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

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

No offense to anyone intended.

Too late. This whole thread has been pretty offensive!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Commercially breeding perennial plants is not easy, and very much a numbers game, with or without patents. I consider it painting with DNA, instead of ink or oil.

All copyright is a numbers game. I don't consider a work good or bad, but popular or unpopular. A work could be held in extreme esteem but a small group (a "cult classic") and ignored the the mass public (or even actively disliked by the mass public). I won't say this it's a bad work, just unpopular. and Vice Versa.

Ok, popular is a better word, I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So the question to me is, why does the Patent world work so well, (with the patent trolls being the function equivalent of "pirates") at a length of 20 years. (Look around, do you see a shortage of inventiveness?) But the copyright world has to have a term longer than Lex Luthar in the Superman movies. Everything in the US was written under a max of 56 Years of less until 1976. Explain to me how (for example) Elvis, Hemmingway, Maxfield Parrish, or Humphrey Bogart didn't create because their right didn't go on long enough.

I have stated repeatedly that I agree copyright needs to be amended. Primarily because it goes far too long. I'm not arguing, and never have, that copyright should stay the same or that it is perfect as it is.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Pure land grab. So while corporations are "stealing" my patrimony though excessive length copyright, other people are "stealing" things back. And as McCauley noted in 1841, they aren't being too fussy about what they steal, either...

It's the "aren't being too fussy about what they steal, either...." bit that annoys me.

Lets be really honest here, those who engage in the act of "file-sharing" are not the least interested in reforming copyright. They are not confining their activities to only older works that they consider should be out of copyright, lets say even works over 20 years old(to line up with patents). They pirate(file-share, whatever) popular things. That is, generally, things that are brand new or recently created or have gotten such a wide following as to still be popular some years after creation.

Now, it's not even the little amount of piracy that goes on now that concerns me. As I have stated previously, I do believe it is relatively minor, has a relatively minor impact on overall sales and that most people are happy to pay a fair price for a decent product.

What concerns me is this idea put forward by many that since it's digital media and therefore pretty much in infinite supply, it should just be free altogether. How many flower breeders would or could continue to breed new varieties of flowers if they had to just give them all away for free?

Cheeres,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Copyright after death is a very different matter, and good arguments can be made against it. In some cases it is very valid, though. A good example is Micky Mouse. Expiry only if Disney goes belly up, that would make sense.

Perhaps copyright could be ammended along the lines of whether the creation is an ongoing concern of the creator or not.

So a stand alone novel or series could be under copyright for 20 years, 50 years or life of creator or whatever is deemed appropriate. Then something like a character or serialised show or set of novels or magazine or something could be under copyright so long as the creator(and their decendents/corporation/whatever) is still actively creating new material using this concept. Once they don't make any new content(or a certain minimum amount of content) for X number of years the concept passes into the PD.

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S Of course that wouldn't stop those who want to "file-share" because it's not really about copyright anyway

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

What concerns me is this idea put forward by many that since it's digital media and therefore pretty much in infinite supply, it should just be free altogether. How many flower breeders would or could continue to breed new varieties of flowers if they had to just give them all away for free?

But nobody is saying those breeders couldn't sell the flowers they grow. The issue would be if said breeders would try to prevent other people from growing (and giving away) flowers of their type; that's what's analogous to copyright. The thing is, making a copy of a digital file is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap, whereas making a copy of a flower takes a lot of time and effort. Hence flower growing can still be a profitable business for those who offer to save time and effort to others in exchange for cash, even totally ignoring patents.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

But nobody is saying those breeders couldn't sell the flowers they grow. The issue would be if said breeders would try to prevent other people from growing (and giving away) flowers of their type; that's what's analogous to copyright.

Yes, that would be more analagous to copyright. Agreed.

So are you saying they should they not be allowed to do so, at least for some reasonable period of time, in order for them to attempt to recoup the costs of their time, labour and capital and perhaps turn a profit? And if you are suggesting such a thing, why shouldn't they be allowed?

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

The thing is, making a copy of a digital file is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap, whereas making a copy of a flower takes a lot of time and effort. Hence flower growing can still be a profitable business for those who offer to save time and effort to others in exchange for cash, even totally ignoring patents.

And here is the problem.

Making the copy of a digital file is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap and therefore what? It should just be allowed to happen? That authors should not be allowed to have any control over their creation for any length of time? That because it is easy and cheap to copy the public therefore has the right to obtain it for free?

On top of that the idea that because it is easy and cheap to copy means it should be given away for free will only encourage more and more people to accept the idea that obtaining a copy free of charge is not only ok but is their inherent "right". Once that stage is reached how many people do you think will even be willing to operate by the iTunes model? That is, a fair price for a quality product? I would argue very very few would be because they have been conditioned to believe it is their right to expect and acquire the digital copy for free.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

It has been suggested that "supply is kept low by artificial means to make a profit". That is, of course, incorrect. Just like pbooks, where you print x number of copies, with ebooks the natural way is to make new copies as they are bought. It is only through illegal means that the socalled "unlimited supply" is achieved. So illegal reproduction is what is artificial.

Yes, with digital files stealing is incredible easy and efficient -- that is why we do need a consensus that one should pay just like for a pbook and have the same rights as with a pbook. Only then will we not be saddled with DRM anymore and everybody wins.

Of course, my flower example is not 100% like ebooks. But nitpicking at small differences does not diminish its value as an analogy. I choose it because a most people could reproduce a perfect copy of the original flower from a seed with relative ease and little knowhow.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, with digital files stealing is incredible easy and efficient -- that is why we do need a consensus that one should pay just like for a pbook and have the same rights as with a pbook. Only then will we not be saddled with DRM anymore and everybody wins.

Although I obviously agree we need consensus... we need to be mindful that an e-book is not a printed book. There are inherent differences between paper and electronic files that must be applied to the practical realities of what "rights" we should and should not have concerning e-books.

For instance, the ability to resell "used" books must be re-examined in relation to e-books. The idea does not realistically translate to electronic files, especially when it is not tied to a physical package, owner or device, because of the ease of duplication that would permit a virtually infinite number of "used" copies to be created from one original and ruin a financial market. (This is consistent with other electronic media, where reselling is not permitted, or possible, unless it is tied to a registration, or it is part of a physical package.)

I have ideas on the subject, but since they would seem self-serving (and this thread is contentious enough as it is), I will refrain from describing them. Maybe in a separate thread.

[Greg Anos]

I'd like to step back a moment and look at copyright today from three aspects - moral, legal, and practical,

1. Practical - The cost of copying a file is approaching zero. The time it takes is usually less that 5 minutes per Gigabyte of file. Two clicks and a wiggle of a mouse is the labor involved. Everybody with a computer can do it. Before computers, this could not be done. Furthermore, it can be done tracelessly, although most popular methods leave an audit trail.

These are facts, just like air and rock and water. There is no magic wand to make it go away. To change it would require one the the following - 1. scrapping all the computers, 2. Moral persuasion to keep people from doing it. or 3. Unlimited search and seizure - any place, any time.


2. Moral - If you convince people though education (or some would call it propaganda) not to make unauthoized copies, you will limit the problem. Not eliminate it, as there are always criminals for every law. But you can't convince people without holding to the same moral code yourself, even when it hurts. The concept of "Do what I say, not what I do" is a morally bankrupt as "Might makes right" or "The check is in the mail". No one will believe you, they'll just figure you're being self-serving (and rightly so).

Today, the organized copyright holders are displaying the worldview as follows - We are going to keep all copyright material forever in contravention of US constitution. We are going to sue anybody we can spare the resources to sue in order to enforce the doctrine. You have no rights to what we sell you. You are just buying tickets, so to speak. We will provide only the level of quality we choose to provide. We'll get you to buy over and over again by providing incrementally better quality. If you don't like this, we'll attack you legally. And, oh by the way, copying our files is immoral. You're a bad person for doing it. Letting things lapse into the public domain, as according to the constitution?...Oh, you're so cute. We going to keep it forever. Know your place...

This is not the stuff moral persuasion is made of.


3. - Legal - All copyright is a relative modern concept. It has no equivalent in "natural law". You won't find it in the major religious books. It was legislated for the express purpose of encouraging new works, balanced with the utility for the entire human race of having the results of creativity freely available. Unfortunately, certain big corporations have determines that they can make money of a small percentage of their old copyright material. Being a corporation, they never expect to die. So they expect the Life + x really means the corporation's Life + x, or forever. This is a complete usurption of the reason for the laws, and voids any moral respect for said law. So what do you do about an immoral law? Change the law? Can you outbid Hollywood for Congressmen? I can't. Civil disobedience? Especially when it's so very easy to do? (That's not Civil Disobedience, that's just stealing!) (And stretching copyright lengths isn't stealing from the public, that granted copyright in the first place?) (Two wrongs don't make a right!) (So we try to get rid of one wrong and leave the other unmolested?)...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It has been suggested that "supply is kept low by artificial means to make a profit". That is, of course, incorrect. Just like pbooks, where you print x number of copies, with ebooks the natural way is to make new copies as they are bought. It is only through illegal means that the socalled "unlimited supply" is achieved. So illegal reproduction is what is artificial.

Making reproduction illegal is artificial means.

Pbooks are limited because paper, ink, and printing technologies are limited. It takes time & money to make copies of pbooks; that's why the cost is where it is. While it's illegal to make additional copies, that doesn't stop most people--many college students make copies of textbooks, up to the limit they can afford to copy. The copies cost money because the paper & machinery costs.

The control on the copies is, in large part, the physical limitations of technology.

Ebooks are limited because someone decided "these should be limited; we shall tell people they're not allowed to make copies." The copies themselves cost nothing to make. Distributing the copies takes almost no effort.

That's an artificial limitation, an illusion of scarcity created to increase demand. That's not necessarily a bad thing; the artificial scarcity can encourage authors to release ebooks that they otherwise wouldn't.

But limitations of law are not the same as an actual shortage of supplies. The reason ebooks are limited in number is entirely because someone said they should be--that's an artificial scarcity.

Yes, with digital files stealing is incredible easy and efficient -- that is why we do need a consensus that one should pay just like for a pbook and have the same rights as with a pbook. Only then will we not be saddled with DRM anymore and everybody wins.

We need people to stop calling copyright infringement "stealing," for starters. It implies criminal behavior instead of civil violation, and that kind of imprecise insult is exactly why most filesharers ignore pleas to stop. If complainers don't even know what they're really doing, why should they listen to the complaints?

We also need publishers to acknowledge that it's legal to give away and resell ebooks, just like it is for pbooks. When publishers start treating ebooks as having the same rights as ebooks, the customers are more likely to do so.

I choose it because a most people could reproduce a perfect copy of the original flower from a seed with relative ease and little knowhow.

I couldn't. (I have a black thumb. I have killed aloe vera and air ferns; I no longer attempt to grow plants of any sort.) And even those who are skilled at it, it takes more than a seed--it takes seed, the right kind of dirt, the right amount of water and light, and time--those all combine to make a scarcity that drives the market.

If flowers could be created by pushing a button that says "insta-copy," there'd be a lot less interest in buying them.

[anappo]

> Too late. This whole thread has been pretty offensive!

This thread? The whole idea that we are having this sort of threads on 2009 -stinks-!

The whole damn thing started to stink when the punks from Gemstar destroyed Nuvomedia. It got worse when some deranged dinosaur from Holtzbrinck pulled Tor back from Baen's Webscriptions. And then it got worse still, when Amazon who could have used its mass to force publishing establishment into something sensible, instead came out with the abomination that is Kindle purposefully-incompatible-format company store. And now the bastards are slapping geo-restrictions on everywhere else.

You are offended? Wellcome to the club!

You are worried about pirates? Which do you think has caused more economic damage to creators of content, all of the above, or pirates? When emerging pirate parties all over europe are the only political force in existance that at least tries to push back, to make the copyright and patent legislations into something less insane.

[carld]

>We need people to stop calling copyright infringement "stealing," for starters

I will never stop calling it stealing, because that's what it is.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by carld

>We need people to stop calling copyright infringement "stealing," for starters

I will never stop calling it stealing, because that's what it is.

But if so at least it is only stealing from thieves, con-men, and grifters. Because that is exactly what those who have lobbied outside the public eye to create today's ludicrously extended copyrights have shown themselves to be.

Who cares if the local drug dealers gun each other down in a gang war? As long as they don't hit bystanders, I have never cared. It makes the world a cleaner place.

I have never cared when on class of charlatan is preyed upon by another.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

We need people to stop calling copyright infringement "stealing," for starters. It implies criminal behavior instead of civil violation, and that kind of imprecise insult is exactly why most filesharers ignore pleas to stop. If complainers don't even know what they're really doing, why should they listen to the complaints?

Personally I think they ignore pleas to stop for no other reason than the file-sharers want the product either for free or at the very least for a price less than the asking price.

I have no doubt at all that if the "complainers" started calling copyright infringement "file-sharing", "civil disobedience", "a mighty heros way of standing up to the establishement" or anything else the "file-sharers" would still continue to file share anyway.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

We also need publishers to acknowledge that it's legal to give away and resell ebooks, just like it is for pbooks. When publishers start treating ebooks as having the same rights as ebooks, the customers are more likely to do so.

The reverse is also true, when consumers start treading ebooks as the same as pbooks then publishers are more likely to.

In this regard consumers need to start admitting that digital media does have value. Consumers must admit that uploading unlimited "copies" of the "content" simply because it is quick and easy to do so is not a smart way to encourage publishers to start seeing ebooks the same as pbooks.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If flowers could be created by pushing a button that says "insta-copy," there'd be a lot less interest in buying them.

And hence why there will become a lot less interest in buying ebooks in the future. It is so easy to push a button and grab an "insta-copy" from the net. Couple that with the idea that it is the consumers "right" to acquire digital media for free and eventually no one has any interest in buying an ebook at all.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Although I obviously agree we need consensus... we need to be mindful that an e-book is not a printed book. There are inherent differences between paper and electronic files that must be applied to the practical realities of what "rights" we should and should not have concerning e-books.

One thing that's possible with ebooks that aren't practical with pbooks is Format C: suggestion in post #154 of getting a flat fee for legal access to all your books in digital format including future ones.

It's the sort of thing I'd be interested in in general since some of my favourite authors books have been a royal pain to obtain. (No official digital format, short print runs etc.)

[anappo]

> Consumers must admit that uploading unlimited "copies" of the "content"
> simply because it is quick and easy to do so is not a smart way to
> encourage publishers to start seeing ebooks the same as pbooks.

So you are basically asking that your entire consumerbase comes to you with a certificate that tells you we are not "uploading unlimited copies"? Or can you describe us another mechanism for sufficient proof that it is now safe to stop screwing with your customers?