Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why shouldn't his recipe and cooking instructions be just as protected as IP as a book, or a song? Sure, his recipe has only minor differences from any other bread recipe, but those differences are enough to bring customers to him instead of his competition.

What makes his bread less proprietary than, say, a 12-note ringtone tune?

I made allowance that it might be protected as intellectual property. By and large though, bread is bread and one of the basic rules for patents (as a bread recipe it would have to be covered under a patent) is that uniqueness must be both innovative and non-trivial. Letting it rise for 30 minutes instead of 25 or other small differences like that cannot be patented.

Bread is not covered under copyright, that is what makes it less proprietary than a 12-note ringtone.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, let us take services. You get on a bus and don't pay. You sneak into a movie theater and you don't pay. The bus would drive even if you are not on it, the movie would play anyway. So, by your logic, you wouldn't have taken anything. And the baker sure as hell wouldn't let you watch if he had any reason to believe you would copy his bread, by the way.

First of all, sneaking into a movie theater is covered both by trespassing laws and by copyright law (i.e., the terms for seeing the movie require you to buy a ticket).

As for the bus, the bus may drive, but it will require marginally more energy to get where it is going if you sneak on the bus. In other words, you are stealing energy from the bus.. and your weight will also increase wear and tear on the bus.

I never said the baker would let me watch him bake bread. My point was predicated on the baker letting me watch him. Once he does, provided he has not found a way to pantent his recipe or process of making bread, I am free to duplicate it from a legal stand point.

Yes, we have to change with digital items. We have to change our attitudes. What copyright grants is the exclusive right to make copies. You can make a copy --- but that copy is illegal, it shouldn't be allowed to exist (fair use exceptions aside). I think this "I take one but they still have the original left" argument is an excuse. You take one and you wind up with something illegal on your hands. It is much easier to take than physical items, but for the "taker" it is the result is the same. Only the impact on the other side is different.

I never said people should be able to copy material that is under copyright. I just believe that any argument that is predicated on treating it like regular property is fundamentally flawed. The protections provided to intellectual property are fundamentally different than the protections provided to real property and they are different because the nature of the property is different.

--
Bill

[Kali Yuga]

IMO the "zomg copyright is too long" can have a point, but it's often disingenuous -- as evidenced by how many of the same organizations and individuals who protest long copyright terms also heavily criticize short patent terms.

Repeated copyright renewals is just a sneaky way to get more work into the public domain. It imposes more costs on the copyright agencies, it produces more barriers for the authors, and it penalizes anyone who makes an error on the paperwork.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the practical reality is that Life + 50 is the minimum, and Life + 70 is probably going to end up as the international standard. Despite all the brilliant alternatives on offer, rolling that back is going to require changing a whole lot of treaties, and I see no indication that's going to happen during any of our lifetimes. So y'all might want to get used to it.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

1. A book must be made available to maintain a copyright. If it is not for sale for a period of (for example) 10 years te copyright expires.

Matthew Barney is an artist who has made several films, and wants strict control over when and where they are shown. They are not available on DVD, Barney says they will never be released on DVD, and apparently he has no interest in his films being treated like a commodity. Why should he be forced to sell his work if he doesn't want to?

Christo and Jeanne-Claude are artists who intentionally make temporary artworks, designs and sculptures; the whole idea is to make works that are not permanent. Should they be forced to make their structures permanent in order to maintain protection of the work?

Originally Posted by speakintohe

2. A book must within a certain time be (again perhaps 10 years) made avaliable to libraries or the copyright expires.

If I write a book that suggests that every library should be closed, why should I be forced to make the book available to libraries?

Libraries are a common good. Much like public parks, someone has to pay for those goods, and it ought to be the library's patrons. Not the authors.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I think authors heirs have a right to benefit as do people who have invested money in the work. But if they show no effort to do so then the copyright is benefitting no-one.

There is not, and should not be, any requirement for a content creator's work to "benefit anyone." If I want to write a book that someone believes is harmful, they are entitled to their opinion -- and I'm entitled to write and distribute the book anyway.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by bevdeforges

I'm all for the author benefiting from his or her creation during their lifetime. Not so keen on endowing the heirs with long-lasting benefits....

David Foster Wallace was 46 when he committed suicide. Under different circumstances, he could have stayed alive for another 35-40 years. His best-selling book, Infinite Jest, was only out for 12 years before he died.

Should his family not receive any benefit from his works after his death?

Should every work he wrote go into public domain at the moment of his early demise?

Should his family not get anything for any posthumous work the estate chooses to publish? Even if the estate had to hire someone to put it together, edit and market it?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

David Foster Wallace was 46 when he committed suicide. Under different circumstances, he could have stayed alive for another 35-40 years. His best-selling book, Infinite Jest, was only out for 12 years before he died.

Should his family not receive any benefit from his works after his death?

Should every work he wrote go into public domain at the moment of his early demise?

Should his family not get anything for any posthumous work the estate chooses to publish? Even if the estate had to hire someone to put it together, edit and market it?

Of course, after 12 years, I suspect that his book had already made 90% of what it would ever make. If it was a less popular book, maybe 99%.

All of this is a bit of a red herring. One can always find a circumstance where a work where an exception should be made. Ultimately, whether copyright ends with death, a fixed period, or death + a fixed period, it needs to ultimately end so that other authors can use it to make the next set of great works.

--
Bill

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the practical reality is that Life + 50 is the minimum, and Life + 70 is probably going to end up as the international standard. Despite all the brilliant alternatives on offer, rolling that back is going to require changing a whole lot of treaties, and I see no indication that's going to happen during any of our lifetimes. So y'all might want to get used to it.

For a professional contrarian you're beginning to sound exceedingly mainstream.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

David Foster Wallace was 46 when he committed suicide. Under different circumstances, he could have stayed alive for another 35-40 years. His best-selling book, Infinite Jest, was only out for 12 years before he died.

Should his family not receive any benefit from his works after his death?

Should every work he wrote go into public domain at the moment of his early demise?

Should his family not get anything for any posthumous work the estate chooses to publish? Even if the estate had to hire someone to put it together, edit and market it?

Nope. They should not. In other lines of work income stops when people die. You want to take care of your family? Buy life insurance.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

IMO the "zomg copyright is too long" can have a point, but it's often disingenuous -- as evidenced by how many of the same organizations and individuals who protest long copyright terms also heavily criticize short patent terms.

Repeated copyright renewals is just a sneaky way to get more work into the public domain. It imposes more costs on the copyright agencies, it produces more barriers for the authors, and it penalizes anyone who makes an error on the paperwork.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the practical reality is that Life + 50 is the minimum, and Life + 70 is probably going to end up as the international standard. Despite all the brilliant alternatives on offer, rolling that back is going to require changing a whole lot of treaties, and I see no indication that's going to happen during any of our lifetimes. So y'all might want to get used to it.

We'll see what happens the next time the big I.P. hoolder trty yot extrent copyright again...Remember SOTA?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Nope. They should not. In other lines of work income stops when people die. You want to take care of your family? Buy life insurance.

Unless you're doing work for hire (in which case, the employer gets the copyright), creating content is not a "line of work." (They also don't have 401(k)'s or employer-sponsored life insurance...)

Property, including ownership of a business or stock, can be inherited.

[Ninjalawyer]

I'm a fan of shorter copyright terms, but copyright renewal requirements don't work; they impose a compliance burden on copyrightholders, and then impose another burden when trying to figure out if the copyright is up or not. Organizations simply won't bother with the cost of determining if the copyright has been renewed or not in most cases, and avoid making the book available. The effect, in a lot of cases, is the same as if there was no renewal requirement and simply a longer copyright term.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, let us take services. You get on a bus and don't pay. You sneak into a movie theater and you don't pay. The bus would drive even if you are not on it, the movie would play anyway. So, by your logic, you wouldn't have taken anything...

The bus would use more fuel and it would incur wear and tear from your presence. The movie theater would also incur wear and tear, would use more A/C, bathroom, etc. Making a replicator version of the bakers loaf of bread has no affect on the baker unless you cut into his sales by making your copy of the product available for sale to the general public.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

The bus would use more fuel and it would incur wear and tear from your presence. The movie theater would also incur wear and tear, would use more A/C, bathroom, etc. Making a replicator version of the bakers loaf of bread has no affect on the baker unless you cut into his sales by making your copy of the product available for sale to the general public.

You are nitpicking. The wear and tear on the bus or on the theater are not even measurable. And as for the theater, we will assume you don't go to the bathroom, the weather is just right so that they don't need the aircon or heat and you are just standing in one single spot where the floor is already damaged and needs repair -- so your presence means zero additional costs for the theater (We could also use connecting yourself to cable TV as another example). Why don't you just answer the question? Did you do anything wrong then?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

The bus would use more fuel and it would incur wear and tear from your presence. The movie theater would also incur wear and tear, would use more A/C, bathroom, etc. Making a replicator version of the bakers loaf of bread has no affect on the baker unless you cut into his sales by making your copy of the product available for sale to the general public.

If you had not replicated your own loaf of bread, then when you became hungry you would have had to buy a loaf from him. By copying his bread, you have deprived him of that sale.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Nope. They should not. In other lines of work income stops when people die. You want to take care of your family? Buy life insurance.

What's to prevent an author who wants to care for his family from handing his deathbed memoirs off to his 12-year-old, and having them published in the child's name? Or, if that's too implausible, his spouse's name.

One of the things the current system does is encourage honesty; families don't have to consider, "which of us is most likely to get the financial rewards from this book?" and lie about who actually wrote it.

When women mostly couldn't get published, a lot of them used pseudonyms or published under their husband's names. We don't need a habit of "anyone over the age of 60 tries to find a trusted family member at least 20 years younger to claim as the author, so the family has a better chance of getting financial reward for the work."

However, this is mostly a moot discussion; as Kali Yuga says, L+50 as the Berne convention minimum is not likely to be changed, short of drastic international treaty breakdown.