Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Well, how shall I put this? "Your" things are only yours because you live in a society where the people made a law that says so....

...

Yes, ideas are another thing you can't own the way you own a car. Sometimes you can patent them for a little while, but that's it.

Same is true of Land or Cars or anything else....that's exactly my point. It's only "yours" because some law says so.

What the guys up there are saying is that it is NEVER yours it belongs to society.

That's why I made the analogy. You can either believe in private property (including ideas/copyright/patents) or not. There is really no difference in the way the concepts should work.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, if that is what he believes, he's wrong. Think about it. Take that perspective to its logical conclusion ... meaning that anything of yours is mine and I can take it anytime I want. In other words there is no such thing a private or personal property, ideas or ownership. :

For the second time, stop calling me He.

Second, slippery slope fallacy. To deny that an idea can be personal property does not deny the existence of personal property. You cannot own the moon or the sun, you cannot own the space in international waters. You cannot own an idea, both the wheel and the works of Shakespeare belong to the world.

Governments who at least nominally work for the people can grant you a temporary monopoly, but they don't have to and thus we get into the question, why should they? So you can make money? Why should the government and my extension the people care if you make money writing books or digging ditches? Of course inventions might be useful, if people make them and don't share then they're useful to one person. If they're released into the wild then many can benefit. We could try watching something work and try to figure out how and maybe be able to make something similar ourselves, that's still advancement or we could try to convince someone to publish the plans or history book or whatever.

You still don't see it do you? Publishing gets something out into the wild where it can be useful. No one but you cares if you make a penny. If a patent or copyright doesn't expire then there's no difference between creating or not.

And then there's a second problem, the widget is made with things like screws and wheels and I don't see the inventors of those things being paid for them. No one's paying Shakespeare for the words he made up and no one's paying Moses for making any references to the book of Exodus. Well no problem no one really owns those things how could they? In the English speaking world these things come as naturally as breathing they're part of the culture we live in, in a way everyone owns an equal share. No problem, we'll just rent those things out in a non exclusive way and in return we get whatever else comes along to add to the pile that is the culture we live in.

When you manage to do something that in no way builds on ANY public domain anything that came before then we can talk about society not having a claim on it. But the price of using our public domain is expanding our public domain. How long you can wait before doing that is a matter for debate. I advocate times much shorter than what the law currently allows.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

F...
You still don't see it do you? Publishing gets something out into the wild where it can be useful. ...

Nope, it's you that don't get it.

None of this is possible without the creativity of individuals (like the author of the o.p.) putting the objects out there in the first place. Copyright, Patents, IP, Public Domain, piracy and all the rest only exists because someone created something unique in the first place. Something that is whole and fully a product of their efforts. You have no right to it. You only get to enjoy it at the behest of the creator and due to the laws put in place to encourage and allow those creative people to be able to profit from their efforts.

Once you destroy that (which clearly is your intent -- look at your sig) then all bets are off.

What needs to happen is that the laws need to change to insure that intellectual property is treated AS PROPERTY and enforced and managed in as near an identical manner as real property as possible.

As I have told you numerous times and in numerous threads - stop beating your one dead horse and stick to the topic at hand.

[Iphinome]

When are you going to pay the creator for the use of wheels then? Not going to the store, pay for any wheel you add to any item you make yourself. For the roman alphabet. You think these ideas are property. TANSTAAFL pay up. Pay for every idea you use they're owned are they not? In fact pay for the idea of property and of course there's no set license so get permission too. Better get permission from the British to use the idea of copyright at all. it was their idea they own it what right do you have to use it.

Someone is always doing something but they can't do it alone because everything builds on something else. The world doesn't owe you free copyright, no one got togther and decided to build a system around Kenny can build on what came before but after that progress stops because Kenny owns the changes forever. You are not the center of the universe and copyright was not passed to do you a favor.

"to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"

progress, not production, not profit, the didn't say let's create the profession of inventor or novelist.

I'll post this quote again, try reading it, it was penned by someone who had a hand in drafting the language of the US constitution and the copyright clause in particular. Someone who I think would know the reasons behind copyright and patents.

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Thomas Jefferson August 13, 1813

I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additons would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose.

Thomas Jefferson August 28, 1789

Clearly in the above he was completely against the perpetual monopoly you wish to create. We're talking about a man who went so far as to own PEOPLE, not some communist who thinks there's no such thing as property.

And don't you dare accuse me of beating a dead horse when all you ever add is snide remarks about how everyone is a thief and how copyright was invented to line your pockets. Just because you want an indefinite monopoly without having to pay for it doesn't mean that's the purpose of copyright.

Do you have anything at all to back up your arguments? I mean somethign besides wild claims and insults? Maybe some citations? Do you have James Madison writing somewhere that he never meant the limited time part of the copyright clause?

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What needs to happen is that the laws need to change to insure that intellectual property is treated AS PROPERTY and enforced and managed in as near an identical manner as real property as possible.

As I have told you numerous times and in numerous threads - stop beating your one dead horse and stick to the topic at hand.

Not if we want to progress. All you saying are an empty rhetorics, where are the facts?
The facts are, that patent laws became so generic and invasive, that the progress actually stops in many cases because of them instead of going forward. New screen technologies getting buried because LCD manufacturers are hitting new ideas with lawsuits for the patents, many new video codecs are in danger of becoming extinct because Mpeg-LA threatening them with lawsuits for patents which shouldn't have been awarded to begin with.
It is not that dire yet in Copyright world, but it's getting there where consumers have no say in how they can use the books they bought, blog authors cannot comment on many things and fan fiction is moving like a little girl in the dark woods. But I guess nobody can convince you even after the examples with Shakespeare and all Arthurian legend literature mentioned before. Would you really prefer for the estate of Geoffrey of Monmouth, to stop Thomas Malory, Tennyson, Mark Twain etc from publishing their work? Never see Tristan and Isolda?
Are you really that oblivious to facts? We had works of genius lasting over millenia created when there was no mention of copyright and still you try to scare us with drying up of creativity if the copyright will be curtailed to something much less invasive?
Hard to believe to say the least.

[Jaime_Astorga]

I think this was a pretty dumb move. Regardless of whether there was an "implication" that the work would remain up in its entirety or not (I think there was), this will probably alienate some of the author's core fanbase of potential book buyers. From a more general standpoint, I am sad to see that authors can still be pushed around in such matter and refuse to stand up to publishers. She could have negotiated, or sought a publisher who was more friendly to the idea of electronic online copies, or resorted to lulu self-publishing, or refused to publish at all while maintaining her standing in her community of fans, or done any number of other things.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, if that is what he believes, he's wrong. Think about it. Take that perspective to its logical conclusion ... meaning that anything of yours is mine and I can take it anytime I want. In other words there is no such thing a private or personal property, ideas or ownership.

Did someone mention communism earlier?

It is perfectly possible to believe in the idea of private property without believing that certain things (like ideas, the moon, unoccupied land, or human beings) can and/or should be owned.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What needs to happen is that the laws need to change to insure that intellectual property is treated AS PROPERTY and enforced and managed in as near an identical manner as real property as possible.

How precisely do you intend to enforce scarcity economics on a non-scarce product? And if you answer DRM, I will laugh in your face.

And - There are societies which functioned for centuries - and some which still exist - which did and do not believe in land ownership. They functioned fine, thank you very much. Society would go on without any form of IP rights, and while think they're appropriate to a degree, I don't pretend they're in any way necessary.

This is not about "communism" or any of that nonsense, because that still relies on the concept of ownership, just a collective one. Neither have countries which reject - say - software parents (and that's most of them) suffered any particular disaster.

Your "need" seems distinctly non-needy. More a particular philosophy which runs counter to a vast swathe of the population's opinion on the matter. I'll be quite happy to burn your philosophy down in flames should you propose them in the public arena here, since all you'd accomplish is to bring down IP as a whole, at best - and a vast and failing police state, at worst.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

You put something on-line, there is nothing but perpetuity as long as someone wants what you put there. This book will turn up all over the sharing networks soon enough. You don't piss off a community just for some money. That's not the right netiquette.

Chocolate Hob-Nobs for all!

This book will turn up on the sharing networks soon enough regardless of whether or not the author pulled it and regardless of whether or not the author pissed off the community. It will be there if it is still available for free, if it is available in pbook form only or if it is ever released officially as an ebook with or without DRM at a fair price or at a rediculously expensive price.

It matters not, it will be on the sharing networks regardless.

Why? Because some people just want free stuff.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

...

It matters not, it will be on the sharing networks regardless.

Why? Because some people just want free stuff.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Unfortunately true, but you have not worded it strongly enough, it's because some people are thieves and have no ethics.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

How precisely do you intend to enforce scarcity economics on a non-scarce product? And if you answer DRM, I will laugh in your face.

And - There are societies which functioned for centuries - and some which still exist - which did and do not believe in land ownership. They functioned fine, thank you very much. Society would go on without any form of IP rights, and while think they're appropriate to a degree, I don't pretend they're in any way necessary.

This is not about "communism" or any of that nonsense, because that still relies on the concept of ownership, just a collective one. Neither have countries which reject - say - software parents (and that's most of them) suffered any particular disaster.

Your "need" seems distinctly non-needy. More a particular philosophy which runs counter to a vast swathe of the population's opinion on the matter. I'll be quite happy to burn your philosophy down in flames should you propose them in the public arena here, since all you'd accomplish is to bring down IP as a whole, at best - and a vast and failing police state, at worst.

It is very easy to claim a "vast swathe of the population's opinion" to be on your side. They are not. Sure, if you pose the question as "do you want free stuff and stick it to those greedy corporations" most will say yes, without thinking. But if you turn it around and ask "do you think authors and all those involved in the book publishing and book selling industries should work for free" then the answer would turn out to be very different.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But if you turn it around and ask "do you think authors and all those involved in the book publishing and book selling industries should work for free" then the answer would turn out to be very different.

Ah, but nobody suggested that, far as I can see. Also, you artfully dodged the question on "[h]ow precisely [to] enforce scarcity economics on a non-scarce product".

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Unfortunately true, but you have not worded it strongly enough, it's because some people are thieves and have no ethics.

Please keep our guidelines in mind when you are posting. You are free to disagree with others' opinions, however we ask that you show respect for others and avoid personal attacks and name-calling. Calling people "thieves" is not acceptable.

If you would like to refresh your memory of the guidelines, you can take a look at them at any time by clicking on "Guidelines" at the bottom of any page, or just click here.

Thank you for helping us keep the discussion friendly and civilised.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But if you turn it around and ask "do you think authors and all those involved in the book publishing and book selling industries should work for free" then the answer would turn out to be very different.

Why exactly would the book publishing and book selling industry be working for free? Many people myself included have paid for books in the public domain. There's still the cost of paper, the costs to the bookstore but I wanted paper copies of some things. And authors? even if there are no copyright I imagine there'd be plenty of sales of that first authorized edition before anyone could get their hands on it and make cheap copies, look at what people pay for hardcovers after all when they could wait and get the paperback much cheaper. There's no reason to think those overpriced hardcovers wouldn't sell during the time it takes someone else to set up production just like there's no reason to think people wouldnt' pay a small fee for an ebook that's already properly formatted rather than a quickly thrown together unproofed ocr'd darknet version. Of course the profit margins might go down but there's no right to a certain profit margin, if the free market doesn't want to buy at your price its your problem.

Though I don't personally advocate the elimination of copyright just the shortening of it the sky wouldn't fall and the world wouldn't end. There were after all books music and other art before copyright was invented.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Ah, but nobody suggested that, far as I can see. Also, you artfully dodged the question on "[h]ow precisely [to] enforce scarcity economics on a non-scarce product".

I answered this many times -- mostly by educating people to respect other people's rights and to support those that bring them the books they read. Sure, there are technical possibilities to stop illegal copying, but most are "big brother" methods like IP snooping that are incompatible with free societies. On the other hand, of course, strict law enforcement measures against known uploaders of protected works and illegal websites are fine. And if education doesn't work then we are just looking at one of two possibilities (no, a real "free for all" is not in the cards, someone always pays!):

1.)A "creators' surcharge on internet access, just as everybody already pays a surcharge on all storage media in Europe (the proceeds are being distributed to the media companies by a government agency).

2.)Ad-supported books. Imagine the joy of having a full page ad on every second page of your ebook! If you have the ipad they will probably have a small video which can't be stopped every few pages, even more effective.

When we really sit down and look reality in the face, then some might actually wake up and say "hey, I would rather decide who I support by paying directly". And by paying directly you can actually support those you deem "worthy". Not for the other two models. So, if we just throw up our hands and say "we can't stop the tide", we will sign over everything to Apple, Google, etc.

Well, I will learn to live with it, but I will keep speaking up now, while there still is time. Maybe I am just a crazy idealist who stands up for other people's rights.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Though I don't personally advocate the elimination of copyright just the shortening of it the sky wouldn't fall and the world wouldn't end. There were after all books music and other art before copyright was invented.

Obviously the world wouldn't end. But there would just be one more gross injustice in the world. We would inflict this injustice on those who contribute to our enjoyment. And quite frankly, in this situation I care more about the authors and others who work for us then those in society who are just looking for a free ride.

And, good news! The world won't end either way.