"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[tompe]

Originally Posted by carld

Of course I have, DUH. No need for such a sarcastic over-reaction. I was speaking in terms of why the laws are in place, not how they currently fit in the digital age.

But that is not the reason the laws are in place since they in reality have the effect of making work less available (as the counter arguments given was intended to show).

[carld]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is not the reason the laws are in place since they in reality have the effect of making work less available (as the counter arguments given was intended to show).

In our current age, yes. But it wasn't always so. Look, I'm all in favor of reworking the copyright system to be more in favor of the consumer (very much so, even though it's not going to happen). But the idea that a writer should be able to retain his copyright and make a living is a good one, and not one I'm going to budge on.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by carld

In our current age, yes. But it wasn't always so. Look, I'm all in favor of reworking the copyright system to be more in favor of the consumer (very much so, even though it's not going to happen). But the idea that a writer should be able to retain his copyright and make a living is a good one, and not one I'm going to budge on.

First your "True, but modern copyright doesn't vanish at the time of death. I think our current law goes overboard, but I think the publishers, and author's estate, should retain the copyright for a while as an incentive to keep the works available." was not talking about why the laws are as they are. And you argued that copyright should be retained after death of the author to keep work available. And that argument is invalid.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by carld

And how much do you imagine we've lost over the ages from works that were never brought to print because the writer couldn't make a copper to live off of? I'd guess it's rather a lot.

Couldn't the lack of printing have been due to the fact that Gutenberg wouldn't be born for another 2000 years? I doubt the ability to make a profit would have motivated Plato or Euclid to write more. People were free to copy their works, and did so for themselves or for the limited audience which could understand them.

Originally Posted by carld

In our current age, yes. But it wasn't always so. Look, I'm all in favor of reworking the copyright system to be more in favor of the consumer (very much so, even though it's not going to happen). But the idea that a writer should be able to retain his copyright and make a living is a good one, and not one I'm going to budge on.

Things should be done as they will yield the most benefits in our age, not in the past. You claim to be for the reworking of copyright, yet you still believe a creator's estate should retain copyright for some time after his/her death? This being about the worst excess of copyright as it currently exists, I cannot imagine what it is you intend to prune from it.

[PKFFW]

A few points rather than quoting and responding to three pages.........

1: Copyright - I agree it goes way to far. Personally I think until death is right. Why should an author not retain ownership of his creation at least until he dies?

2: Digital media is valueless - I think most people advocating this idea are playing a semantics game. We can all agree that the value is in the reading correct? Well how else are you going to get that value except by reading the digital copy? So does the digital copy really have no value or are people just fixating on that in order to justify their own position?

So many here have argued that the "old ways" aren't going to work in this new digital age. I find it odd then that these same people continue to use an "old model" way of assigning value to something. That is they keep using the idea of supply and demand to suggest that since digital media has limitless supply then it has no value.

Well if we are looking to throw out the old ways, lets throw them all out. Lets stop playing semantics and admit that digital media does have a value. It's value is in being the medium by which the content is accessed. Lets try to work out a way to assigning a fair value to this rather than sticking to the old ways when it comes to value because they support our desire for free content.

ficbot mentioned paying a set fee for access to all digital media. Maybe that will work, who knows. I can guarantee you this though, it will only work if we get past this idea of digital media being valueless. Once someone assigns zero value to something they will not pay anything for it, simple as that.

3: Piracy et al - Piracy(or "file-sharing" if that suits you better) is generally done for no other reason than people want to access the work for free or at the very least not at the price the author/publisher is asking. Dress it up and justify it however you like but that is what it comes down to. Now, at the moment piracy is not a big deal. Few people, as a percentage of the reading public, engage in it really. Further to that, if ebooks were priced more "fairly" and came with full ownership(like a pbook and without DRM) I would say even less people would engage in piracy. As has been mentioned, the vast majority of people do want to act in a sane, rational and fair manner and pay a reasonable and fair price for what they want.

So what's the problem? Well that is how it operates now but is unlikely to stay that way in the future. As many have argued here, even the iTunes model is unlikely to be sustainable. Why is that? Because people view digital content as having zero value. Nobody is willing to pay money for something of zero value. Couple that with piracy becoming easier and more accessible in the future and we will see less and less people paying a "fair" price regardless of the DRM issues and whatever else is used to justify piracy now. And that will come about because people keep fixating on the idea of digital media being valueless as a way of justifying their desire to not have to pay for what they want.

4: Authors getting paid for writing - Yes, only a few ever make their living from writing. Does that mean all authors should not expect any payment for their writing? Seems so many on here are quick to confuse the desire to be paid for their writing with wanting to make squillions of dollars and live the high life from their writing.

Just because an author enjoys what they do(or should anyway) doesn't mean the public should have the right to access their works for free if that is not the authors intent. Maybe the author will never sell enough copies of their work to make a living from it but that does not mean they should just give it away for free. I think those that keep bringing up the "making a living from writing" are selling everyone a dummy. I believe they are intentionally confusing the issue as another way of supporting their point of view.

The long and the short of it is that an author has created something and it is their right to ask for a fair payment for it before someone has the right to access it. If the audience doesn't want to read it or the asking price is too high then they can simply not buy it. Maybe the author will make a living from it and maybe they wont but that isn't the issue. The issue is that it is the authors right to ask for payment and it is not the audience's right to go and access the work for free if they want to. And arguing that this is the reality, that people do just go pirate it if they want it and that the authors should just deal with it is no different to saying might makes right. The might of the public makes it right to do whatever they want. No, it doesn't make it right.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ekaser]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Now you're onto something with what you said. You were paid for a job, a job I could no more do than most (I am clueless when it comes to science). What you were doing was providing a specialized service and that kind of fixed payment for work done model will continue unabated in the future. Not everyone can write a physics book, most people can write fiction (look at Dan Brown).

Please. "...most people can write fiction..."? Most people can't even write an email that's very interesting. Yes, LOTS of folks can write, even monkeys can if you can get them to bang on a keyboard long enough. But not many folks want to READ what's been written. Writing is like any other skill: the very BEST are very FEW in number, and anything that's rare (AND in sufficient demand) will have a value.

What IS changing is how those very best get paid. They WILL get paid, don't doubt that for a moment. The method will change (don't doubt THAT for a moment).

Remember that the concept of the modern novel (and story-telling method) hasn't been around all that long. In modern society, movies and television are taking over from the printed word (talking about entertainment here, ignoring textbooks, etc), but they still have to be WRITTEN, and you can bet that someone is going to get paid to write them. It costs millions (and hundreds of millions) of dollars to produce TV shows and movies, and you can bet that no one is going to spend that kind of money "just for the love of it."

Robert Heinlein was very fond of the acronym TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It's as true today as it's always been, and it will continue to be true in the future. NOTHING is ever 'free', there's always a cost. What form that cost will take, I don't know. The FORM of our entertainments may (almost certainly WILL) change, and the ways that the creators of those entertainments get paid may change, and not ALL creators of entertainments will get paid for doing so. But you can bet that the BEST of those creators will still get paid.

A better thesis for this thread, rather than that all books in the future will be free, is that computers and the digital revolution may very well spell the end of books as we know them. Just as no one writes Greek Tragedies any more, the time may be rapidly approaching when no one writes a "modern novel" any more. When the Piper doesn't get paid, the Piper generally doesn't keep on piping... at least, not the way you expected.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

Couldn't the lack of printing have been due to the fact that Gutenberg wouldn't be born for another 2000 years? I doubt the ability to make a profit would have motivated Plato or Euclid to write more. People were free to copy their works, and did so for themselves or for the limited audience which could understand them.

Wasn't talking specifically about Plato's and Euclid's time, which is why I said "over the ages." Making a living from the work you perform is a foundation of our society (most of it anyway). Whatever the particulars of this or that era, artists being paid for their work is a fundamental concept that's been true as long as there have been artists and commerce.

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

Things should be done as they will yield the most benefits in our age, not in the past. You claim to be for the reworking of copyright, yet you still believe a creator's estate should retain copyright for some time after his/her death? This being about the worst excess of copyright as it currently exists, I cannot imagine what it is you intend to prune from it.

Yes, I still think that's the way it should be. I think the current duration is far too long, but I don't think eliminating it completely is the right thing to do either.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You missed out what I think personally is the most important thing: EDUCATION. Children need to be taught the basic fact that "it's wrong to take stuff that doesn't belong to you without paying for it", and that applies to digital content as much as it does to physical objects.

In other words children need to be taught that it is wrong to share what you have with others.

Can we start teaching them that right in Junior Kindergarten?

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

In short: Why am I bothering to write for anyone at all?

It sounds like I have no choice but to expect to get screwed by the public, said screwing being deeper and deeper the more successful I become. And in an atmosphere like this, why expect writers to write or publishers to publish for anyone at all? In a future of work for no pay, somehow I don't expect much work will get done for anyone but themselves.

Not by you or others who share your worldview. But that is fine with me. Without any prejudice towards you or your list of titles, I personally do not see myself ever reading anything from you. (And, likewise without any prejudice, I am certain you could wholeheartedly make the same claim about my own booklist.)

I'm looking forward to stuff from Moejoe though, who seems to actually enjoy writing and does it as artistic exercise that mustn't be financially compensated to be worthwhile.

- Ahi

[carld]

Originally Posted by ahi

In other words children need to be taught that it is wrong to share what you have with others.

Can we start teaching them that right in Junior Kindergarten?

- Ahi

If you stole it to begin with, yes. Stealing is bad.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ahi

In other words children need to be taught that it is wrong to share what you have with others.

Can we start teaching them that right in Junior Kindergarten?

- Ahi

Now seriously, Ahi. Sharing means giving freely. Of course, that should be encouraged. But you are saying that children should be encouraged to just take a toy from another child if that other child doesn't want to share?

And I hope you are "sharing" your regular day job with your boss, since you are advocating sharing on all levels. How about you go in to work tomorrow and tell your boss "hey, today I don't want to get paid, I am in a sharing mood"?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by carld

If you stole it to begin with, yes. Stealing is bad.

So once I purchase something off of Fictionwise, de-DRM it, it's ok for me to share it with whoever... and as many whoevers.

Your sense of morality about copyrights seems to be smashingly arbitrary!

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Now seriously, Ahi. Sharing means giving freely. Of course, that should be encouraged. But you are saying that children should be encouraged to just take a toy from another child if that other child doesn't want to share?

A file is not lost by the original possessor from sharing--which seems to be one of the big issues for you lot.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And I hope you are "sharing" your regular day job with your boss, since you are advocating sharing on all levels. How about you go in to work tomorrow and tell your boss "hey, today I don't want to get paid, I am in a sharing mood"?

I actually am massively underpaid and still thoroughly happy with my job. Not that this paragraph of yours makes any sense at all...

- Ahi

[carld]

Originally Posted by ahi

So once I purchase something off of Fictionwise, de-DRM it, it's ok for me to share it with whoever... and as many whoevers.

Your sense of morality about copyrights seems to be smashingly arbitrary!

- Ahi

Don't be intentionally dense, of course not. De-DRMing it and sharing it = stealing it. I'm boggled that you can even ask that sort of question when I stated "Stealing is bad." I certainly wasn't saying it's okay if you buy it first, nice way to twist something around totally in the opposite direction.

Oh, and nice swipe at my sense of morality when that OBVIOUSLY wasn't what I meant.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by carld

Don't be intentionally dense, of course not. De-DRMing it and sharing it = stealing it. I'm boggled that you can even ask that sort of question when I stated "Stealing is bad." I certainly wasn't saying it's okay if you buy it first, nice way to twist something around totally in the opposite direction.

No. "De-DRMing and sharing = stealing" is soviet style propaganda.*

I'm finished wasting my time discussing this particular point of BS any further.

- Ahi

* Albeit of corporations', not the state's, making.