How Long Should Copyright Last?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I would think publishers and authors would prefer more advanced notice when material would hit public domain.

Not to mention those who are waiting to make Mickey and Minnie porn for profit.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I went looking for that and couldn't find it. Is there a link to a TOS that explains that, or does it only show up during original registration?

I knew I had seen it on registration, so I waited until I logged in again to be able to copy it to here. Don't know if there are any other ways to see it.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

As a side issue--it grants *the forum owners* the right to distribute one's works. (Which they need, or the content couldn't be distributed to other people's computers.) It doesn't grant every individual member of the forum the right to grab the contents of one's posts and use them at will. Certainly, there's no automatic right to repost all the ebooks here somewhere else. (Some are in public domain, but some are here by specific author permission.)

There's no right for someone in the forum to grab all of someone else's posts, edit them a bit, and sell a book of, oh, 'HarryT's ebook tips & tricks.' (Although the TOS bit mentioned above might allow the forum owners to do just that.)

It doesn't automatically grant the forum owners the right to assign third parties the right to use other people's copyrighted material, which quoting is. However, quoting-with-comments should fall well within fair use-esqe laws.

I suspect any quoting of posts from this forum back into this forum (ie. still published on this forum) would probably be considered acceptable (even if only from the perspective that it's obviously to all when you participate here that that is what will happen), whereas quoting, by third parties, outside this forum would not be acceptable (except as far as fair-use may carry it).

Otherwise that's pretty much the way I read it - and think that that interpretation mostly sounds fair and appropriate, all except the bit about the forum owners being able to sell a book of HarryT's ebook tips, I think that would get up my nose a bit.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I don't see any difference between a brain state that is actually an idea, and a piece of paper that contains an image of that brain state.

There can be a huge amount of work between an initial idea and the piece of paper, in some cases there can be years of work and considerable sacrifice of time and money etc. Ask any author, ask any inventor. There may be occasion things (inventions or stories) that leap fully grown into an author's/inventor's mind, but these are the exception not the rule. The rule is hard work, and now you want to cast that hard work aside as if it were nothing?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Copyright of an idea, it's definitely a human phenomenon. A pact between each member of society, to be nice to each other.

And this is a problem?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I think free sharing of all ideas and a more adequate distribution of resources would be a lot nicer don't you? Why are we spending so much on bombs when we should be using those funds to get more ereaders and more ebooks into the hands of everyone???

I am not sure I follow your line of thought here. How exactly is making it possible for authors to earn some money for their efforts related to spending money on bombs?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by gmw

There can be a huge amount of work between an initial idea and the piece of paper, in some cases there can be years of work and considerable sacrifice of time and money etc. Ask any author, ask any inventor. There may be occasion things (inventions or stories) that leap fully grown into an author's/inventor's mind, but these are the exception not the rule. The rule is hard work, and now you want to cast that hard work aside as if it were nothing?

I am not sure I follow your line of thought here. How exactly is making it possible for authors to earn some money for their efforts related to spending money on bombs?

I was actually talking about a copy of the brain state that would be tradeable, and when used correctly would lead to the art. Are we going to start copyrighting brain states, and by extension the brain itself? Perhaps we have already done so.

As to the second thought, it appears to me that our culture has gotten better the more educated its citizens are, so stop spending money on bombs and start dropping ereaders from planes, or pbooks I suppose, maybe solar powered disposable ereaders?

Taxpayer funding for the arts? Wouldn't that be better than tax money for bombs? We wouldn't really need copyright in that type of situation.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I was actually talking about a copy of the brain state that would be tradeable, and when used correctly would lead to the art. Are we going to start copyrighting brain states, and by extension the brain itself? Perhaps we have already done so.

But again you seem to be under the impression that the act of creation is some sort of static "state" thing that can be captured at a single moment in time ... it is almost never like that. Creation is an act of Will, an expenditure of time and effort and dedication. The final result may be something that people can push around the Internet with little care and less thought, but the act of creation is something else entirely.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

As to the second thought, it appears to me that our culture has gotten better the more educated its citizens are, so stop spending money on bombs and start dropping ereaders from planes, or pbooks I suppose, maybe solar powered disposable ereaders?

Taxpayer funding for the arts? Wouldn't that be better than tax money for bombs? We wouldn't really need copyright in that type of situation.

So if I decide to give up my normal job and try writing books because it sounds like a lark, and "hey" the tax payers are going to fund me while it happens, then you think that is a way to go? There are lots of better things to spend money on than bombs (unless bombs are what you actually need at the time of course), but paying everyone who thinks they may have a book in the heads doesn't seem like a wise investment of taxpayer funds to me.

[carpetmojo]

Just realised this is a more appropriate thread than "Free Culture..."
I must confess to a certain ambivalence about the copywright situation.

I too want to read every book for free, but no income = no (professional) writers, for a start (apart from committed souls in a garrett, naturally) which would be a, well, difficult state of affairs.

I would like to be able to see no reason why the rights to income from a book, fiction or non, should extend beyond the life of the creator.
But we then are confonted by the argument that the writer's estate, i.e. family, or trust, should continue to profit - in the very same way as a building's rent, a painting's reproduction, performances of a play, a new plant, a medical breakthrough, an inventor's patent........

When I look at that lot, I find it very difficult to say that the written word, in book/novel form, is any different.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by gmw

But again you seem to be under the impression that the act of creation is some sort of static "state" thing that can be captured at a single moment in time ... it is almost never like that. Creation is an act of Will, an expenditure of time and effort and dedication. The final result may be something that people can push around the Internet with little care and less thought, but the act of creation is something else entirely.

That is not implied. The current brain state is the product of a long process of creation and use of will. You are totally missing the point here.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by gmw

So if I decide to give up my normal job and try writing books because it sounds like a lark, and "hey" the tax payers are going to fund me while it happens, then you think that is a way to go? There are lots of better things to spend money on than bombs (unless bombs are what you actually need at the time of course), but paying everyone who thinks they may have a book in the heads doesn't seem like a wise investment of taxpayer funds to me.

Taxpayer funding for the arts that are selected by the taxpayer.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not implied. The current brain state is the product of a long process of creation and use of will. You are totally missing the point here.

And you think the brain, even at the finish of a complex creation, actually carries every detail of that creation? There are some people with eidetic memories, the rest of us use paper.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Taxpayer funding for the arts that are selected by the taxpayer.

Oh, something to really look forward too then.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by gmw

And you think the brain, even at the finish of a complex creation, actually carries every detail of that creation? There are some people with eidetic memories, the rest of us use paper.

Of course it carries it since the current state is the result of the creation, it is the creation. I am not talking about writing a book in the head.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it carries it since the current state is the result of the creation, it is the creation. I am not talking about writing a book in the head.

A brain state is not the object created - or rarely. The process of creation changes both the result and the creator. Most complex and/or artistic creations are one-offs. If the same person attempted to do the same thing again they would most often produce something noticeably different. But that is not really why I object to the "state" theory here. My main objection was the inference that a person just puts their head on a photocopy glass and presses the button - very few acts of creation are like that. The creative process is usually an iterative feedback process, where the result affects the creator which affects the result. Even though Giggleton's inference may not have been intended this way, to me it did read as if there was no work or cost involved and that seemed very unfair.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by gmw

A brain state is not the object created - or rarely. The process of creation changes both the result and the creator. Most complex and/or artistic creations are one-offs. If the same person attempted to do the same thing again they would most often produce something noticeably different. But that is not really why I object to the "state" theory here. My main objection was the inference that a person just puts their head on a photocopy glass and presses the button - very few acts of creation are like that. The creative process is usually an iterative feedback process, where the result affects the creator which affects the result. Even though Giggleton's inference may not have been intended this way, to me it did read as if there was no work or cost involved and that seemed very unfair.

If you really want to get down to it, there is no empirical way to determine where I end and you begin, thus individual copyrights are absurd.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If you really want to get down to it, there is no empirical way to determine where I end and you begin, thus individual copyrights are absurd.

Wow! You're getting way too deep for me now. How did you go from "empirical way to determine where I end and you begin" (which sounds little Zen to me, do I hear the sound of one hand clapping?) to "copyrights are absurd"? What is the connection and how is that related to the amount of time, expense and effort that often goes into the creation of something like a book?

[HansTWN]

What he means is that his self extends right into authors' wallets.