else, that's copying. When someone invented basket weaving the whole world didn't line up to buy baskets from Ugh the caveman, they started to weave their own. That's copying and I bet Ugh the caveman was proud of the basket and went and showed it around to Uhnnga Gork and Bob. Being civilized cave people they didn't take the basket away from Ugh respecting the property right of the tangible object but at the same time didn't feel they were stealing if they didn't give three fish to him every time they wove a basket.

I know the example may seem a little silly but the point is ideas getting around is natural and putting control over them is the artificial thing that came along much later.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I suppose putting it in writing might make it a contract but I'm not a lawyer.

A contract? With only one party? :-)

By simply stating that your work is "in the public domain" you'll usually grant the general public an irrevocable blanket license to use your work as they see fit. Details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most of Europe, eg, you'll have certain rights even then (being named as the author, for example).

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

A contract? With only one party? :-)

By simply stating that your work is "in the public domain" you'll usually grant the general public an irrevocable blanket license to use your work as they see fit. Details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most of Europe, eg, you'll have certain rights even then (being named as the author, for example).

With anyone who makes use of it. The idea being that if the author had a change of heart and tried to sue you could come back and say hey I have it here in writing that I can use this.

This isn't my strong point.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

I wonder how you would know? But then, no, gratuitous ad hominem attacks are not a level of discussion I am willing to stoop to.

Then why did you stoop so low in your previous remark? And in the last one? Better go back and read your own personal attacks. Apparently your memory is quite short. You started being preachy and condescending and I actually took it down about two notches from there.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I'll work in reverse. I'm honestly not sure if there's a way to put something in the public domain other than just making the promise that there is. I suppose putting it in writing might make it a contract but I'm not a lawyer. best guess is if someone did make that statement they'd be laughed out of court if they later tried to enforce copyright. But what I was saying is an author can't decide not to allow things to pass into the public domain when copyright expires. That's out of their control. I'm thinking we've run into a bit of a language problem not completely understanding what the other is trying to say.

For the first point it is in fact unnatural. When you were a child did you ever play with your friends games involving your favorite books or tv shows? Pretend you were in the land of oz? Pretend you lived in bedrock with the Flintstones? That's a form of copying there's no thought that someone else owns the rights or not, its just something you like and want to be part of the fun. Your games as a child didn't just belong to the people who inspired them they became a part of your world and you expanded on it. No to say that those games were not yours but belongs to the original authors isn't a natural thing. When you hear a good joke your impulse is to share it with someone else, that's copying. When someone invented basket weaving the whole world didn't line up to buy baskets from Ugh the caveman, they started to weave their own. That's copying and I bet Ugh the caveman was proud of the basket and went and showed it around to Uhnnga Gork and Bob. Being civilized cave people they didn't take the basket away from Ugh respecting the property right of the tangible object but at the same time didn't feel they were stealing if they didn't give three fish to him every time they wove a basket.

I know the example may seem a little silly but the point is ideas getting around is natural and putting control over them is the artificial thing that came along much later.

No need to explain. I admit, it was quite a stretch and does not really fit the normal definition of "natural law" (by the way, the same exists in German, so that is not a language issue). More accurate would be to say that it is one of the basic rights that have to be adhered to in order to allow human society to function properly. Something that appeals to our most basic sense of justice. You make something, it is yours.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Actually, I am just tired of explaining myself again and again. Reason doesn't convince you and the whole discussion has become rather fruitless. Perhaps it's just that I am used to dialog partners that at least make an effort to understand the points I am making. Whatever it is, it's probably me. That's fine. EOD.

After many pages of explaining, putting kennyc on ignore worked for me - I'm not annoyed by the nonsense I was seeing in his posts anymore (only when I see it in other people's quotes).

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You make something, it is yours.

Don't forget your position is also "You think of something, no one else has a right to think about the same thing anymore, until you allow it".

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Ever heard of editors?

Of course. Why do you think I wouldn't?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

How do you make any book stand out?

By advertizing and word of mouth.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Do you really want a world with a million authors who all just self publish on the web?

Yes, I do.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

How will anyone ever choose? And if it happens, then the work of the publishers just will be taken over by "reviewers' websites" and you authors will have to shell out to get good reviews or top spaces on the search sites. So, we come back to Google, Apple, and Co.

Back from where? Presently authors agree to many unfair things so the publisher publishes their books, and publishers try to influence reviewers. It's not like the situation was ever better than it would be.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And please tell me, what "productive" work do you imagine will be left in the Western world if intellectual property is not being protected? Most of the jobs that produce physical goods are in Asia, what is left for you?

What does that have to do with what is discussed here? Do you mean to say your ideas about the world are just a consequence of your economical situation?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They will not be free. Are Google's services free? No, you pay for them by giving up your privacy, your data. And Google makes money off your data. The same thing will happen to books. It is NOT free.

Yes, they are free. Completely free, and with time there will be more completely free good books.
Google's services are also free, as you can, if you wish, not give them any data that would bring a loss to you. There are people who make special email account for every place they register on, and waste many hours of their life managing that fiction. I also have nothing against Google making money off my data - their gain is not my loss.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually it is authors who are granting fair use exceptions to society. Why would authors need society to graciously assign them the privilege of getting the rights to something they have created?

Because otherwise everyone else would be free to kick their teeth out if they try to interfere with him singing the same song.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The kind of society, where the individual is at the mercy of the government to decide if what is his is really his, that is your ideal?

Actually, the government is essential for the idea of property to exist. When there's nothing to maintain common set of law, the only things that are mine are those I can protect myself.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The author has created the work, by natural law it is his.

The society has created the author, so everything created by author belongs to society.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is the authors who bestow upon society the right to the works after the protection period expires (yes, I know life +70 is too long) and to certain fair use exceptions in exchange for protection against illegal use by others.

It is the society that grants authors the privilege of being the only one who can copy their work exclusively, for certain amount of time, in order to encourage the author to create (and since it no longer has the desired effect in the age of Internet, copyright should be abolished, but that's my personal opinion).

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Ever heard of editors?

Ever heard of beta readers?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

How do you make any book stand out? Do you really want a world with a million authors who all just self publish on the web?

Hell yes. Especially considering that, since the editors you mentioned above make changes based on what is likely to sell rather than what might make for a good work (which is their job, after all), it is rather bad for the masses of current books to currently have to go through a small number of channels in order to be published, with all the biases and censorship thereof implied.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

How will anyone ever choose? And if it happens, then the work of the publishers just will be taken over by "reviewers' websites" and you authors will have to shell out to get good reviews or top spaces on the search sites. So, we come back to Google, Apple, and Co.

Recommendation sites don't necessarily have to follow the "one guy reads and recommends" model. There are also the kind of voting systems used in sites like Digg. Can they be gamed? Sure, but what system can't?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And please tell me, what "productive" work do you imagine will be left in the Western world if intellectual property is not being protected? Most of the jobs that produce physical goods are in Asia, what is left for you?

Non-physical goods can be produced per commission. Continued services (like making sales and tech support) can be offered in exchange for continuous pay. Product placement can be offered to popular authors. Unlike what many people seem to fear, the West will not collapse if copyright and/or patterns shrink significantly.