Fair Use?

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Make it hard enough online, and it'll come back. That's one of the ironys of big media's stance.

Personally, I think big media is dead. Their entire business model relies on the difficulty of making and distributing copies. Buggy whips.

Most of the big record labels are circling the drain right now. I don't think many people expect EMI to last more than a couple of years, for instance. The tipping point is coming soon, because once the percentage of online sales hits a certain point, artists are going to realize that they won't be limiting their sales by not releasing on CD. And with no physical production, there's even less reason to get involved with a record label (at least a traditional one). Wait and see what happens as some big acts' recording contracts expire in the next few years.

I'd say that fiction book publishing is on the same curve, but 5 years (at the most) behind music. I think it will go faster, too, because the iPod has pretty much paved the way for people to get used to electronic devices and electronic distribution. Look at Podcasting, and ask yourself what's likely to happen along those lines in the written word.

[DawnFalcon]

They can delay things a lot with the ACTA and so on, though.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kya

I do the same borrowing books in a library and buying only the ones I really care/support and I think that "piracy" could work like that as well.

It pretty much does. For most people, the internet has replaced libraries for a source of entertainment as well as knowledge/research. That is why a similar source of funding as that currently used for libraries would work well with the internet. If authors are happy with the 6p they get every time a book is loaned from the library they will be just as happy with 6p every time a book is downloaded from the internet.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Make it hard enough online, and it'll come back. That's one of the ironys of big media's stance.

I believe it is the people who used to pay for pirate content on CDR that are now responsible for the rise in sales of digital content, they are spending the money they used to spend on pirate content on legitimate content instead. So if they are forced to go back to paying for pirate content the entertainment industry will lose out.

[Krystian Galaj]

I'm probably angry at the use of the word 'stealing' by some people, because for me stealing is what authors who don't release into public domain do. It's making a collage of previously existing cluture memes and claiming it as yours, taking this toy it away from the samdbox, away from rest of society, disallowing other people to build on it. It's a bad thing to do.
There's also an argument that authors deserve to be paid for their hard work. Well, no. They have a choice - the don't have to create if they don't want to. But there's no guarantee their work and time they spend creating is worth money to anyone else. This needs to be regulated by free market, and artificial scarcity introduced by copyright laws isn't what's best for society at this moment, in my opinion. I believe that the world with no copyright, where people create because they can make money in the absence of copyright, or because they just want to create and share and don't wait for the money would be healthier for overwhelming majority of people, even if some people who create now would start doing something else instead.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I'm probably angry at the use of the word 'stealing' by some people, because for me stealing is what authors who don't release into public domain do. It's making a collage of previously existing cluture memes and claiming it as yours, taking this toy it away from the samdbox, away from rest of society, disallowing other people to build on it. It's a bad thing to do.
There's also an argument that authors deserve to be paid for their hard work. Well, no. They have a choice - the don't have to create if they don't want to. But there's no guarantee their work and time they spend creating is worth money to anyone else. This needs to be regulated by free market, and artificial scarcity introduced by copyright laws isn't what's best for society at this moment, in my opinion. I believe that the world with no copyright, where people create because they can make money in the absence of copyright, or because they just want to create and share and don't wait for the money would be healthier for overwhelming majority of people, even if some people who create now would start doing something else instead.

While I agree that copyright laws are too restrictive, mostly because the time period before expiration is way too long (which is moot since they can be renewed) and because of archaic restrictions on making backup copies and doing media changes, eliminating copyright laws would pretty much guarantee very few writers would continue to write. It takes a lot of time to write a large novel (even a small one) and, if they couldn't get paid for their work, they would have less time to devote to writing because they would be spending their time on a "real job" to put food on the table, etc.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

While I agree that copyright laws are too restrictive, mostly because the time period before expiration is way too long (which is moot since they can be renewed) and because of archaic restrictions on making backup copies and doing media changes, eliminating copyright laws would pretty much guarantee very few writers would continue to write. It takes a lot of time to write a large novel (even a small one) and, if they couldn't get paid for their work, they would have less time to devote to writing because they would be spending their time on a "real job" to put food on the table, etc.

If it puts an end to books written purely for financial gain I would see that as a good thing. But what makes you think writers won't make any money from their writing? Presumably people would still want to read it even if all the restrictions on who is allowed to read it were removed. If anything, they would gain more readers.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

eliminating copyright laws would pretty much guarantee very few writers would continue to write.

So long it was the few worth reading that would be fine by me!

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by TGS

So long it was the few worth reading that would be fine by me!

With my luck, it wouldn't be the ones worth reading.

[Fbone]

So you would like to receive all books for free and make a Paypal donation if you enjoyed it?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Fbone

So you would like to receive all books for free and make a Paypal donation if you enjoyed it?

No, I'd like to own the books that I buy, not just buy a license to read them on the the device that the vendor deems appropriate.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

deleted

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If it puts an end to books written purely for financial gain I would see that as a good thing.

Why would that be a good thing? I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, do you do give it away for free, or do you expect to be paid for it? There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing to make a living; it's what many of the greatest writers in the field of English literature have done.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I'm probably angry at the use of the word 'stealing' by some people, because for me stealing is what authors who don't release into public domain do. It's making a collage of previously existing cluture memes and claiming it as yours, taking this toy it away from the samdbox, away from rest of society, disallowing other people to build on it. It's a bad thing to do.

So do you give away all your work for free? Should plumbers plumb for free? Should brick layers lay bricks for free? Should accountants account for free? Why do you make authors a special case? Writing is just as much a valid way of attempting to make a living as any of these other trades and professions.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So do you give away all your work for free? Should plumbers plumb for free? Should brick layers lay bricks for free? Should accountants account for free? Why do you make authors a special case? Writing is just as much a valid way of attempting to make a living as any of these other trades and professions.

I think the argument is the pipes and wrenches used by plumbers are paid for. While a writer pays for pencil and paper the use of the culture around them didn't cost them a penny.

I suppose there's also an argument to be made for making art for its own sake rather than to please a customer base. Personally I see nothing wrong with trying to turn a profit, my problem is with all the excesses that have entered into it in recent years. They're bad enough that I wouldn't' cry if the pendulum swung back the other way and destroyed the current copyright system before finding more balanced point.