Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Spoken like a true American. I take my hat off to you, sir.

I am a German who lives in Asia.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Please discuss the topic at hand and stop with the attempts at character assassination and the personal attacks.

The above link has nothing to do with the topic at hand (an Author removing a book from her website).

Nor does the O.P. have anything to do with copyright or public domain as has been pointed out extensively in this thread.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.

Thank You.

Topic drift is allowed if the OP allows it. It is not up to you to enforce staying on topic.

Also. You claim somethin and then it is shown that your claim was false and then you do not respond to this you just say "stay on topic". Pretty annoying.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am a German who lives in Asia.

I didn't say you were American, did I? Just saying you spoke like one.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

I didn't say you were American, did I? Just saying you spoke like one.

Just someone who likes to enjoy his civil liberties and believes in the rights of the individual. If that sounds American, I have no problem with that.

[rogue_librarian]

Spoken like a true... uh, nevermind.

OK, in all seriousness civil liberties and the "rights of the individual" are obviously a good thing [tm]. The latter (ie rights of the indiviual) must not and in fact cannot be the be all and end all, however. Society at large, the common good -- call it what you want -- plays a certain role, too. I am not in favor of communism, just saying that in a cooperative society the individual as such is not the only factor to be considered.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Spoken like a true... uh, nevermind.

OK, in all seriousness civil liberties and the "rights of the individual" are obviously a good thing [tm]. The latter (ie rights of the indiviual) must not and cannot be the be all and end all, however. Society plays a certain role, too.

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?

And with regard to the surcharges for the media -- what has society as a whole gained, compared to the current system? I see this only as a last resort if we get to the point where almost nobody wants to pay for books, films, music, etc. But it is unfair to the majority of people (they might not read, they might use the media for different purposes, they might not support the way the money is being distributed).

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.

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.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Please discuss the topic at hand and stop with the attempts at character assassination and the personal attacks.

The above link has nothing to do with the topic at hand (an Author removing a book from her website).

Nor does the O.P. have anything to do with copyright or public domain as has been pointed out extensively in this thread.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.

Thank You.

What's that or your last 10 posts has to do with topic at hand or original topic?
Please cool down and observe your actions before you start criticizing others.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Topic drift is allowed if the OP allows it. It is not up to you to enforce staying on topic.

Also. You claim somethin and then it is shown that your claim was false and then you do not respond to this you just say "stay on topic". Pretty annoying.

Nothing showed anything I've stated as being false.

And yes is is up to all the participants to keep the thread on topic.

Let's discuss the topic not the people. You have any issue with that?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dmikov

What's that or your last 10 posts has to do with topic at hand or original topic?
Please cool down and observe your actions before you start criticizing others.

And this one for instance.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But we are talking about the right of the author to get paid versus the "right" of other individuals to read for free.

Well, neither of them is a natural, God-given right. Both exist, if in fact they do, because there's a law that says so. Both are usually not an absolute right, both have exceptions. The whole concept of "intellectual property" is an artificial one, and usually introduced much later into a society than the concept of tangible property as such.

Is it really better for society if works would go into public domain immediately after they are published?

Not necessarily, no. I think a certain period of protection, of exclusivity if you will, is warranted. It allows artist and creators to live off their work without being ripped off immediately (if successful). The "Founder's Copyright" struck a nice balance, in my opinion: 14 years of protection, renewable once for a total of 28 years. We can talk about the length of the term, but the principle is clear: you don't "own" the work but the legal system lets you use it exclusively as you see fit for a limited period of time. Pretty much like a patent, really, come think of it.

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?

Who said it was? Not me. I just don't think life + 70 years is a balanced approach any more.

Why make an arbitrary distinction between physical and digital goods?

Because they are different, and any distinction is by no means arbitrary.

They are called libraries. But you won't convince me that society advances if those who can afford to pay become free loaders.

It's not just about reading books. It's about building upon previous works ("standing on the shoulders of giants", you know, that sort of thing), compiling, assembling, quoting, presenting in a new way...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Well, neither of them is a natural, God-given right. Both exist, if in fact they do, because there's a law that says so. Both are usually not an absolute right, both have exceptions. The whole concept of "intellectual property" is an artificial one, and usually introduced much later into a society than the concept of tangible property as such.

....

We'll first off there is no such thing as a God Given right. Nor a God for that matter in my eyes, but the fact that something is created by a person (a creator) gives them the Natural Right to do as they please with that creation. These is even MORE of a Natural Right than the right to property which is something that exists and was created externally to that person. 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.

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

I'm debating whether to start a topic comparing and contrasting Water Rights with copyrights. There are some interesting similarities.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by kennyc

We'll first off there is no such thing as a God Given right. Nor a God for that matter in my eyes ...

I used it as a figure of speech only. Your beliefs are entirely your own, substitute with "natural right" if that makes it easier. Let's keep religion out of this if at allpossible.

... but the fact that something is created by a person (a creator) gives them the Natural Right to do as they please with that creation.

That might be true for tangible objects (and not even there without exceptions): the clay pot you make with your own hands is yours, fine. But the poem you write? The story you tell, the song you sing? What's to keep me from copying, retelling, performing? "Natural right" certainly doesn't apply here, it's in fact a rather sophisticated concept to give you exclusive rights in your creation (if only for a while).

Laws (copyright, intellectual property, trade secret, etc) have been put in place to protect those natural rights.

Don't let a legal philosopher catch you saying that. Either way, this is not the right venue to discuss this in any more detail.

Without them nothing would be created or shared with others except by the creator intentionally giving it away or having it stolen.

Because when it comes down to it mankind really wasn't very creative until they finally invented copyright, were they?

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

That is a very interesting (for want of a better word) position to take.

I'm debating whether to start a topic comparing and contrasting Water Rights with copyrights. There are some interesting similarities.

There are some startling differences, too. "Scarcity" being the chief one I should think.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

Sure. And then you look at traffic trends on the darknet and realise that what they're telling you and what they're doing are two very different things.

Video is down since legal streaming services took off, but everything else continues to rise. There might just be a lesson there...

There needs to be a choice, though. Either the market works, and companies have to take a case-by-case approach to stamping out unauthorised copying, or the market has failed and there needs to be a blanket licence. Arguing that the market has failed, but there needs to be more restrictions on customers as big companies are at the moment, is ridonculous. The market can only perform worse under those conditions.

Originally Posted by Kennyc

I'm debating whether to start a topic comparing and contrasting Water Rights with copyrights. There are some interesting similarities

And of course, the key difference that you're comparing a scarce with a non-scarce resource. Still.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...ets_4&_lang=en

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?[/QUOTE]

It is a citation that answers a question asked, what would be people if they didn't have publishing job, a whole wide big look at the US economy and the other things people do. Perhaps you should try reading the posts a bit closer to see how something not directly about an ebook taken down still fit into the greater conversation

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

It is a citation that answers a question asked, what would be people if they didn't have publishing job, a whole wide big look at the US economy and the other things people do. Perhaps you should try reading the posts a bit closer to see how something not directly about an ebook taken down still fit into the greater conversation

Stop with the personal attacks.

If you want to discuss the topic I'll be glad to and am, but I'm not playing you any more and I'm not going to put up with your attitude and your attempts at character assassination. Everyone can see the truth.

The link referenced has nothing to do with the original post.