Gizmodo: How Much It Actually Costs to Publish an Ebook vs. a Real Book

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

We need copyright, I just disagree on the rational.

We need copyright as we've decided that creators, businesses etc. should have their creations and the right to sell them protected.

What you're talking about is why copyrights don't last for every and get passed down to heirs etc. It was decided that there is worth inthe public domain so that's why copyrights do expire.

But it's not why we have copyrights. We have copyrights as we live in a largely capitalist world with a large legal emphasis on protecting people's rights to make money. That copyright expires is a concession that there is value to the public domain and those rights shouldn't get passed down through multiple generations.

I think I have explained with some references why we have copyright. It may not be why you wish we had it, but the fact is, what you want isn't why we have it.

You may disagree with the rational, but from the early 1700's (1709 I believe) onward (in western society, I don't know eastern society history very well on this matter), we have copyright for the reasons pointed out. Like it, or dis-like it, that is the reason it exists. Because of this, you have the ability to prevent others from copying your creation, but this is the only reason you have this ability.

--Carl

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Oooh, I *like* that. If you keep it away from the public; you pay the public for that right.

Free for the first X years; re-reg for small fee for Y more years; after that, $Z per year per copyright. Even if it's just $10-20 per year. Individual authors could easily keep copyrights for their whole lives if they cared too; Disney, however, can pay for every song (twice--once for music & once for lyrics), every spool of film, every script, every master disc, every comic book and cartoon remix. Every sketchbook it wants to keep restricted. Every memobook full of story outlines.

$10-$20 Red's sling! Try $10-$20K! And that's for individuals. Corporations pay at 10x more! I'm fed up to the gill's with copyright extenders whining about how're they're being screwed...well, it's time for D.C. does Hollywood....

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

pricew - Patent trolling, especially in America, is a massive problem and issue right now. That's not "working".

I agree that the Patent trolls are a huge problem, and that was my point about obvious patents and those that should never have made it through the patent office.

I think we need patent reform badly, and if we got rid of the trolls, and the extensions given so a patent can remain un-issued, but in the office until the corp/person decides to push it (submarine patents), I think the process is in essence not a horrid one. Create something (physical representation), patent it, it is deemed non-obvious and novel, get 14yrs to exploit it before others can build on it.

Things I would like to see removed from patents, gene's, animals, drugs, plants, etc. Patenting a plant you find in the jungle so you can exploit it is in my opinion criminal. Finally, algorithms and software. Those are protected by copyright (actually, some recent Supreme court rulings have severely limited software patents).

And to be clear, I have patents in my name (although they are assigned to others), and creative works whose license depends on copyright law to work. However, I think both need reform and balance brought back. If my creative works were to go out of copyright because the term was re-verted to 14yrs, it would not stop me from continuing to create.

--Carl

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pricecw

I agree that the Patent trolls are a huge problem, and that was my point about obvious patents and those that should never have made it through the patent office.

I think we need patent reform badly, and if we got rid of the trolls, and the extensions given so a patent can remain un-issued, but in the office until the corp/person decides to push it (submarine patents), I think the process is in essence not a horrid one. Create something (physical representation), patent it, it is deemed non-obvious and novel, get 14yrs to exploit it before others can build on it.

Things I would like to see removed from patents, gene's, animals, drugs, plants, etc. Patenting a plant you find in the jungle so you can exploit it is in my opinion criminal. Finally, algorithms and software. Those are protected by copyright (actually, some recent Supreme court rulings have severely limited software patents).

And to be clear, I have patents in my name (although they are assigned to others), and creative works whose license depends on copyright law to work. However, I think both need reform and balance brought back. If my creative works were to go out of copyright because the term was re-verted to 14yrs, it would not stop me from continuing to create.

--Carl

Plant patents are need to protect the work of hybridizers. Hybridizing a new, successful variety of plant is not a trivial task.....

[dmaul1114]

Just have to disagree. The system and such attitudes are why I'm glad I don't create content for money. I do a ton of writing and publishing, but all in scholarly journals that I don't get a dime from. So I'm not some author with a dog in the fight. Just have strong beliefs that people should get paid for their work/creations or others shouldn't benefit from it while their alive--unless they decide to make their work freely available.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Here’s my issue – Since its release, I’ve been interested in reading Ron Currie’s new novel, Everything Matters – unfortunately, the Kindle version costs $4 more than its discounted hardcover counterpart. And this is not a case of someone forgetting to lower the price on the ebook version, as of a week ago, it dropped below $14, and was selling for $13 something or other – within the last week, the price has inched upward again. It’s unfortunate, I would have purchased it by now, but I refuse to pay more for a digital file than a physical object. Unless the price comes down, I’ll simply pick it up at the library, and deny a sale to both the author and publisher.

Hardcover - http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Mat...mm_hrd_title_0

Kindle - http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Mat...=AG56TWVU5XWC2

But Amazon doesn't have complete control over when it can lower prices on the e-books. So holding them to blame, if this is the case, in an injustice to Amazon.

Derek

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by pricecw

I agree that the Patent trolls are a huge problem, and that was my point about obvious patents and those that should never have made it through the patent office.

The entire problem is that there's no effective way of screening them out with the current system. I have no problem with patents in general, just the screening system.

(disclosure: I own a patent. It's commercially utterly useless, but hey. I also have a bunch of copyrighted work out there, have worked in games in various mediums and so on)

I have to disagree on drugs, though. It's perfectly fine afaik for companies to hold patents on certain active ingredients, especially given the costs of developing drugs.

There are some issues with generic drugs and availability in the US (related to medicines being effectively either freely available or prescription, with no "behind the counter, requiring a pharmacist" category, but that isn't a patent problem. Also, there are issues with unpublished medical studies, but likewise not a patent problem.

(And I'm in the EU where we don't have software patents in the first place)

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I suspect there's no "typesetting" for ebooks; they don't arrange how much fits on a page for .mobi or .epub, and there's no kerning/leading/orphan control.

There is for PDFs, which is often available. However, usually, it is all automatically done.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by pricecw

I really don't feel bad for Rowling....

Fortunately, "feelings" have nothing to do with it. Nor can you void her legal rights primarily because in your opinion, a few authors have earned "enough" from their works -- especially given how many authors are not so lucky.

It was more an illustration that 14 years is far too short (even in our highly caffeinated contemporary society), that not many content creators would love drastic reductions in copyright duration, and that the financial stakes are huge for works that lose protection with such short durations.

Originally Posted by pricecw

Yep I am, I once swore my life to uphold it (USMC)....

I'll keep that in mind, but I do not see any logical connection between military service and specific interpretations of the US Constitution. Nor is someone "unpatriotic" if they believe that the Constitution is a living document, rather than set in stone circa 1778. Not to mention it's arguable whether all of the authors (let alone citizens who voted for it) had a unified, specific, focused interpretation of each and every exact phrase in the document; or that contemporary understandings of those original interpretations are in fact accurate; or....

Originally Posted by pricecw

I think that the politicians are stealing from us to enrich the few, a lot of times without legal foundations to do it.

Or within the framework of the law.

You should keep in mind, though, that many of the recent modifications to copyright have, in fact, benefitted the "little guy." For example, the Berne Convention offers copyright the instant a work is put into a fixed form, without any sort of paperwork, registration or fees required. So a photographer who makes $30k a year can crank out thousands of images, pass off high-quality prints or JPEGs to their clients, and know that each and every one is protected internationally without having to shell out a single cent for that protection. (Enforcing those rights is not always free, though.) It also thoroughly protects self-publishers and unpublished writers.

Contemporary copyright laws also grant the rights holders tremendous latitude, regardless of their economic standing. If you choose to put your work into the public domain after 14 or 28 years, or hold it for the maximum duration, or allow non-commercial use while blocking commercial uses without compensation, you can do all this without any extra fees -- just a text specifying usage.

Ergo, it is incorrect if you happen to believe that all changes to copyright since 1778 (including increases in duration) were advantageous exclusively for the wealthy.

Originally Posted by pricecw

I also think the Supreme court is not doing it's job correctly.

That's fine. Typically, though, people say this not when the court is enacting a specific aspect of jurisprudence -- rather when the court hands down a ruling they don't like.

So if you're going to say that Eldred v Ashcroft is incorrect, given that it was a 7-2 decision and that both dissenterers (Stevens and Breyer) are not considered to be originalists, you might want to present a more thoroughly researched argument.

Originally Posted by pricecw

One good example is the laws put in place to "regulate" interstate commerce. When the constitution was written, and that power was granted to congress, the term regulate meant to make regular, not impose regulations. It was meant to let the federal government prevent things like tariffs at the borders of states.

And in this, one can easily argue that there are drawbacks to hewing too strictly to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Our legal system would be ossified and stagnant if we needed to amend the Constitution every time a law potentially affected interstate commerce....

Originally Posted by pricecw

Yep, that's another reason to just shorten the life of the copyright.

Or, just prepare legislation to deal with orphan works. Even if the copyright duration is, say, 50 years, you'll still have problems with orphan works.

Originally Posted by pricecw

BTW, patents are generally 14yrs, and that system has worked fairly well for compensating the creators, and progressing the state of the art.

Considering the complaints about patents, I'm not so sure about that. The pharmaceutical industry in particular appears to jack its prices, as well as put out new medicines with very minor twists, as a reaction to short patent durations.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Considering the complaints about patents, I'm not so sure about that. The pharmaceutical industry in particular appears to jack its prices, as well as put out new medicines with very minor twists, as a reaction to short patent durations.

I hope you're not trying to suggest that longer patents would reduce abuse of the system?

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Fortunately, "feelings" have nothing to do with it. Nor can you void her legal rights primarily because in your opinion, a few authors have earned "enough" from their works -- especially given how many authors are not so lucky.

It was more an illustration that 14 years is far too short (even in our highly caffeinated contemporary society), that not many content creators would love drastic reductions in copyright duration, and that the financial stakes are huge for works that lose protection with such short durations.

14 was a number, I don't know if it is to long, to short, or just right. I do think that it is probably long enough, but could probably argue either way.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I'll keep that in mind, but I do not see any logical connection between military service and specific interpretations of the US Constitution. Nor is someone "unpatriotic" if they believe that the Constitution is a living document, rather than set in stone circa 1778. Not to mention it's arguable whether all of the authors (let alone citizens who voted for it) had a unified, specific, focused interpretation of each and every exact phrase in the document; or that contemporary understandings of those original interpretations are in fact accurate; or....

Doesn't matter at all in the specific interpretations of the US Constitution, I brought it up, because I was asked about the Constitution. I do believe it is a living document, but we have a very set method to change things, if we want it changed. I think the founders wanted to make it hard to change, I think it should be hard to change. I think it would be a mistake to set any form of government in stone at any time, but I think it should be a lot of work to change that system. We should never try and change such a fundamental law with the whim of change of usage of words.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or within the framework of the law.

You should keep in mind, though, that many of the recent modifications to copyright have, in fact, benefitted the "little guy." For example, the Berne Convention offers copyright the instant a work is put into a fixed form, without any sort of paperwork, registration or fees required. So a photographer who makes $30k a year can crank out thousands of images, pass off high-quality prints or JPEGs to their clients, and know that each and every one is protected internationally without having to shell out a single cent for that protection. (Enforcing those rights is not always free, though.) It also thoroughly protects self-publishers and unpublished writers.

Contemporary copyright laws also grant the rights holders tremendous latitude, regardless of their economic standing. If you choose to put your work into the public domain after 14 or 28 years, or hold it for the maximum duration, or allow non-commercial use while blocking commercial uses without compensation, you can do all this without any extra fees -- just a text specifying usage.

Ergo, it is incorrect if you happen to believe that all changes to copyright since 1778 (including increases in duration) were advantageous exclusively for the wealthy.

Nope, not exclusive to the wealthy, but often pushed by the wealthy. Most of what was done I believe was done within the law, ie the extension of time for a copyright, although that I think will at some time push the populace to far. I think, the Pirate Party is a the start of that. Now, pushing the copyright so far, and making it retro-active I think goes against the spirit of the copyright law, and steals from the public.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That's fine. Typically, though, people say this not when the court is enacting a specific aspect of jurisprudence -- rather when the court hands down a ruling they don't like.

So if you're going to say that Eldred v Ashcroft is incorrect, given that it was a 7-2 decision and that both dissenterers (Stevens and Breyer) are not considered to be originalists, you might want to present a more thoroughly researched argument.

I actually was not even trying to reference a specific ruling, but really think the Supreme Court is going off base. That may be one ruling, but there have been a lot recently, and with some justices publicly stating that the constitution should not be read literally, but interpreted for the time we are in, should be dis-barred. If they want the constitution changed, they should do it through the established process.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And in this, one can easily argue that there are drawbacks to hewing too strictly to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Our legal system would be ossified and stagnant if we needed to amend the Constitution every time a law potentially affected interstate commerce....

I actually think pushing the congress to fully follow the constitution is a good thing. If they were not given the authority for something, they should request the people grant them that authority, or not enact laws. They get their authority from the constitution, trying to end run it is worse than any stagnation that comes from following it.

--Carl

[Logseman]

I've read in this thread that patents and copyright are applied because the USA are a capitalist country. Socialist countries of the past and the present, for example the actual PRK (North Korea) have a space for copyright in their regulation... and I'd say, of course, as it is yet another limit to the freedom of the people. Patents were supposed to be a defensive weapon for the inventor to avoid being stripped of his "deserved" rents, although there is no such thing as someone who deserves being paid for his work in the first place, at least in a non-socialist country. However, as it's only normal and usual where the State puts its claws, the special interests connected to the state transform that defense into offense. Patents, unlike physical weapons, are expensive enough and hard to acquire so they can only be trolled by the special interests nourished by the state, mainly because, unlike physical weapons, it's only the state who issues them. If that reminds you of why the State forbids individuals in many places to acquire weapons while it trolls the weapon market buying en masse for its mobs (police and armies), you'll start seeing where I'm trying to go.

[Iphinome]

You're saying when copying is made illegal only the criminals will have copies?

*tap* *tap*

Is this thing on?

Come on that was funny.

[carbonize]

Making something illegal will not stop it. Just take a look at America when it had prohibition. All it does is send things underground. Maybe instead of treating the downloaders as criminals they should start treating the publishers as criminals for the ridiculous prices they charge and, in some cases, the practises they follow. Some of the things the RIAA and MPAA have done are just as illegal, if not more so, than the people they are trying to stop.

The copyright and patent systems are draconian and need overhauling but whilst money runs governments the corporations will always get their way.

[carbonize]

I did just find this which is one guys commenting that apparently when you buy a CD you are agreeing to a licensing agreement.

http://everythingrandom.net/post/182...sing-agreement