Confessions of a Book Pirate

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by scveteran

So you would disagree with me being able to leave my home to my kids when I die? After all, they had no part in paying for the home. I did that with the money I earned.

I see no difference between this and any other type of wealth or income that is passed down to heirs.

I don't disagree necessarily with this, but when you throw corporations into the mix it's simply wrong as corporations do not die and are treated as "people/citizens."

I do think the copyright term extensions are way out of hand.

[smerrall]

Originally Posted by scveteran

So you would disagree with me being able to leave my home to my kids when I die? After all, they had no part in paying for the home. I did that with the money I earned.

I see no difference between this and any other type of wealth or income that is passed down to heirs.

Copyright taking care of your kids is one thing, but it gets ridiculous with the current laws. Lets take JD Salinger as a topical example. He wrote Catcher in the Rye in 1951 and very little since. That book took care of his wife and family for the following 60 years until his death. His now adult grandchildren may have children of their own and there will be perhaps another 3 generations earning money off a book written by their great-great-great-great-grandfather perhaps 125 years before their birth.

This is WAY more than taking care of your children and orders of magnitude more than those that framed the original laws intended.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by smerrall

Copyright taking care of your kids is one thing, but it gets ridiculous with the current laws. Lets take JD Salinger as a topical example. He wrote Catcher in the Rye in 1951 and very little since. That book took care of his wife and family for the following 60 years until his death. His now adult grandchildren may have children of their own and there will be perhaps another 3 generations earning money off a book written by their great-great-great-great-grandfather perhaps 125 years before their birth.

This is WAY more than taking care of your children and orders of magnitude more than those that framed the original laws intended.

Agreed.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by smerrall

Copyright taking care of your kids is one thing, but it gets ridiculous with the current laws. Lets take JD Salinger as a topical example. He wrote Catcher in the Rye in 1951 and very little since. That book took care of his wife and family for the following 60 years until his death. His now adult grandchildren may have children of their own and there will be perhaps another 3 generations earning money off a book written by their great-great-great-great-grandfather perhaps 125 years before their birth.

This is WAY more than taking care of your children and orders of magnitude more than those that framed the original laws intended.

If a man built a house and sold if for a $10 million dollar profit or just made $10million in his lifetime, Should that money go to his chindren and their children and their children and perhaps another 3 generations all earning interest from something that their great great great grandfather did 125 years earlier?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stustaff

If a man built a house and sold if for a $10 million dollar profit or just made $10million in his lifetime, Should that money go to his chindren and their children and their children and perhaps another 3 generations all earning interest from something that their great great great grandfather did 125 years earlier?

I'll say again, there is a difference in people and corporations. There is also a difference in selling the garden or the fruits of the garden.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by stustaff

If a man built a house and sold if for a $10 million dollar profit or just made $10million in his lifetime, Should that money go to his chindren and their children and their children and perhaps another 3 generations all earning interest from something that their great great great grandfather did 125 years earlier?

No, you have the analogy wrong.

That man built the house, sold the rights to the house to somebody else who rented it out. And now his children and his children's children will still get paid by the original buyer. Even though the house has been renovated several times.

The copyright laws in their current form are ridiculous. In this day and age, ages above 90 are more a rule rather than an exception. And how much will an author really lose if it would be changed from life + 70 to first published + 70?

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

No, you have the analogy wrong.

That man built the house, sold the rights to the house to somebody else who rented it out. And now his children and his children's children will still get paid by the original buyer. Even though the house has been renovated several times.

The copyright laws in their current form are ridiculous. In this day and age, ages above 90 are more a rule rather than an exception. And how much will an author really lose if it would be changed from life + 70 to first published + 70?

Why has someone renovated his book or is it the same as when he first wrote it?
And he didn't sell the rights to the book he sold the rights to print a version of that book and even then it wasnt a deal that gave them that right for infinity.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's only if you are realist and don't believe in information.

What do you mean by believing in information?

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something of mine, without my permission you are a thief.

It's really quite simple as I've said (and you indicate) over and over in these threads.

I don't think being considered a thief by a small minority ever changed anyone's life. Especially when it's a blurry matter of definitions and morality.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stustaff

If a man built a house and sold if for a $10 million dollar profit or just made $10million in his lifetime, Should that money go to his chindren and their children and their children and perhaps another 3 generations all earning interest from something that their great great great grandfather did 125 years earlier?

I have no problem with making money by doing something economic. You then can do whatever you want with the money, spend it, pass it on to your kids, give it away, burn it, ect.

What I object to it is making people pay for transactions to people who had nothing to do with the original transaction, in near perpetuity.

Let me turn it around. Imagine we are talking about an unsecured mortgage. The terms of the mortgage is the life of the original contractor plus 70 years, and extendable by the entity who loaned the money anytime they can bribe the government to extend it. The heirs have to pay the mortgage until the loan is done, which could easily be longer than their lifetime, with no recourse to avoid payments. Would that be fair?

I state it that way, because all I'm doing in changing an inflow to an outflow. I also note that such terms would be considered illegal in every civilized jurisdiction in the world. So, why is the mirror such a good thing?

[llreader]

Originally Posted by stustaff

If a man built a house and sold if for a $10 million dollar profit or just made $10million in his lifetime, Should that money go to his chindren and their children and their children and perhaps another 3 generations all earning interest from something that their great great great grandfather did 125 years earlier?

Most civilized countries have estate taxes that kick in above a certain level. There are a number of ways to look at it, but reclaiming that wealth for the "collective" so that other kids can have a chance, instead of making some children rich for no good reason. And the related argumentation, that the wealth built up by the original person was not done in a vacuum, but based on the infrastructure and economy of the country involved, and therefore it should be returned to the community, in part, upon his death. In the same way that copyright involves the return of intellectual property to the public domain after a time, so that people like Walt Disney can create new works mining public domain intellectual property like Snow White and Cinderella.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

What do you mean by believing in information?


....

Information is something that exists (in reality) as a relationship between two or more physical entities.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have no problem with making money by doing something economic. You then can do whatever you want with the money, spend it, pass it on to your kids, give it away, burn it, ect.

What I object to it is making people pay for transactions to people who had nothing to do with the original transaction, in near perpetuity.

Let me turn it around. Imagine we are talking about an unsecured mortgage. The terms of the mortgage is the life of the original contractor plus 70 years, and extendable by the entity who loaned the money anytime they can bribe the government to extend it. The heirs have to pay the mortgage until the loan is done, which could easily be longer than their lifetime, with no recourse to avoid payments. Would that be fair?

I state it that way, because all I'm doing in changing an inflow to an outflow. I also note that such terms would be considered illegal in every civilized jurisdiction in the world. So, why is the mirror such a good thing?

Nice comparison. Thanks.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by smerrall

Copyright taking care of your kids is one thing, but it gets ridiculous with the current laws. Lets take JD Salinger as a topical example. He wrote Catcher in the Rye in 1951 and very little since. That book took care of his wife and family for the following 60 years until his death. His now adult grandchildren may have children of their own and there will be perhaps another 3 generations earning money off a book written by their great-great-great-great-grandfather perhaps 125 years before their birth.

This is WAY more than taking care of your children and orders of magnitude more than those that framed the original laws intended.

Strange. Maybe because I'm a writer, I view that as an awesome accomplishment and a great legacy. Books are not generally priced so high that the masses can't afford them. That he can provide any income for his grandchildren and possible great-grandchildren is a wonderful thing. If the books were sold somehow at some sort of huge price, I could understand people resenting the income. But at 25 dollars? Less than that? And no one is forcing anyone to buy it, it's not like an entitlement or tax.

He earned it. His children and grandchildren aren't likely to be completely spoiled from any income either. But again. I"m a writer. If he left them a 10 million dollar house, no one would think it odd that his grandchildren got some portion of the sale of it.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nice comparison. Thanks.

The comparison of a house mortgage against a book (where anyone can do without it and if they do buy it we're talking 25 dollars or so) really doesn't work for me. The public doesn't need or deserve a work for free just because a person died. Yes, copyright can be taken to extremes, but really. A house an mean quality of life and survival. A book is a luxury. So are most forms of art, be they movies, paintings or whatever.

With a house, if the mortgage can't be paid, it is simply sold and any profit if there is, DOES get passed to the heirs.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by llreader

Most civilized countries have estate taxes that kick in above a certain level. There are a number of ways to look at it, but reclaiming that wealth for the "collective" so that other kids can have a chance, instead of making some children rich for no good reason. And the related argumentation, that the wealth built up by the original person was not done in a vacuum, but based on the infrastructure and economy of the country involved, and therefore it should be returned to the community, in part, upon his death. In the same way that copyright involves the return of intellectual property to the public domain after a time, so that people like Walt Disney can create new works mining public domain intellectual property like Snow White and Cinderella.

Most civilised countries also charge some kind of sales tax, therefore for every sale of his book the public receive money thus reclaiming that wealth for the collective, however once copyright expires the family get nothing.

With that lump sum in the bank that say a big business man has genrated no one comes and takes it away from his family?

why not? if you can justify taking something of value from the great great great grand children of an author why not the great great great grand children of a business man?