If you had a vote for copyright?

[Geco]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You can place your works in PD voluntarily upon your death.

I'll do that, obviously! If I'll ever something to leave to the world... I'm not a writer or a movie directory... yet!

[carld]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

I think people commit a categorical error when they try to pass off copyright as property. It is useful probably just, but it is not property.

I'll just leave it at, we disagree on fundamental issues of copyright.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But some certainly do - eg the posthumous works of J.R.R. Tolkein edited and published by his son and literary executor, Christopher Tolkein. We certainly wouldn't have that without copyright protection. Much of it isn't especially interesting, certainly, but there are some real gems there.

Why wouldn't we have his posthumous works edited and published without copyright protection? It seems to me quite the contrary would happen actually. Forget it if someone already properly raised this same obvious questioning.

BTW, this reminds me of Chris Browne, heir to Dik Browne of Hagar the Horrible comic strips. He certainly got the very same pencil skills of his father, but none of his humor at all. Chris Browne's Hagar is truly horrible, I'd gladly pay for compilation of his fathers' works, but wouldn't read his Hagar even for free. He's just living on a famed name... sometime the heirs should just be dentists or bureucrats...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Why wouldn't we have his posthumous works edited and published without copyright protection?

Because these were private papers that only the Tolkien family had access to. There would have been no incentive for Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R.'s literary executor, to edit and publish without reasonable financial return for doing so. Lack of copyright protection would not have made these papers available to anyone else.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Good point about trademarks. If a trademark is given to a business and the business keeps it renewed, then they should be able to keep the trademark for as long as they are in business or renew it. That way, Disney would be able to trademark Micky Mouse and copyright ca be properly sorted.

As long as the trademark is understood narrowly enough that it can't be used to block interoperability. E.g., trademarking the shape of a plastic block to stop competitors should be a no-no. Ditto for design patents.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because these were private papers that only the Tolkien family had access to. There would have been no incentive for Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R.'s literary executor, to edit and publish without reasonable financial return for doing so. Lack of copyright protection would not have made these papers available to anyone else.

Why, again? There's no copyright protection, so there's no profit to be made. Why would then he keep it all to himself or burn it down? Childish behaviour? Sadist revenge on mankind? "You made me suffer for lacking my father's talent and having had to go to medical school, now take that you lamers!"

Makes no sense. He would just give it away to fans anyway.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Why, again? There's no copyright protection, so there's no profit to be made. Why would then he keep it all to himself or burn it down? Childish behaviour? Sadist revenge on mankind? "You made me suffer for lacking my father's talent and having had to go to medical school, now take that you lamers!"

Makes no sense. He would just give it away to fans anyway.

Lack of copyright protection does not automatically provide public access to private papers; I'm not sure why you feel that it would. Perhaps the Tolkien family would have given all Professor Tolkein's papers away (one would hope that they would give them to a university or a library), but it's just as likely they would have been sold at auction and been forever split up among a multitude of private collectors, thus removing forever the opportunity for publication of posthumous works.

I think my point is entirely valid, that the opportunity to publish posthumously is encouraged by existing copyright legislation. Perhaps you disagree - you're very welcome to do so.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What you quoted I didn't say in reference to books, and I wasn't the one who made the analogy.

Then I will re-ask the question, as you didn't answer it:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

People already have a right to make copies of PD works. There should be no reason for anybody to be able to make money from selling those copies.

Why? What harm is done?

[Namekuseijin]

"Here, I have this Tolkien original that I bought for 8 thousand million bucks. I just can't show you or anyone else at the risk of it being copied." but wait! What about the bidders and previous owners?!

Still makes no sense to me, but we can certainly agree to disagree indeed.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Why? What harm is done?

People spend money on books that they should be able to read for free so they have less money to spend on books of authors that are writing books now.

Publishers spend the time of editors and presses on PD books instead of spending them on books that are being written now.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

People spend money on books that they should be able to read for free so they have less money to spend on books of authors that are writing books now.

Publishers spend the time of editors and presses on PD books instead of spending them on books that are being written now.

So you would like to deny people the right to go into a bookshop and buy books by authors such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Trollope, etc? That seems to be what you're saying. You say "they should be available for free", but where do you think those free electronic texts came from? They came from published books. And what about people with no access to the internet, or the overwhelming majority who read paper books rather than using electronic bookreaders? You're going to deny them access to the classics simply because publishers dare to publish those books for profit?

[pruss]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Why, again? There's no copyright protection, so there's no profit to be made. Why would then he keep it all to himself or burn it down? Childish behaviour? Sadist revenge on mankind? "You made me suffer for lacking my father's talent and having had to go to medical school, now take that you lamers!"

Well, actually, we might well have such cases of sadist revenge.

Or, without a profit motive, one just couldn't be bothered to sort through the papers. After all, one doesn't want to hand over all of one's parent's papers--there may be private stuff there that shouldn't be disclosed. So one has to sort through it. And that takes time. With no profit, one might decide to just burn it.

That said, even without copyright protection, profit could be made by means of carefully crafted contract protections. The market would find a way around it. You want to read the Tolkien papers? You file a bond for some large sum of money (perhaps underwritten by a bond company who has reviewed your personal history). You sign a non-disclosure agreement with the estate. You get watermarked versions of the Tolkien papers (maybe some carefully placed minor spelling or punctuation changes). If you break your non-disclosure agreement and the watermarked versions are found in the wild, your bond is forfeit, you're bankrupt (the bond amount can be set depending on your net worth and income to ensure this), and nobody signs such a contract with you again.

Or, for a fee, you are carefully searched and taken into a room with a screen where you can view the papers. If they're generous, they give you one 8.5x11 page and a blunt pencil for notes. (If it's too sharp, you might copy too much.)

Not an improvement over the status quo freedom-wise. But quite doable without any copyright law, unless one puts into place undue constraints on the freedom of individuals to enter into contracts.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Another way to think about it is that property precedes government, whereas copyright does not. Before there ever way government you could possess stuff, and it was yours unless you gave it away or someone else took it from you.

I just want to flag that that's a controversial view of property, and shouldn't be taken for granted without serious argument. Locke would agree with you, but Aquinas probably would not.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

People spend money on books that they should be able to read for free so they have less money to spend on books of authors that are writing books now.

Again, how does the existence of a non-free copy of a book prevent the existence of a free copy of a book? People are making money publishing editions of PD works. Other people are able to read those works for free. At the same time!

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you would like to deny people the right to go into a bookshop and buy books by authors such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Trollope, etc? That seems to be what you're saying.

It's not possible for bookshops to have every PD book in existence, but that doesn't mean that they are denying people the right to go into a bookshop buy every PD book in existence.

Originally Posted by HarryT

You say "they should be available for free", but where do you think those free electronic texts came from? They came from published books.

So? I wasn't saying that no books should be published ever.

Originally Posted by HarryT

And what about people with no access to the internet, or the overwhelming majority who read paper books rather than using electronic bookreaders? You're going to deny them access to the classics simply because publishers dare to publish those books for profit?

There could be non-profit organizations doing the printing, or print on demand. And the overwhelming majority on the side of p-books comes from the fact that the overwhelming majority of people don't know about ebooks and about free PD books. Also access to internet is easier that access to a bookstore.