Article - 'Harry Potter' among those missing from e-library

[jairizarry]

Originally Posted by elena

why did you do that!?
It's quite easy to scan a book without tearing it to pieces

Anyway, it's full of very good OCRed/proofread/well-formatted versions on eMule

Well, I can scan a chapter of Harry Potter in about 45 secs. The Scansnap only costs $300 (Newegg price) and comes with the full version of Adobe and software that can convert to Word, Excel, or other desirable formats. From there, I basically format the book to fit the reader and I'm ready in a couple days with me reading and doing the scanning.

I know other scanners are out there, but I wanted cheap, home use, and easy to be the 3 main considerations.

BTW, I've almost gone paperless in my files now with the Scansnap and I can find things so much easier!

Julie

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

If you're referring to my post, I didn't say it was irrelevant -- I said comparing it to patent law wasn't helpful, because of the high potential for confusion.

I don't disagree with much of what's been said here about the current state of copyright law, btw. I think the current terms are too long and are only going to get longer because of the extreme levels of corporate influence.

No, I was replying to sirbruce who said that my statement that most books don't earn money after a year was irrelevant.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's absolute nonsense.

If it takes you life + 70 years to seek "due recompence" for your craft, then you're in the wrong line of work. Current copyright terms have nothing to do with making a living.

Ah ! ...

But in a previous discussion on copyright, I also make the point that a 'normal' working life is 35-45 years before retirement - therefore copyright should be of the same length of time....
Current copyright terms may have nothing to do with making a living, but nonetheless for many artists that is the only way they can live....

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Ah ! ...

But in a previous discussion on copyright, I also make the point that a 'normal' working life is 35-45 years before retirement - therefore copyright should be of the same length of time....
Current copyright terms may have nothing to do with making a living, but nonetheless for many artists that is the only way they can live....

In every set of laws and conditions there will be people who would fill any business model made feasible by this set of laws. Copyright makes it possible to make writing more profitable than it would otherwise be, allowing some people to make a living out of it and, as has been mentioned before, sometimes make enough money that it stops promoting creativity and dampens it (and in the authors, whose works are most treasured, too).
Making copyright period shorter would certainly change conditions, make some authors currently making a living out of it stop writing, but at the same time possibly make some authors who no longer needed to write start writing again. Which authors the society wants more?

Using some idealized model of author who can make a living only by writing and selling their works is too simple a model and can lead to very false conclusions. As is assumming that all that average author wants to do with his income is to leave it to his children.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Making copyright period shorter would certainly change conditions, make some authors currently making a living out of it stop writing, but at the same time possibly make some authors who no longer needed to write start writing again. Which authors the society wants more?

Making copyright shorter also increases the number of other authors who will create derivative works based on the original before it's become so outdated nobody's interested in them. It potentially increases the number who would be willing to translate or re-release the original in a new form (paperback for something that had only been hardcover, or DVD for a movie only on film) and therefore increase the public collection of artistic works.

The original author might not have interest in releasing an illustrated version, or might not have the skill to translate it, or might not think a big enough market exists to bother with the conversion to DVD.

Shorter copyright lengths aren't so much designed to nudge authors & other creators into making more as they're designed to encourage the use of those works to enrich the public culture. The public domain is how we prevent greed or apathy from stopping cultural growth.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

As is assumming that all that average author wants to do with his income is to leave it to his children.

why assume they

a) need it ?
b) deserve it ?
c) expect it ?

[sirbruce]

If you don't think children should get anything, then you should be arguing for a 100% inheritance tax. And copyrights are just a small portion of that problem; you have bigger fish to fry.

If you think children should get something, then you have to treat copyrights fairly the same way you treat the income from any other assets after death like stocks, annuities, property, ownership of businesses, etc.

So those who continually bring up the notion that children don't deserve anything from inherited copyrights are only derailing the discussion.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If you don't think children should get anything, then you should be arguing for a 100% inheritance tax. And copyrights are just a small portion of that problem; you have bigger fish to fry.

If you think children should get something, then you have to treat copyrights fairly the same way you treat the income from any other assets after death like stocks, annuities, property, ownership of businesses, etc.

So those who continually bring up the notion that children don't deserve anything from inherited copyrights are only derailing the discussion.

can readily see why you call yourself 'provocateur' ....

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

can readily see why you call yourself 'provocateur' ....

As a veteran of many forum wars I've learned to accept what I am.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

As a veteran of many forum wars I've learned to accept what I am.

one hopes you don't expect to start any here ....

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

one hopes you don't expect to start any here ....

I think I already have?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

But in a previous discussion on copyright, I also make the point that a 'normal' working life is 35-45 years before retirement - therefore copyright should be of the same length of time....

Is the average book even in print for that long? Copyright should be long enough that the author has made enough money off of it to have made it worth writing. How long does a typical book generate revenue for? I would assume it's much shorter than the "working life" of the author, except for rare exceptions.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If you don't think children should get anything, then you should be arguing for a 100% inheritance tax. And copyrights are just a small portion of that problem; you have bigger fish to fry.

There's a big difference between saying children should inherit money that their parents already made, versus saying that children should retain a monopoly on their parent's coyrights.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Even 50 is too much IMHO. 28 years seems like the right amount of time as it was many revisions ago. Something long enough to see that the kids are raised.

Dale

I've always liked the idea of life or 25 (whichever is longer) maybe with a one-time 5-year extension option with a fee if the work is still in print. I'm fine with it lasting past death to benefit the estate. I just don't see "life+" as being necessary or good for society.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

There's a big difference between saying children should inherit money that their parents already made, versus saying that children should retain a monopoly on their parent's coyrights.

Heck, at this rate, the grandkids might end up with it.