Brian Keene on piracy

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Which is why I try very hard to disassociate the work of art from the artist and judge the work of art on it's own merits...

I completely agree.
But since I'm painfully aware of my frequent failures to successfully disassociate, I've had to resort to cheating... by going to extra lengths to remain as ignorant as possible about the authors behind the writing. I still fail at that occasionally, too.

[BeccaPrice]

On the other hand, there are some authors where I find their personal politics so objectionable that I won't buy them because I don't want any of my money going to causes that author supports.

similarly, there's a mystery writer whom I don't buy because I find that her acquaintance with murder is a little too close in reality for my comfort.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

And part of that compendium says stealing stuff is counter productive to the smooth running of a densely populated planet. I think it also says somewhere in this mythical compendium that if the creators in society, and not everyone is a creator, are not rewarded for there creations then they will stop creating and society will suffer. It is why west Germany made a Porche and East Germany made bugger all.

"If there is nothing to steal, there can be no thieves"

We aren't saying that creators shouldn't be compensated for their creations, we are simply saying that if someone wants to read a novel, watch a movie, listen to music, or appreciate a painting they should be allowed to do so regardless of their socioeconomic status.

We have come to realize that most creators create for the sole purpose of creation. Compensation is a welcome bonus. The very small percentage of creators who create mostly for compensation are statistically insignificant.

Hairs can be split between fictional and nonfictional texts, and whether or not documentary films should be freely available to all, but these are minor issues, missing the larger picture, which is the free spread of information across this densely populated planet.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We have come to realize that most creators create for the sole purpose of creation. Compensation is a welcome bonus. The very small percentage of creators who create mostly for compensation are statistically insignificant.

We are not dismissing your "realization" outright. We would just like to see some of the empirical data that supports it. Yes we certainly would.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

We are not dismissing your "realization" outright. We would just like to see some of the empirical data that supports it. Yes we certainly would.

This is from a book I read recently called "How To Fix Copyright" by William Patry,

"Even under our current system of automatic, formality-free copyright, the vast majority of creators have no use for copyright. This has always been the case. Prior regimes in the United States, which required compliance with formalities such as affixing a notice or registration in order to either obtain or maintain copyright, provide empirical evidence of the relatively minor importance of copyright protection to many creators.

In the legislative committee reports to the 1909 Copyright Act, Congress examined the effectiveness of the copyright laws passed in the 1800s. Those laws required an initial registration with the government and then a second application to be filed after the first twenty eight-year term of protection in order to enjoy another, fourteen year renewal term of protection (called the “renewal term”). In other words, unless you filed the renewal application, your work went into the public domain after twenty-eight years.

Filing the application was cheap and easy. In examining how many copyright owners availed themselves of this easy ability to get another twenty-eight years of protection, Congress noted that only “a very small percentage of the copyrights are ever renewed.” Why? Not because of the difficulty of renewing, but rather because Congress found that the economic value “ceases in most cases long before the expiration of the [first] twenty-eight years.”

The percentage of copyright owners who bothered to file for renewal under the governing acts in the 1880s was a mere 15 percent. Keep in mind that this is not 15 percent of all works, since the majority were never registered in the first place and therefore could not be renewed. Copyright was of value to the owners of less than 5 percent of all works that could have received protection. If copyright is such a necessary incentive, why did more than 95 percent of those who could have obtained protection never bother to get it?

We can also see proof of the limited importance of copyright to creators in other government records. Records assembled by the Library of Congress and private researchers indicate that more than 21,000 books were published in the United States between 1790 and 1800, but only 648 copyright registrations were made in this same period, resulting in a registration rate of 3.28 percent at a time when registration was mandatory to get protection in the first place. Of this paltry 3.28 percent, an unknown percentage was renewed, but based on other data, the number renewed of those published must have been tiny, less than 1 percent.

The lack of interest of most authors and publishers in copyright led Congress to reject, in the 1909 Act, a proposal that would have granted a term of life of the author plus thirty years. Such a term would have extended copyright well beyond what copyright owners had themselves shown they needed by their failure to renew after the first, twenty-eight-year grant."

There is of course more to think about...

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The lack of interest of most authors and publishers in copyright led Congress to reject, in the 1909 Act, a proposal that would have granted a term of life of the author plus thirty years. Such a term would have extended copyright well beyond what copyright owners had themselves shown they needed by their failure to renew after the first, twenty-eight-year grant."

That data tells us that in the late 19th century, few publishers bothered with copyright. But it's now the early 21st century, and many things have changed.

One reason for the lack of interest in copyright protection may be that it was much harder to make copies in the late 19th century. Perhaps the publishers didn't really care much about copyright because the difficulty of copying would have more impact than the legal protection offered by copyright.

Of course, I don't know what went through the heads of late 19th century creators, but that's one possible explanation. I don't think the statistics you have given tell us anything about the modern era.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why? Not because of the difficulty of renewing, but rather because Congress found that the economic value “ceases in most cases long before the expiration of the [first] twenty-eight years.”

I think Eric Flint gets this right... he has several essays about it that you can find here: http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2...t-big-brother/

Skip down and read the section Copyright: How Long Should It Be? if you want a summary.

...although I do think the ebook changes some things. Keeping an ebook "in print" for more than a few years is quite feasible. I think 10 years would be plenty but 40 is ok.

BOb

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by avantman42

That data tells us that in the late 19th century, few publishers bothered with copyright. But it's now the early 21st century, and many things have changed.

One reason for the lack of interest in copyright protection may be that it was much harder to make copies in the late 19th century. Perhaps the publishers didn't really care much about copyright because the difficulty of copying would have more impact than the legal protection offered by copyright.

Of course, I don't know what went through the heads of late 19th century creators, but that's one possible explanation. I don't think the statistics you have given tell us anything about the modern era.

Yes it was harder to make copies in the 19th century, but the first copyright laws were brought about precisely because people were making copies of books and then undercutting the original producers of the work. You can't compete with free, as it were.

I was thinking about comparing uploads between a Creative Commons type site and a site like Amazon, If you know of any data like that please link.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes it was harder to make copies in the 19th century, but the first copyright laws were brought about precisely because people were making copies of books and then undercutting the original producers of the work. You can't compete with free, as it were.

That's not quite how I read Wikipedia's description of the Statute of Anne:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Statute replaced the monopoly enjoyed by the Stationer's Company granted in 1557 during the reign of Mary I which, after several renewals, expired in 1695. Under this regime, company members would buy manuscripts from authors but once purchased, would have a perpetual monopoly on the printing of the work. Authors themselves were excluded from membership in the company and could not therefore legally self-publish, nor were they given royalties for books that sold well.

The statute of 1709 vested authors rather than printers with the monopoly on the reproduction of their works.

To me, that looks more like the point was to take the monopoly away from the publishers and gave it to the authors instead.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I was thinking about comparing uploads between a Creative Commons type site and a site like Amazon, If you know of any data like that please link.

Unfortunately not. I'd really like to see some good, reliable data about some of these issues. I suspect the people who have such data prefer to simply release their conclusions based on the data rather than the actual data.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by avantman42

That's not quite how I read Wikipedia's description of the Statute of Anne:

I was actually thinking of the situation where scottish publishers were able to purchase paper at cheaper rates than publishers in england, and were then able to sell their texts cheaper than english publishers. Causing much wasted time and hilarity in the global legal system.

[xg4bx]

fresh from keenes blog today-

CLICKERS VS. ZOMBIES – No matter who wins, mankind loses.

$50. Signed hardcover limited to 350 copies. CLICK HERE TO ORDER

(Yes, like the rest of the Clickers series, there will eventually be paperback and digital editions, but they are a long time off. This announcement is for people who prefer hardcovers or signed, limited editions or who want to read the book now, rather than wait a year. Respect those customers, and avoid complaining about the price or limitation).


waaaah they're stealing money from me!!!!!! how am i supposed to grow my audience if i'm making them wait a year to read it because they don't have $50 to blow on a manufactured collectible!? waaaaah!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I was actually thinking of the situation where scottish publishers were able to purchase paper at cheaper rates than publishers in england, and were then able to sell their texts cheaper than english publishers. Causing much wasted time and hilarity in the global legal system.

Just illustrate the point that early copyright had absolute nothing to do with the public --- it was to limit competition between sellers, sort of like a patent.

Now these days, when everybody has their own "electronic printing machine", we obviously need stronger protection.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

fresh from keenes blog today-

CLICKERS VS. ZOMBIES – No matter who wins, mankind loses.

$50. Signed hardcover limited to 350 copies. CLICK HERE TO ORDER

(Yes, like the rest of the Clickers series, there will eventually be paperback and digital editions, but they are a long time off. This announcement is for people who prefer hardcovers or signed, limited editions or who want to read the book now, rather than wait a year. Respect those customers, and avoid complaining about the price or limitation).


waaaah they're stealing money from me!!!!!! how am i supposed to grow my audience if i'm making them wait a year to read it because they don't have $50 to blow on a manufactured collectible!? waaaaah!

Yeah, see, this is my thing.

All this hand-wringing over HOW CAN YOU DISLIKE AN AUTHOR FOR WANTING TO MAKE A LIVING is straight over my head when the only purchasable copy is a ridiculously inflated amount for a limited edition hardcover signed etc. version.

I'm not going to download his books, but I also reserve the right to think he's using this whole dust-up as free publicity (because complaining = views, how many of us had never heard of him before this) for an overpriced version of his work.

Trying to wring $50 a pop out of your fans and leaving no other versions to buy for the poorer fans isn't responsible author-behavior in my opinion. Not when the economy is what it is right now. I find that really sleazy. YMMV.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The very small percentage of creators who create mostly for compensation are statistically insignificant.

Maybe. But your tiny percentage includes Shakespeare, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, the Brontës, and, if I can add another personal favorite, the Seekers.

On your side, Emily Dickinson comes to mind.

Visual artists? Here's something on the impressionists:

The artists were aiming for the living room, the drawing room, and the dining room of middle class interiors, as the small to medium sized canvases attest. Despite the openness to the art audience, the Impressionists were not really reaching out to the conservative spectator in search of sensation. Their real audience was the art dealers.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yeah, see, this is my thing.

All this hand-wringing over HOW CAN YOU DISLIKE AN AUTHOR FOR WANTING TO MAKE A LIVING is straight over my head when the only purchasable copy is a ridiculously inflated amount for a limited edition hardcover signed etc. version.

I'm not going to download his books, but I also reserve the right to think he's using this whole dust-up as free publicity (because complaining = views, how many of us had never heard of him before this) for an overpriced version of his work.

Trying to wring $50 a pop out of your fans and leaving no other versions to buy for the poorer fans isn't responsible author-behavior in my opinion. Not when the economy is what it is right now. I find that really sleazy. YMMV.

Yes, really terrible that you might have to wait for a non-essential item that you can choose to buy or not buy... books have always had special limited edition offers available, quite often before a standard release - how does that hurt you?
You say you won't pay that much , fine then don't but why should those who want such items be deprived to suit you? I agree that there are too many limited editions these days but I exercise my freely available options by not buying them, I don't moan about it, just wait until there's a copy I can afford, it's not like there aren't plenty of other books I want to read that I can afford. The immediate lack of any title is hardly crucial to my survival or general enjoyment of other things... or are you another supporter of your "rights" over those of everybody else including the creators of such books?