Copyright is Out of Sight

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tompe

I am not entitled to get money from the state without working.

We are in the UK.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

We are in the UK.

And certainly true in the good ol' U.S.A. as well if you have or can concoct the right story.

[carld]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, the can choose to publish or not publish. They have no right to a copyright system (monopol).

Yes they do. They have every right to gain from their work. The copyright system makes that possible.

[Catlady]

Copyright is a valuable and necessary protection, and anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't thinking.

But how long should copyright last? That's the issue. Seventy years past the author's death is an incredibly long time, and I'm not sure how it's in anyone's best interest. Most authors' works will go out of print long before copyright expires, so even the heirs are not benefitting. It makes more sense to let works into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time--I'd say something like 50 years after first publication, or 25 years after the author's death, whichever is later.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course I have a right to demand that the state should enforce copyright - the law gives me that right.

I'm afraid that I don't see the connection with getting paid to read books; that is not at all the same thing as the creative act of writing a book.

I thought the discussion here was how things ought to be and not about what the current laws happens to be. And I still do not think it was and that you are mis-representing the discussion.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by carld

Yes they do. They have every right to gain from their work. The copyright system makes that possible.

Notice that this is not an argument from current laws.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by carld

Yes they do. They have every right to gain from their work. The copyright system makes that possible.

The problem is when they (or their descendents) choose not to gain from their "property". Then it is denied to an entire generation.

Five years from the date of last publication is plenty long enough to satisfy the needs of both readers and writers. Disney and other corporations who want copyright to last until the end of time can just make sure they republish it at least once every 5 years.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Copyright is a valuable and necessary protection, and anyone who thinks otherwise just isn't thinking.

But how long should copyright last? That's the issue. Seventy years past the author's death is an incredibly long time, and I'm not sure how it's in anyone's best interest. Most authors' works will go out of print long before copyright expires, so even the heirs are not benefitting. It makes more sense to let works into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time--I'd say something like 50 years after first publication, or 25 years after the author's death, whichever is later.

Time is relative, look, in about ten years maybe less, EVERYONE who wants one will have access to a cheap, disposable ereader that is connected to the global network. Does anyone here believe that they have the right to restrict access to the network to anyone?? The medium is the message, the network is the content.

We DEFINITELY NEED to start imagining new ways to distribute content and PAY the content creators, so that they can eat.

Small autonomous groups of creators/editors/distributors might be the way to go, but still lurking in the background is the problem of what to do about people who want to access "YOUR" content but cannot or choose not to pay you for the content.

Some governments require a copy of every book published within their governmental boundaries to be sent to a central depository so that the public has at least a modicum of access to the book. I feel that an expansion of this system, covering the entire network is a possibility for the future. Especially now that it is easier than ever before to make these copies available to anyone who wishes to access them. Because it can be done, so it will be done.

What harm is there in the free sharing of information? Certainly there are those who will misuse the information, either for their own benefit, or to the detriment of others, but our systems should NOT BE DESIGNED around the actions of these behavioral anomalies.

[elcreative]

Funny, thought that Sweden had one of the most generous Social Security systems in the world... still nice to know that you'll be giving anything, you may own, to charity when you die... most generous...

And in the Uk (and most places) copyright is a Civil enforcement problem not a criminal one unless fraud or counterfeiting is involved.

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, and you have no right to demand a state enforced monopoly like copyright.

So you are not entitled to the copyright system in the same was that I am not entitled to get money from the state without working.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Does anyone here believe that they have the right to restrict access to the network to anyone??

This isn't germaine to the original post. In this discussion, the medium isn't the message, it's merely the delivery mechanism for the message. Moving on.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Small autonomous groups of creators/editors/distributors might be the way to go, but still lurking in the background is the problem of what to do about people who want to access "YOUR" content but cannot or choose not to pay you for the content.

Simple: If the creator demands payment for their creation, and someone doesn't want to pay... they don't get it.

Are we done here?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

...
Are we done here?

We were done several pages back actually (before I entered the fray) and actually the second post in this thread should have been pointers to all the prior threads that covered the same ol' tired topics.

blah blah blah blah blah....

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Funny, thought that Sweden had one of the most generous Social Security systems in the world... still nice to know that you'll be giving anything, you may own, to charity when you die... most generous...

And in the Uk (and most places) copyright is a Civil enforcement problem not a criminal one unless fraud or counterfeiting is involved.

Several people have been taken to court on charges of conspiracy to defraud, but I don't know if anyone has been successfully prosecuted over it.
Of course, the game changed with the Digital Economy Act. The BPI had a clause inserted into that which puts the burden of proof onto the accuser rather than the accused, and it is within the scope of the law for entire families to have their internet access cut off if the family member who is accused cannot prove their innocence.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Simple: If the creator demands payment for their creation, and someone doesn't want to pay... they don't get it.

In the history of the printed page, has that ever been the case? People have always found ways to read for free. Being able to measure how many people are doing it now doesn't change anything.

It's pointless harking back to an age that never existed. You would be better off looking for ways to turn it to your advantage.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by taustin

Nearly all entertainment today is produced as a business, and the quality is much higher than it was when it was all done by amateurs.

A very debatable point, Taustin. The technical quality may be higher, but I doubt very much whether the cultural quality is anywhere near as high. Today we have, for example, very flashy TV shows, but for the most part they live well up - or down - to P T Barnum's rule. Here in Sweden we don't have the same number of channels one has in, say, the US, but it happens very often that I or my wife will scour the TV program and come to the conclusion that, one more time, the evening is a cultural desert. And before you say that entertainment is more than TV, remember that TV includes most other forms of entertainment - films, music shows, and its own contribution, and for many people living outside of large cities, is the only reasonable access to entertainment.

Originally Posted by taustin

And writers do not work alone. Most writers can't write their way out of a wet paper bag without a decent editor. Hell, a lot of them can't spell or construct coherent sentences without help. That's why we have publishers.

Writers do work alone. The writing part of their work must be one of the loneliest jobs on the planet. And whilst I accede that an editor may be useful, I take extreme exception to the statement that "most writers can't write their way out of a wet paper bag without a decent editor". I think it's time someone said on here that it's the writer who makes a story and not the editor. If it wasn't so, editors would do the writing. And the only f*ing book we'd have to read would be the Chicago Manual of Style.

Originally Posted by taustin

And, for what it's worth, yammering like yours is why publishers keep getting away with ever longer copyright terms and stricters laws to enforce them. If arguments like your are the best the other side's got, then what's the issue? Clearly, there's no serious resistance to greater copyright protection. In other words, you're part of the problem. Grow up, get a job, and maybe $10 for a book won't be so onerous.

I also think that this paragraph comes close to warranting a note to the moderators. The poster's presentation may sometimes be a little naive, but (s)he has some valid points which I and many others do not think are being answered by our elected representatives, who all seem to be on the payroll of various branches of the entertainment industry. There is something very sick about the fact that a medicine or some other manufactured product which gives productive value to many peoples' lives is protected for about 15 years depending on country, whereas something so ephemeral as a pop song which keeps them amused for three minutes is protected now for 90 years, or was it 70 that the EU recently agreed to.

I'm devoting some of my time now to writing, and I reckon that I can turn out a full-length novel in about a year. I'm not Shakespeare, so I'm not expecting people to read it in 400 years' time, I'm just a teller of tales. If I can keep on finding readers for four or five years, I'm happy. And in that time I can hopefully produce four or five more novels. And hopefully people, if they enjoy my tales, will come back for more and so it rolls on. I'd be satisfied with a royalty period of five years. Even the big publishers reckon on a life of at most five years for the average novel nowadays. Soon after that, it's likely to be out of print.

So start looking at what the OP is trying to say, and stop being rude.

[Nada y Nadie]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I am upset by the fact that libraries are allowed to upload books onto our ereaders and then required to delete them a week later, because copyright law tells them to.

LIBRARIANS SHOULD KNOW BETTER,

yes that is a paraphrased quote from the LOTR movie, which instilled deep knowledge into me. We can never tell just what part of which text will help us in our journey, one of the reasons copyright should be swept away.

This idea is not some random thought that a few cranks spout at various times in various places around the internet, this is THE IDEA.

I hope to contribute to its acceptance in every way that I can, and I hope you will do the same.

Giggleton, you missed my point. I said you are equating writing with knowledge, and, even if I take your word for it that you learned deep life lessons while watching the LOTR movie, here's the problem with your premise. What if the deepest and most important knowledge you seek won't come to you until you tear yourself away from your books and experience something in the real world? Even if someone else has already learned that lesson and has carefully recorded in writing what they learned (as with Ralph Waldo Emerson), still you will not learn that lesson just by reading about it. So it might be argued that writing is something entirely separate from knowledge. Either way, do you really want to spend your life reading other people's versions of knowledge rather than seeking wisdom yourself?

I believe you honestly think ending copyright is THE IDEA, but I hope someday you will gain the wisdom to realize it is just an idea.