Confessions of a Book Pirate

[llreader]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The said Galileo was crazy too.

Not mystical at all, but digital has brought a whole raft of new concepts that have yet to be integrated into our social and governmental standards. That's exactly why this current discussion is even taking place.

Also this is not about ideas per-say. Ideas and creations (intellectual property) are different things. In some limited cases they may be the same, if it is a truly novel idea that is instantiated in a writing or statement etc.

Couldn't possibly be more messy than the current U.S.A. Tax law.

They also said Manson was crazy. Be careful what you wish for.

I am starting to think that your posts are just some sort of peculiar performance art.

Very nice stuff on your website, BTW, I particularly like the charcoal sketches.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I'll have to look into that. I've read some about the laws put in place during it's rise to prominence (getting out at every intersection, honking horns, waving flags, before proceeding) etc. Any suggested starting points?

I've recently read a bit about some of the various trends in the automotive world that were shut down, not because they were bad, but because they didn't fit in the business model of those in charge. And yep - these include the old electric cars which 100 years ago, still got better mileage on a charge than many current models, using hemp as a plastic-like material for the bodies of cars, steam cars, etc. I like some of the out-of-the-box thinking that's returning (though often it's just pulling ideas from the past that got shut-down) like the compressed air vehicles.

Those laws were put into place in the 1840's to prevent steam driven cars from being used on roads. They stifled development of automobiles for 50+ years, and when they were developed, they were developed elsewhere, where the laws were less restrictive...

After all, if you had cars, who would pay for the railroad bonds....

[guyanonymous]

I can understand though - if I've read correctly, the steam cars, even early ones, were capable o freaching speeds of 60-100km/hr (until they hit a pothole!)

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think that aspect is exactly where copyright and patent protection came from. This issue as we all know is in changes brought about by digital media and the ease of making perfect copies. The problem is how we manage it and move forward in evolving that laws.

I don't have a better term or metaphor at this point, but my belief is that the product of creativity -- the book or artwork (this same discussion is relevant to digital artwork) etc. is conceptually (and rights-wise) no different than a printed book or painted image.

There is some overlap with photography in that an image is captured on a negative and then can be "reprinted" many times. If we move this in to the digital photography realm then the image file can (as above with other digital media) be copied flawlessly...

I think the original laws about copyright (again, going back to the Statute of Anne) were designed to protect authors, inventors, etc., but didn't necessarily draw the analogy to "intellectual property." I believe that's a more modern construct, and a problematic one.

I realize there are people out there (some on this board) who really, honestly believe that when they write a story or paint an image or what have you, it's their own creation, entirely, and they owe none of it to anyone else. In my considered opinion, that notion is false. I don't think any of us create in a vacuum, and we all owe some of our work to other influences around us. That's why I believe it's important to have an expiration to copyright terms, so others can continue to build on whatever we create, just as we have done before them.

This definitely runs counter to the concept of ideas being property, however. That's why I say we need a different metaphor. Perhaps ideas and creations are more like children-- we have a certain amount of control over them until they mature, and then they go out into the world to make their own way. At no time do we every really "own" them-- rather, we have custody and responsibility for them for a limited time.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't have a better term or metaphor at this point, but my belief is that the product of creativity -- the book or artwork (this same discussion is relevant to digital artwork) etc. is conceptually (and rights-wise) no different than a printed book or painted image.

I think that about everything humans do is creative. You have to have some kind of talent to build a brick wall, and you need to put some thought into it so it doesn't crumble. I'm glad times of secret techniques of guilds are gone, and patents don't get extended like "copyrights".

Morals are relligious beliefs to me. I can understand compassion, empathy, social feelings, from biological side - and I see why most people agree on not murdering each other etc. because of those - but I don't see how one can build philosophical theories on such hormone rushes, and believe in them.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

...
Morals are relligious beliefs to me. ...

ah, that's why we differ in our understanding then, I do not hold that morals are religious at all!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by nekokami

This definitely runs counter to the concept of ideas being property, however. That's why I say we need a different metaphor. Perhaps ideas and creations are more like children-- we have a certain amount of control over them until they mature, and then they go out into the world to make their own way. At no time do we every really "own" them-- rather, we have custody and responsibility for them for a limited time.

I've got it!!!

Lets call it kidnapping instead of piracy!!

Sorry couldn't resist!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

ah, that's why we differ in our understanding then, I do not hold that morals are religious at all!

Let me clarify - beliefs held with relligious conviction. I have yet to see morals that don't contradict my experience of the world by oversimplifying. The whole concept of good and evil (or good and bad) is utilitarian only, a tool to teach children that won't want to fit complicated relationships between things in real world in their brains, a terminator in the chain of reasoning. Yet when we mature, we see that there's no inherent good or evil, and every concept which was "good" or "bad" in the past can be replaced with more precise knowledge that doesn't involve those words.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I think the original laws about copyright (again, going back to the Statute of Anne) were designed to protect authors, inventors, etc., but didn't necessarily draw the analogy to "intellectual property." I believe that's a more modern construct, and a problematic one.

Actually, they weren't. The statute was instated to take away the king's right to arbitrarily sell monopolies to the highest bidder. Before, random people/corps could buy monopolies on creating/selling different items, most specifically books, but different things as well, and the king used this right to find money for himself. The "moral rights of the author" are a later, mostly French/Hegelian invention, encoded in the Berne convention.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I've got it!!!

Lets call it kidnapping instead of piracy!!

Sorry couldn't resist!

Cheers,
PKFFW

that's the buccaneering spirit me lad .....

(interesting that the word piracy can be related to plagiarisation, whilst another thought takes us to robbery).

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Dear book pirate,
I was just reading in a marvellous little book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (can be legally downloaded here), and I just felt that I had to quote this page in full:

Moral of the story: Watch out. They're coming. ;-)

Crikey, They're going to burn down the internet now?

Can I watch

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

that's the buccaneering spirit me lad .....

(interesting that the word piracy can be related to plagiarisation, whilst another thought takes us to robbery).

Well, here's what the OED has to say on the matter:

classical Latin plagiārius person who abducts the child or slave of another, kidnapper, seducer, also a literary thief (Martial 1. 53. 9), in post-classical Latin also (adjective) concerning plagiarism (15th cent.) < plagium kidnapping (see PLAGIUM n.) + -ārius -ARY suffix1. Compare Middle French, French plagiaire (adjective) plagiarized (1555), (noun) plagiarist (1584), kidnapper (1603). Compare earlier PLAGIUM n.]

Now, "plagiarism" refers to taking someone else's words as one's own, but I think this is a closer concept to taking the permission to copy as one's own than "theft" is.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I think the original laws about copyright (again, going back to the Statute of Anne) were designed to protect authors, inventors, etc., but didn't necessarily draw the analogy to "intellectual property." I believe that's a more modern construct, and a problematic one.

I realize there are people out there (some on this board) who really, honestly believe that when they write a story or paint an image or what have you, it's their own creation, entirely, and they owe none of it to anyone else. In my considered opinion, that notion is false. I don't think any of us create in a vacuum, and we all owe some of our work to other influences around us. That's why I believe it's important to have an expiration to copyright terms, so others can continue to build on whatever we create, just as we have done before them.

This definitely runs counter to the concept of ideas being property, however. That's why I say we need a different metaphor. Perhaps ideas and creations are more like children-- we have a certain amount of control over them until they mature, and then they go out into the world to make their own way. At no time do we every really "own" them-- rather, we have custody and responsibility for them for a limited time.

My belief is that the confusion arises chiefly from our looking at the nature of copyright from an unnatural viewpoint. The law is stated as a grant, and we speak of ownership and protection, but the reality is that it's a restriction. The public (non-)voluntarily gives up their natural right to copy works in order to provide an incentive in a market for the creator to release them. Note I said "release them". Anyone may create anything they wish and keep it locked in their drawer/basement and owe nothing to anyone. It's when a creation is released (eg published) and the public is requested/required to abstain from exercising their natural rights relating to it that this social contract called "copyright" is engaged.

All this brouhaha is simply is simply an economic market reaction. The public is expressing the opinion that the costs associated with a class of works (instant cost in $$ + long term cost in restricted access) is greater that the works are worth. Each side has basically a couple of options. The creator can either ignore the backlash and watch the market shrink (no one would stop you from selling your pencils for $100/ea, but your customer base will be small,) or he can lower his price and broaden the market. The customer can either not purchase a work, "steal" a work, or pay the stated cost.

Those options are, of course, limited by practicality & reality. No one would complain about an individual making outrageous demands for his works - they could just not buy it - but an entire industry? Someone who is a reader basically only has 2 options: steal or pay. Not reading is generally not seen as an option.


NOTE: although I use the word "steal" in this post, I don't agree with using the term in association with copyright violations. But I felt it was necessary for practicality/clarity since so many people cannot/won't differentiate between the two.

Troy

[zerospinboson]

Personally, I'm against copyright because it allows the author to sit on his behind after writing a single well-selling book.
Since most books experience 80% of their sales in the first 6 or so months, a copyright period that is perhaps a small multiple of that seems reasonable. Authors can still get money by selling the first publishers the right to print their books first (First mover advantage works just fine in every other market, so it will also work fine here), and that should be the end of it.
Monopolies discourage innovation, in patenting as well as in copyright. Imagine having a society of people who are all the descendants of "great" authors.. All of them would be doing nothing because they can just sit back and enjoy living off granddad's pension, without having contributed anything to society. Is this something one should aspire to through legislation? I think not

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Personally, I'm against copyright because it allows the author to sit on his behind after writing a single well-selling book.
Since most books experience 80% of their sales in the first 6 or so months, a copyright period that is perhaps a small multiple of that seems reasonable. Authors can still get money by selling the first publishers the right to print their books first (First mover advantage works just fine in every other market, so it will also work fine here), and that should be the end of it.
Monopolies discourage innovation, in patenting as well as in copyright. Imagine having a society of people who are all the descendants of "great" authors.. All of them would be doing nothing because they can just sit back and enjoy living off granddad's pension, without having contributed anything to society. Is this something one should aspire to through legislation? I think not

Now *THAT* is an interesting reason for removing copyright protection! Not sure I *like* it, but that sure would be motivation for writing more, yes???

Derek