EU Piracy Report

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Once again, from the top - Copyright is not property! It does not, nor ever have, followed the rules of property! I don't know how much more clear I can make this.

It is a right granted by the government for a limited term. Not forever. Not for your descendants. It is granted to creators to encourage creation. Dead people don't create!!!. Nobody makes you create. That's a choice, with rights and responsibilities, <and a time limit>. You know that going into the business. It's not magical power, it's just work and talent.

I'm a professional programmer. I have been for over 35 years. I get no royalties. I own no copyright from my professional work. What I did get was a paycheck, for services rendered. Right now I get paid very close to 6 figures a year for my skills. I also hold a few personal copyrights, because I was feeling brisk. they are effectively worthless. I could care less what happens to them.

If you want to play the copyright game, it's a free country. But the rules of the game are what they are. You got to work within them. And they shouldn't change after the fact, just to please you, while cheating somebody else.

Now, if despite everything I've said above, you expect copyright to be treated as property, then expect to get the bad side of property as well as the good side. And that means paying taxes on the property, and registering it with the government to be taxed. No register, no copyright. Just like a fallow piece of land. It produces no income, but it still get taxed (in most jurisdictions), and your ownership of the land must be registered to maintain your ownership! Your copyright can produce absolutely no income, but it would still be taxed. (How much would be determined by the government.)

Ralph:

You know, if you don't want to enforce your own copyrights, that's YOUR CHOICE. That's my point. Moreover, you are obviously very well compensated, on a timely basis, and that is the payment you get. The work you do belongs to your employer. That's what paid JOBS are like, which is completely and utterly different than a gamble, effectively, on a manuscript.

For most of my 3+ decades of work, I worked in the Real Estate Development field. For a variety of projects, building everything from offices to resort hotels. It was common for me to earn money at one point in time, and receive it at another. For example--let's say that my compensation was a fixed wage of X, plus a percentage on a given job, based on how far UNDER budget the job came in, or other performance factors. The percentages, or bonuses, etc., were not--not remotely--insignificant in amount.

By your lights--"Dead people don't create!"--if I finished a hotel, in, say, this year, and then got hit by a bus, my spouse and my estate would NOT be entitled to receive the compensation that I was due. So: precisely, what's the difference, then, between MY deferred/delayed compensation, and that of an author? What, there's some argument that I'm somehow different than they? I'm not. I worked; I earned it; it came to pass that it wasn't payable to me until AFTER I died. I fail to see one iota of difference, other than--other people aren't trying to GET what I earned, away from me, for their own use/benefit.

What if I buy stocks? Ralph, if I buy stocks today, then kick the bucket, and they double in value, should my estate NOT be entitled to that money? Since "dead people don't create," should my spouse have to fork that over to some third party that had NOTHING to do with the earnings to buy it in the first place, etc.?

As far as taxes, oh, PUHLEEZE. You're a smart person, and you know damned well that we most certainly do not pay taxes on most of our personalty (personal property). I don't pay taxes on the thousands of books in my home, but that doesn't mean that they have zero value. I don't pay annual taxes on the value of jewelry, etc. YES, we pay RE Taxes. YES, we pay a "tax," effectively, on an automobile, in the form of an annual registration/licensing/emissions test. but other than that, personalty is not taxed the way RE is taxed, and you know it.

The value of a copyrighted item is in what it EARNS. And that, brother, is most certainly taxed, as you know well. The book isn't taxed on some imaginary value; it's taxed on what it earns--like any other bloody job. The author takes a risk; he writes a book. That book may earn well in year one, or year 10 or year 50. It may not. The risk is, the author puts X months, or Y years of his or her life into it--and it may do NOTHING. On the other hand, it may take off and light up the sky. He doesn't know that, not before it's published.

My point is, just because compensation of whatever kind is deferred doesn't mean it's UNEARNED. And the fact that people on this thread seem to feel justified in saying that so-and-so's heirs aren't "entitled" to that deferred income is just truly depressing to me. I spent most of my life, earning "deferred" income, and I fail, utterly, to see the difference between MY deferred earnings (in one job, I literally received those deferred earnings over a period of TEN YEARS) and an author's.

It's obvious to me that this is like any other position--may as well be political. Nobody will ever change their mind; you either think that someone who works--in whatever field--is entitled to what they've earned--or you don't. I don't have a problem with an author's kids getting the proceeds of HIS "deferred income." Obviously, many of you feel that the "copyright" entitles you to that person's work.

I give up. And, really, kind of like smashing your head into the wall, anyway--probably for you, too.

Hitch

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Apache

I don't think fiction books are so important that the copyrights should be removed so people can read for free.
Apache

Do you then not read any public domain fiction?

Should nothing ever go into the public domain?

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by Hitch

By your lights--"Dead people don't create!"--if I finished a hotel, in, say, this year, and then got hit by a bus, my spouse and my estate would NOT be entitled to receive the compensation that I was due. So: precisely, what's the difference, then, between MY deferred/delayed compensation, and that of an author? What, there's some argument that I'm somehow different than they? I'm not. I worked; I earned it; it came to pass that it wasn't payable to me until AFTER I died. I fail to see one iota of difference, other than--other people aren't trying to GET what I earned, away from me, for their own use/benefit.

You have quite thoroughly convinced me that all forms of inheritance should be abolished. When someone dies, their property should revert to common (e.g., state) property. Voila! Problem solved.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Do you then not read any public domain fiction?

Should nothing ever go into the public domain?

The point is they shouldn't go public domain while the creator is still alive.
Some people in this thread were wanting the creator to either pay a fee every year to keep the copyright active or it should go into public domain so others could benefit (make money) from it.
They used the term orphaned books.
To me, if a book is that important to society as a whole then it would still be readily available because publishers aren't going to kill a golden goose.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

The point is they shouldn't go public domain while the creator is still alive.
Some people in this thread were wanting the creator to either pay a fee every year to keep the copyright active or it should go into public domain so others could benefit (make money) from it.
They used the term orphaned books.
To me, if a book is that important to society as a whole then it would still be readily available because publishers aren't going to kill a golden goose.

Nobody that I recall ever used the term "orphaned books" to refer to a book that has an author that is known to be still alive, or a book that we know who the rights belong to.

By definition, an "orphan book" is one where the author is no longer alive, and the heirs either can't be found, or it's unknown who the heir actually is. If a copyright had to be registered every year (with or without a fee), then those works would fall back into the public domain and would not be lost.

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Ralph:

You know, if you don't want to enforce your own copyrights, that's YOUR CHOICE. That's my point. Moreover, you are obviously very well compensated, on a timely basis, and that is the payment you get. The work you do belongs to your employer. That's what paid JOBS are like, which is completely and utterly different than a gamble, effectively, on a manuscript.

For most of my 3+ decades of work, I worked in the Real Estate Development field. For a variety of projects, building everything from offices to resort hotels. It was common for me to earn money at one point in time, and receive it at another. For example--let's say that my compensation was a fixed wage of X, plus a percentage on a given job, based on how far UNDER budget the job came in, or other performance factors. The percentages, or bonuses, etc., were not--not remotely--insignificant in amount.

By your lights--"Dead people don't create!"--if I finished a hotel, in, say, this year, and then got hit by a bus, my spouse and my estate would NOT be entitled to receive the compensation that I was due. So: precisely, what's the difference, then, between MY deferred/delayed compensation, and that of an author? What, there's some argument that I'm somehow different than they? I'm not. I worked; I earned it; it came to pass that it wasn't payable to me until AFTER I died. I fail to see one iota of difference, other than--other people aren't trying to GET what I earned, away from me, for their own use/benefit.

What if I buy stocks? Ralph, if I buy stocks today, then kick the bucket, and they double in value, should my estate NOT be entitled to that money? Since "dead people don't create," should my spouse have to fork that over to some third party that had NOTHING to do with the earnings to buy it in the first place, etc.?

As far as taxes, oh, PUHLEEZE. You're a smart person, and you know damned well that we most certainly do not pay taxes on most of our personalty (personal property). I don't pay taxes on the thousands of books in my home, but that doesn't mean that they have zero value. I don't pay annual taxes on the value of jewelry, etc. YES, we pay RE Taxes. YES, we pay a "tax," effectively, on an automobile, in the form of an annual registration/licensing/emissions test. but other than that, personalty is not taxed the way RE is taxed, and you know it.

The value of a copyrighted item is in what it EARNS. And that, brother, is most certainly taxed, as you know well. The book isn't taxed on some imaginary value; it's taxed on what it earns--like any other bloody job. The author takes a risk; he writes a book. That book may earn well in year one, or year 10 or year 50. It may not. The risk is, the author puts X months, or Y years of his or her life into it--and it may do NOTHING. On the other hand, it may take off and light up the sky. He doesn't know that, not before it's published.

My point is, just because compensation of whatever kind is deferred doesn't mean it's UNEARNED. And the fact that people on this thread seem to feel justified in saying that so-and-so's heirs aren't "entitled" to that deferred income is just truly depressing to me. I spent most of my life, earning "deferred" income, and I fail, utterly, to see the difference between MY deferred earnings (in one job, I literally received those deferred earnings over a period of TEN YEARS) and an author's.

It's obvious to me that this is like any other position--may as well be political. Nobody will ever change their mind; you either think that someone who works--in whatever field--is entitled to what they've earned--or you don't. I don't have a problem with an author's kids getting the proceeds of HIS "deferred income." Obviously, many of you feel that the "copyright" entitles you to that person's work.

I give up. And, really, kind of like smashing your head into the wall, anyway--probably for you, too.

Hitch

It is for me. I've stated the law, I've shown the US Constitutional basis for that law, I've tried to explain why the law is the way it is, but you won't accept the law.

One more comment. Value is based on the <potential> value of an item, not the actual earnings. That is why empty downtown land blocks pay huge amounts in taxes, even though they produce no income at all.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Do you then not read any public domain fiction?

Should nothing ever go into the public domain?

I was not referring to public domain works. I was referring to works that are still under copyright. Once they go into the public domain then anyone can read or publish them.
Apache

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

Nobody that I recall ever used the term "orphaned books" to refer to a book that has an author that is known to be still alive, or a book that we know who the rights belong to.

By definition, an "orphan book" is one where the author is no longer alive, and the heirs either can't be found, or it's unknown who the heir actually is. If a copyright had to be registered every year (with or without a fee), then those works would fall back into the public domain and would not be lost.

Shari

I totally misunderstood you then, but why should the author have to go to the trouble or expense to prove the copyright is still valid.
Not to mention the extra people that would need to be employed just for that purpose.

Excuse me if I don't think books as a whole are worth that thousands of dollars of expenses. You do realize there are at least 1 million books published a year.

Can someone name me one "orphaned book" that would be worth it?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hitch

My point is, just because compensation of whatever kind is deferred doesn't mean it's UNEARNED. And the fact that people on this thread seem to feel justified in saying that so-and-so's heirs aren't "entitled" to that deferred income is just truly depressing to me.

I'd be interested to know when you think copyright should expire.

Or do you think that Leonard Bernstein should be paying royalties to the literary heirs of William Shakespeare?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'd be interested to know when you think copyright should expire.

Or do you think that Leonard Bernstein should be paying royalties to the literary heirs of William Shakespeare?

Why not?
Should Prince William still be profiting off of Henry VIII?
IIRC English Monarchy.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Why not?
Should Prince William still be profiting off of Henry VIII?
IIRC English Monarchy.

Ok...perfect point. Who are the heirs of Shakespeare? If Copyright were eternal, then nothing of Shakespeare's could be published or performed without their permission. If the heirs can't be found? Oh well...I guess the work wasn't important.

Shari

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It is for me. I've stated the law, I've shown the US Constitutional basis for that law, I've tried to explain why the law is the way it is, but you won't accept the law.

One more comment. Value is based on the <potential> value of an item, not the actual earnings. That is why empty downtown land blocks pay huge amounts in taxes, even though they produce no income at all.

No, no, Ralph, you mistake me. I do accept the law, exactly as it is. I have ZERO problem with it.

What I have a problem with is when other folks want to take away copyrights that belong to Author X, from his kids, or him, or, just because the book isn't currently available, during his copyright. That's my SOLE objection.

Hitch

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

The point is that if the copyright holder does not want it available then he is perfectly within his rights. Just because someone wants to read it does not make it right or legal to force the copyright holder to relinquish their rights. If I have the copyright to my diary and do not want it published no one should have the right to force me to give up my copyright. And if it contained information about a crime a judge could give the government the right to read it within the legal parameters of the crime committed. They would not have the right to publish or make the diary available to others. Whether it is intellectual property or real property, within the guidelines of the law I have to right to dispose of it as I see fit.
Apache
Apache

That's pretty much a red herring. If you don't want anyone to read your diary, then don't publish it. There are other laws that allow you to keep your private papers private, at least while you are alive.

The bottom line is that copyright is a bargain between society and an author. You get a government enforced monopoly on copying that work for a limited duration. In return, it goes into public domain for the betterment of society at the end of that time period. Copyright holders are keen on society upholding the monopoly part of the bargain, but not so keen on the other side of the deal. A work that isn't available to the public at large, doesn't do much towards the goal of bettering society.

The view of copyright as the property of the artist is a very new idea. For all practical purposes, the main driver behind this idea was Victor Hugo, the French author in the 1880's. It's really only become "a thing" since the 1960's as more and more money pored into movies, music and to a much lesser extent, books. As is always the case, one has to follow the money.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hitch

What I have a problem with is when other folks want to take away copyrights that belong to Author X, from his kids, or him, or, just because the book isn't currently available, during his copyright. That's my SOLE objection.

What I have a problem with is the way that the length of copyright has expanded retroactively, so that the length of copyright an author (or their heirs) now has is a lot greater than the author expected when they wrote the work.

What benefit has there been to society to justify giving this increased length of monopoly to works already written?

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

...Obviously, many of you feel that the "copyright" entitles you to that person's work...

You are, in fact, one of the "many" yourself unless you are proposing that books should remain in copyright forever.

If it is that you believe that copyright should not last forever, then it is you feel that copyright entitles you to that person's work. It is only a matter of when you feel that you are entitled to it.