Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

Other forms of property can be bequeathed to your descendents, with the state taking a cut as Death Duties. Why should one particular type of property be treated any differently?

Because the difference between a copyright and a table is a lot bigger than the difference between a chair and a table.

"Intellectual property" is a terrible term, and we're now stuck with it, but just because it includes the word "property" don't confuse it with real property.

[exaltedwombat]

OK. Let's call it "property that is easy to steal, and which many people REALLY WANT to steal".

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

I don't think anyone has a problem with the concept of a work of literature, music or any other art being the property of the author, and him having the right to exploit it as he chooses?

Other forms of property can be bequeathed to your descendents, with the state taking a cut as Death Duties. Why should one particular type of property be treated any differently?

Because it's not property, it's an abstract concept with which we use a legal framework to pretend it's property.

You should also note that no one is suggesting that the profit generated from a copyrighted work should not be bequeathed to further generations.

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

OK. Let's call it "property that is easy to steal, and which many people REALLY WANT to steal".

The problem with the phrase is with the usage of the word "property," which isn't accurate.

Stealing an idea is an impossible concept. It cannot be done. Copyright infringement is the proper term, because the concepts behind Intellectual Property are exclusively legality-based and have no other manifestation.

[exaltedwombat]

If the material isn't the author's property, it sure as hell isn't YOURS! If there's profit to be had from it, how can you argue that YOU should make it?

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

If the material isn't the author's property, it sure as hell isn't YOURS! If there's profit to be had from it, how can you argue that YOU should make it?

The material isn't the author's property. Rather, the material is under a monopoly agreement - created and enforced by the state - that disallows anyone but a single person to control that idea or set of ideas. That is not property by definition.

Your argument that I would want to have or make profit off of someone else's ideas is a strawman fallacy. I have never claimed such a thing and I would never endorse such a statement.

Do not argue against things I never said.

[exaltedwombat]

Well, if YOU don't want too exploit an author's creation (whatever you want to call it) why not calm down and let HIM do so, without the risk of being undercut by someone who just walked past and picked it up?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

If the material isn't the author's property, it sure as hell isn't YOURS! If there's profit to be had from it, how can you argue that YOU should make it?

Copyright is to ensure that some of the profit from copying goes to the creator for long enough that they are encouraged to create more things.

When copyright expires, any profit remaining to be had from the item can be made by anyone. But the fact that anyone can profit from it reduces the potential for profit considerably, while simultaneously making the item more available. This is the benefit to everyone that makes up for everyone enforcing copyright.

An unlimited copyright imposes a significant burden on everyone for no return.

Every extension to copyright has imposed a significant burden on everyone, with no apparent return at all, even for the creators. (An author will not be paid more for a life+70 copyright than for a life+50 copyright, or even a 56-year copyright.)

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

Well, if YOU don't want too exploit an author's creation (whatever you want to call it) why not calm down and let HIM do so, without the risk of being undercut by someone who just walked past and picked it up?

You are under the impression that I am entirely against copyright. This is once again a strawman fallacy.

Don't argue against what I haven't said.

I am merely suggesting that indefinite copyright is unnecessary. Ideas deserve to be freely available eventually, and should not belong to one person forever. It's not fair to everyone else that they are not allowed to use and remix it freely down the line, when a fair amount of time has passed.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Copyright is to ensure that some of the profit from copying goes to the creator for long enough that they are encouraged to create more things.

When copyright expires, any profit remaining to be had from the item can be made by anyone. But the fact that anyone can profit from it reduces the potential for profit considerably, while simultaneously making the item more available. This is the benefit to everyone that makes up for everyone enforcing copyright.

An unlimited copyright imposes a significant burden on everyone for no return.

Every extension to copyright has imposed a significant burden on everyone, with no apparent return at all, even for the creators. (An author will not be paid more for a life+70 copyright than for a life+50 copyright, or even a 56-year copyright.)

True. Copyright only really has a purpose when the author is still with us and creating more works. After that his/her books can fall into obscurity if they aren't kept in print by someone and if the copyright holder (publisher) doesn't think it will make enough $$ it won't be kept in print. There are many authors represented here (in the ebook section) at MR who I had never heard of before I started to browse the estacks.

[speakingtohe]

I don't think copyright forced books out of print. The real reason was that they weren't making enough money in relation to other books.

Many books never made any money, but for those that were marginal, say making $1000 profit overall annually for the publisher, how would a publisher talk bookstores into keeping a book on a shelf where they would probably make one sale a year. If there were 50,000 titles in this category could even a small portion be placed in bookstores, and could a publisher have space and money to carry inventory on all of them? Sounds like a logistical nightmare to me.

With ebooks many backlist books and those that have been out of print for many years are being produced. Many of these books are still in copyright and many of the authors are still living/writing.

So if copyright was the main reason they weren't being printed physically, why are they being produced as ebooks one wonders.

Hard Case Crime is one example of a very small company who appear to be quite successful in this area and I think most if not all of their ebooks are under copyright.

Helen

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Perhaps it is better for society if the remixers can prosper. (personally I think that they are lame want-to-bes) but there are probably a lot more of them than actual creative people, and it might serve to keep a couple of them in socks and toilet paper.

Helen

Saying that remixers are uncreative want-to-bes is as wrong as it is snobbish. There's no lack of creativity in taking a classic tale, and giving it a modern retelling or involving characters in new adventures. How many modern classics are based on the works of Shakespeare, or owe something to the brothers Grimm?

You also posit a fantasy version of creativity that involves fresh ideas popping fully formed from the heads of creators, when creators are always influenced in subtle and not so subtle ways by the works of others. We're all want to bes to one extent or another.

Over here is a fun video that describes some of the remixing George Lucas used in creating Star Wars. No one claim that Lucas "copied" the works of others, but it's obvious from the video, and interviews Lucas has given, how much he owes to the scifi movies of his youth.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

If the material isn't the author's property, it sure as hell isn't YOURS! If there's profit to be had from it, how can you argue that YOU should make it?

I now know how Sisyphus felt, pushing his rock up hill forever.

I agree with you though, it isn't my property to use, but it isn't the author's either because copyright isn't a property right at all. It's a creation of statute to encourage authors to produce more works. The rights of members of society are limited to give authors a time-limited monopoly over works they produce, but that monopoly doesn't last forever.

No one is arguing that copyright is a bad thing in particular, but they are arguing that trying to equate IP to property is a gross oversimplification that isn't supported in the law or historically. This also means that trying to justify a copyright that lasts until the heat-death of the universe makes no sense.

[Ken Maltby]

Hmm... It seems to me that the patent and copyright laws do not give any rights to anyone, they restrict others from making and selling unauthorized copies of the creations of inventors and authors. You can make and make copies of what you create without need of the law. What the law is needed for is to prevent others from making copies. By preventing all others but the inventor/author from copying and selling the inventor's or author's creation (since you don't want to call it their property) you are creating a temporary market environment that provides some insurance that the original creator of the product being marketed, can bring their unique product to market, without others undercutting their sales.

They are not being given any rights (the First Amendment just codifies the right they already have) Those who would make use of someone else's creation, without mutually agreed compensation, could easily be considered thiefs. Those who do so in a manner that actually harms the ability for the creator of the product to realize a return, would be violating the intent and letter of these laws.

Luck;
Ken

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Saying that remixers are uncreative want-to-bes is as wrong as it is snobbish. There's no lack of creativity in taking a classic tale, and giving it a modern retelling or involving characters in new adventures. How many modern classics are based on the works of Shakespeare, or owe something to the brothers Grimm?

You also posit a fantasy version of creativity that involves fresh ideas popping fully formed from the heads of creators, when creators are always influenced in subtle and not so subtle ways by the works of others. We're all want to bes to one extent or another.

Over here is a fun video that describes some of the remixing George Lucas used in creating Star Wars. No one claim that Lucas "copied" the works of others, but it's obvious from the video, and interviews Lucas has given, how much he owes to the scifi movies of his youth.

Perhaps I was perhaps being a bit of a snotrag. I should have said derivative work instead of remix. I stupidly thought remix was more of a cut and pasting thing.

And of course almost everything has been said and done before.

The point is was trying to make was that there are numerous authors who manage to produce material that does not violate copyright, and numerous others who use copyrighted characters such as Sherlock Holmes and pay the fee to the rights holders.

And to state what I put so poorly in another way, the people who I referred to as want to bes are the many who cannot create a work without borrowing so heavily from another work that they would be violating copyright.

Lots of people have paid to use the name Sherlock Holmes in some pretty good books that do not draw heavily on the original books. And lots of heavily derivative works are pretty good as well. I just do not see that society has benefitted greatly from these books good as they are, never mind from the almost direct copies and clones that would emerge if copyright was done away with or shortened significantly.

Too many Twilight clones already IMO but perhaps you think differently?

Helen

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Perhaps I was perhaps being a bit of a snotrag. I should have said derivative work instead of remix. I stupidly thought remix was more of a cut and pasting thing.

And of course almost everything has been said and done before.

The point is was trying to make was that there are numerous authors who manage to produce material that does not violate copyright, and numerous others who use copyrighted characters such as Sherlock Holmes and pay the fee to the rights holders.

And to state what I put so poorly in another way, the people who I referred to as want to bes are the many who cannot create a work without borrowing so heavily from another work that they would be violating copyright.

Lots of people have paid to use the name Sherlock Holmes in some pretty good books that do not draw heavily on the original books. And lots of heavily derivative works are pretty good as well. I just do not see that society has benefitted greatly from these books good as they are, never mind from the almost direct copies and clones that would emerge if copyright was done away with or shortened significantly.

Too many Twilight clones already IMO but perhaps you think differently?

Helen

There are some wonderful pieces of literature that would have never existed without the public domain. For example, Rozencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead is essentially a hidden set of acts in Hamlet, and it's a wonderful play that draws and builds on Shakespeare's words, characters and ideas. And there are dozens more movies, books and plays where those came from, from Hamlet alone! These works are great on their own, and in turn make Hamlet itself even greater. The free use of that play is fundamental in that creativity.

I doubt anyone would suggest that copyright should be abolished entirely, so Twilight clones would not be much of an issue. In a fair arrangement, the time would come long after the market was still heavily demanding Twilight or books like it. Does anyone really think that letting the 1930's and 1940's into the 2014 public domain suddenly allow a flood of fads from those periods to resurface?