Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

To me, it's fortunately. With my ideas on property rights in the decided minority, I'll take any backdoor approach that keeps extending copyright.

Regardless of what it costs society?

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

To me, it's fortunately. With my ideas on property rights in the decided minority, I'll take any backdoor approach that keeps extending copyright.

Do you read public domain books? If so, do you pay creator for your access? If the public domain is theft, then you're a thief if you don't pay when you read public domain books. It is no defense to say that it is ok, because the book was already stolen, no more than it would be to recieve stolen goods. Do you read books or watch movies that are based on public domain works without paying the original creator? If so, then if the public domain is theft, then you are recieving stolen goods.

Again, just because you don't see the difference between intellectual property and physical property doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You haven't made any case that they are the same thing.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Do you read public domain books? If so, do you pay creator for your access? If the public domain is theft, then you're a thief if you don't pay when you read public domain books. It is no defense to say that it is ok, because the book was already stolen, no more than it would be to recieve stolen goods. Do you read books or watch movies that are based on public domain works without paying the original creator? If so, then if the public domain is theft, then you are recieving stolen goods.

Again, just because you don't see the difference between intellectual property and physical property doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You haven't made any case that they are the same thing.

Yes; I do. I obey the law, and current law includes public domain. Change the law and I'll obey it.

And just because you see a difference, it doesn't mean it exists. The only case I need make is that a unique work created by someone is their property, and as such, is theirs in perpetuity to dispose of as they see fit; not the state.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Regardless of what it costs society?

--
Bill

I don't see how society is negatively impacted. Disney made a bundle off of "Snow White". Since that work is in the public domain, there's nothing stopping anyone else from creating their own version of the tale and profiting from it.

Also, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating a different unique work. You don't need to copy previous works to do so.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't see how society is negatively impacted. Disney made a bundle off of "Snow White". Since that work is in the public domain, there's nothing stopping anyone else from creating their own version of the tale and profiting from it.

But if you had your way, Disney couldn't have made Snow White.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But if you had your way, Disney couldn't have made Snow White.

Only if the original author of Snow White could be ascertained. Since it was a folk tale passed down for generations, original authorship will never be known.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Yes; I do. I obey the law, and current law includes public domain. Change the law and I'll obey it.

That is not an option. You are appealing to natural law, claiming that the public domain is theft. If you honestly beleive that the pulic domain is theft, then you are a thief when you download public domain books,. You are trying to accept the law and reject it at the same time. When it is convenient, such as when you want to read a public domain book, you accept it.

And just because you see a difference, it doesn't mean it exists. The only case I need make is that a unique work created by someone is their property, and as such, is theirs in perpetuity to dispose of as they see fit; not the state.

The problem is that I can demonstrate that there is, in fact a difference. If you could demonstate that when someone creates a work it is theirs for perpetuity, that would be one thing. You haven't demonstrated that, you've merely asserted it, you have made no case.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Only if the original author of Snow White could be ascertained. Since it was a folk tale passed down for generations, original authorship will never be known.

In other words, theft after theft after theft, and you keep taking possession of stolen goods.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't see how society is negatively impacted. Disney made a bundle off of "Snow White". Since that work is in the public domain, there's nothing stopping anyone else from creating their own version of the tale and profiting from it.

Also, there's nothing stopping anyone from creating a different unique work. You don't need to copy previous works to do so.

You don't need a unique work to create a different unique work, but consider that some works enter the cultural consciousness and transcend being merely a novel (or a movie). People have often taken old works and reworked them to create new works that draw at least some of their power from their relation to the initial work.

Likewise, in the past, authors have often taken moderately successful works and then reworked them in new ways to create a superior story (William Shakespeare was a master of this).

Ultimately, since copyright is totally a construct of government, I want to know what benefits result from extending copyright further?

It should also be pointed out that after a generation or two, if copyright ends up being held by multiple parties, it might prevent any books from being republished since trying to get all rights holders to agree can become more trouble than the book is worth.

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The "non-commercial copyright?" No such entity.

Of course there is. Or did I use the incorrect term? Seems to be called moral right (in Swedish laws it is "ideell rätt"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...e#Moral_rights

It covers the case you took up.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The problem is that I can demonstrate that there is, in fact a difference. If you could demonstate that when someone creates a work it is theirs for perpetuity, that would be one thing. You haven't demonstrated that, you've merely asserted it, you have made no case.

Not to my sanctification. Besides, what's to demonstrate? They created it, therefore it's theirs.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That is not an option. You are appealing to natural law, claiming that the public domain is theft. If you honestly beleive that the pulic domain is theft, then you are a thief when you download public domain books,. You are trying to accept the law and reject it at the same time. When it is convenient, such as when you want to read a public domain book, you accept it.

Moot point, since we don't live under natural law. We have to obey the laws we actually live under. In the mean time, I vote for officials who best reflect my views and can attempt to change laws I dislike.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Not to my sanctification.

I'm not a priest, I don't intend to sanctify you.

Besides, what's to demonstrate? They created it, therefore it's theirs.

You could start by demonstrating that, for starters, rather than merely asserting it. Just because they created it doesn't mean it is theirs, there's no "therefore". The premise doesn't follow from the conclusion.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Moot point, since we don't live under natural law. We have to obey the laws we actually live under. In the mean time, I vote for officials who best reflect my views and can attempt to change laws I dislike.

You're the one appealing to natural law. Current copyright law doesn't require you to be a thief. No one is forcing you not to pay for public domain works.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You could start by demonstrating that, for starters, rather than merely asserting it. Just because they created it doesn't mean it is theirs, there's no "therefore". The premise doesn't follow from the conclusion.

That's your set of values; not mine. I don't need detailed explanations, demonstrations, and justifications to explain a simple concept. If one creates something, it's theirs.