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

[sirbruce]

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.

We're not just talking about money already made. What about stocks? What about property? I already noted the distinction with copyrights before. If an author were entirely paid a lump sum up front, that would be one thing, but since the value of their works is only fully realized by payment over time, copyrights must be established to protect that value. Or you can also think of it like collecting the parent's last paycheck after they've already died.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

We're not just talking about money already made. What about stocks? What about property?

Those have nothing to do with copyright.

I already noted the distinction with copyrights before.

The notion that copyright should be treated like other assets such as income, stocks, etc, is totally flawed.

copyrights must be established to protect that value.

Copyrights are not intended to protect value or guarantee revenue. Maybe that explains your misunderstanding?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Those have nothing to do with copyright.

It has everything to do with copyright.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The notion that copyright should be treated like other assets such as income, stocks, etc, is totally flawed.

Then you'd have to chance the business model so that people like JK Rowling are paid millions up front, before they've sold one copy of their first book. And that's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyrights are not intended to protect value or guarantee revenue. Maybe that explains your misunderstanding?

No, I think that explains your misunderstanding. Copyrights are precisely about providing value and revenue for such works.

[GeoffC]

this is soooo going off topic

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

this is soooo going off topic

I thought there was a written rule that every thread on here had to turn into a discussion about copyright?

[Krystian Galaj]

Copyright law was introduced as a way to encourage creative people to create more, in times when few people could obtain education. It currently does so by temporarily robbing society of the possession of the work. Two points disputable in my opinion are:

1) Does it really effectively does encourage authors to create? It might have been effective when there were only printing presses, and the way of converting copyright to money was straightforward, but I read lately here that copyright/law issues tend to gobble more and more time of creators. They shouldn't have to become experts in copyright law or hire lawyers to be able to profit from it.

2) Is such encouragement neccessary anymore? Times have changed, most people now are better educated than some of the best educated people were 200 years ago, and freedom of information flow through the Internet boosts creativity enormously. Perhaps the obstacles in the information flow brought on by copyright law harm creativity more than the law itself helps.

Discussion here seems to take those two for granted, so I can only point out that it might be irrelevant to reality.

[K-Thom]

Couldn't most of you just be honest to yourselves and tell what's really bugging you?

You want to use something which is not yours. For free. Now. Period.

The discussion about the length of copyright is irrelevant, because any length will be "too long" for some (if not many).
If the 70+ years were to be reduced to 25+ I bet this discussion still will go on. "Ahhh, 25 years, why, the author's long dead, it all belongs to the people, let go!" and so on ...

The very fact that coyprights do cease to exist after a given period of time already is a concession to the public.
Being a creative myself it's kinda funny to watch that this whole copyright issue is usually brought up by people who weren't creative in their whole life. Or tried to make a decent living out of it.

So, could you "non-creative" please accept the fact that we "creative ones" would like us to decide how and when and what for our work may be used by anyone else?

Imagine I'd tell any Kansas farmer that his land will be returned to the people 70 years after his death - which would even make sense since he even didn't create the land or the soil - and his children surely had plenty of time to make some money to buy some land of their own ...

[K-Thom]

And - a bit less provocative - there already is the Creative Common license out there which does quite a good job of handling copyright issues for the digital age. It's quite more flexible but lets creative minds even keep a better control of their works.

With control I mean "control to decide", not "control to restrict".

[GeoffC]

no hang on a mo,

copyright is a GOOD thing .....

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

The discussion about the length of copyright is irrelevant, because any length will be "too long" for some (if not many).

I havent read this thread - so the length of the copyright might very well be irrelevant for this topic - but it is not irrelevant in general.
I am very much in favor of the German Urheberrecht over the American copyright (e.g. because I cannot sell the Urheberrecht, I can only license the usage of my product). I want creatives to earn (much) money with their work, and I surely dont want the industry to go bancrupt - but somewhere you have to draw a line. Please do not misunderstand me - I am much in favor of the Urheberrecht (or similar rights) - but up some limits.
Whats with patents? Somebody once invented a way to make a clock go tick ... And? Does this give him the right to hold to this invention for all eternity?
What's with patents on stuff life depends on? 'nother point? No, not really.

The very fact that coyprights do cease to exist after a given period of time already is a concession to the public.

Actually its the other way round ... Copyright was introduced relatively late in history, and "copyright after the death of the original creative" even later...

Being a creative myself it's kinda funny to watch that this whole copyright issue is usually brought up by people who weren't creative in their whole life. Or tried to make a decent living out of it.

Dont assume too much - just because one is working in a different field does not mean, that he is not creative or not depending on the Urheberrecht or Copyright for his living (e.g. I'm earning my money as a pyrotechnicist (choerographies are subject to the Urheberrecht) and as a software developer (software is subject to the Urheberrecht)). I'm using my d*mned software any way that pleases me, and I'm selling it any way *I* want - but I have no reason to hold to this right for all eternity (or even dozens of years).
Though I agree that its easier with software (who wants a piece of 50-year old software anyway? (There are cases where this is relevant, but they are few)).

So, could you "non-creative" please accept the fact that we "creative ones" would like us to decide how and when and what for our work may be used by anyone else?

Up to your death? Certainly.
But could you creative please accept that there is no god-given right to hold on to licenses for any given length? It's always a relation between "feasible and fair public usage" and "fair payment for creative" - but ATM I believe the scale is too far on the "payment for creative AND THEIR INDUSTRY" side.
One problem with an unlimited (or even long-limited) copyright is that copyright always is touching other stuff - e.g. when you write a story in a certain way, I cannot re-invent this story (up to a certain degree), even if it would not be a copy.
I could not (reasonably) make any derived work or similar - which I can do with material goods (e.g. I can use that damned car in any art-installation, however I see fit).
Apart from that theres the (significant) point "culture"

Imagine I'd tell any Kansas farmer that his land will be returned to the people 70 years after his death - which would even make sense since he even didn't create the land or the soil - and his children surely had plenty of time to make some money to buy some land of their own ...

See points regarding "immaterial goods" vs "material goods" (oh and there have been quite a number of cultures where land could not be inherited (mainly because all land belonged to the crown, but thats another point).

And I have no reason to object the CCL.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Couldn't most of you just be honest to yourselves and tell what's really bugging you?

You want to use something which is not yours. For free. Now. Period.

I've seen very few people actually argue for that, but it makes for a nice strawman that you can attack.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

The very fact that coyprights do cease to exist after a given period of time already is a concession to the public.

You have this the wrong way around. It is the existence of copyright that is the concession - a grant of a monopoly by society for the good of society.

[sirbruce]

Again, if authors were paid what they thought was a fair price up front, you could eliminate copyright. But the very nature of the product makes its primary value (the words) easily copyable (unlike, say, foodstuffs), and the popularity of it uncertain, so businesses have decided they'd rather sell the item over time and see what they can get for it. Who would pay JK Rowling or George Lucas billions of dollars upfront for what their copyrights turned out to be worth?

[tirsales]

Well - thats the problem of establishing new ideas for a market ... Always an option

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Who would pay JK Rowling or George Lucas billions of dollars upfront for what their copyrights turned out to be worth?

Another question is, are those works really worth billions of dollars just because so many people like them and buy them? I'm not questioning their quality, but whether the "fair amount" an author should eventually get is really affected by the success of the creation. Do we really think a carpenter should get billons of dollars if he makes a chair for a hospital waiting room, but only a couple of bucks if he makes a purely ornamental table in a corner nobody cares about?

Fair price and compensation is too complex and subjective to ever get a universal definition, unfortunately.