"If you can afford an ebook reader, you can afford ebook prices"

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

For the first part, why? We have a public domain for a reason. People can go in change the body lines file off the serial numbers and then add a fancy new horn, why shouldn't everyone get access to that new horn the way they have access to the unmodified version, if someone comes up with a similar new horn why should they be stopped because the horn was someone else's idea? why shouldn't the common culture be shared? I know I'm taking about something that would be a patent not a copyright but a patent lasts for 20 years, copyright can easily last for 150 years what justification is there for giving anyone an 150 year monopoly? In what way does this promote the progress of the useful arts?

If you create something to sell for profit, and get a patent and/or copyright on it, they should have a monopoly over it.

Again, nothing stopping people who just want to create something for anyone to enjoy from doing so. No one's forced to apply for a patent/copyright or to try to sell their creation.

But the system is in place to spur creativity and innovation. People will work harder to create things others will want if they can make money doing so, and not just have people steal it, others copy it/plagiarize it etc. I don't lift a finger to do anything if I'm not getting paid for it. Otherwise I'll spend my time on my hobbies, my friends, my family etc., not doing work for strangers to enjoy with no benefit to myself.

So they should have the monopoly on it. Though I do agree that it's too long currently. Copyright should just last for the creator's lifetime IMO, and then it's public domain. Screw the publisher if the creator dies at 25. It was the creator's work, not theirs, not the creator's family etc.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

So they should have the monopoly on it. Though I do agree that it's too long currently. Copyright should just last for the creator's lifetime IMO, and then it's public domain. Screw the publisher if the creator dies at 25. It was the creator's work, not theirs, not the creator's family etc.

Allowing heirs to control copyright is an incentive to publish late in life, or on one's deathbed. Otherwise, why bother publishing? You'll never see money from it; you won't get famous for it. Especially if what you've written is controversial--why inflict unpleasant attention on your family if they won't benefit from it?

Not everyone would be dissuaded from writing or publishing for those reasons, but enough would that it's worth allowing copyright to extend at least somewhat after death of the author. (Not to mention that, if "death of author/artist" is the absolute end, there's no incentive for families to publish works posthumously.)

Feh. Bring back 28 year copyrights with a single 28-year extension. Or something similar. Throw the Berne convention out; it's blocking progress and causing insane money to be spent on frivolous lawsuits.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Allowing heirs to control copyright is an incentive to publish late in life, or on one's deathbed. Otherwise, why bother publishing? You'll never see money from it; you won't get famous for it. Especially if what you've written is controversial--why inflict unpleasant attention on your family if they won't benefit from it?

Not everyone would be dissuaded from writing or publishing for those reasons, but enough would that it's worth allowing copyright to extend at least somewhat after death of the author. (Not to mention that, if "death of author/artist" is the absolute end, there's no incentive for families to publish works posthumously.)

Feh. Bring back 28 year copyrights with a single 28-year extension. Or something similar. Throw the Berne convention out; it's blocking progress and causing insane money to be spent on frivolous lawsuits.

Ah, that is a fair point. Especially since a lot of great work in many areas has been done late in life. So I guess their needs to be some extension beyond the lifetime.

The 28 with extension idea sounds like a good one. But I wouldn't limit to one extension. If you publish a hit book at 20, extend at 28, you should be able to extend again at 56 if you're still alive etc.

So I'd say unlimited 28 year extensions during the person's life time, rather than doing 50 years or 75 years after death etc.

Then at most you've got 28 years after death if they die right after an extension, and many will be shorter as they die in the middle of an extension.

The 28 years is arbitrary as well, you could do something shorter like 15 and just require more frequent extensions--which would get stuff in the public domain much quicker after death of the content holder.

[Iphinome]

I have to disagree, no right to control a creation for the rest of your life, a short set term is the only fair thing for society, once you publish you've given a work to the world. If you want to try to make a buck that's fair I'd go as far as 28+28, if you can't make money off of your creation over 56 years you're just not gonna. This allows things created in your lifetime to enter the public domain in your lifetime and that's what maters, that's why we have copyright, not to protect your ability to profit but to offer you a chance at it in order to get more work for the public domain.

Because of constant extensions no work has entered the public domain at all since I've been born. Copyright laws as they are harm society. Why should my taxes go to enforcement, go to pay any judge working a copyright case if society will never get anything out of it. The works of Shakespeare belong to me now, and you, they can be remixed rewritten expanded abridged folded mutilated and spindled in any way for any reason and maybe a lucky someone will make something cool out of them to add to the shared culture like say west side story. When do I get that with works from the 1935?

[dmaul1114]

Definitely have to agree to disagree, and vehemently so. If the person just wanted to give the work to the world, they could have done so for the start.

Many to create things to give something to the world, they do so to make money, to make a living, to get wealthy if they're talented enough that 1,000s or millions of people like their work enough to pay for it.

And they should keep that right to make money off their creation at least until the end of their lives, and probably a bit beyond (though 70 is excessive).

I don't get the damn obsession with the public domain anyway. Especially for books. Most any piece of great literature that would be some assets to the public is freely available in libraries so even the poorest people in society can access them freely.

I mean sure, people can't remix them etc. while they're not in the public domain, but I don't see the point. I want to read original works, not remixed garbage like the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies non-sense. If the author had any true talent, he could have written his own period piece with Zombies, rather than making a buck by perverting a classic work in the public domain that sold only because it was Pride and Prejudice.

In any case, I think it's a disgusting example of sense of entitlement to think copyrights shouldn't last at least until death, and expect people to just create stuff to the world and not care about getting every dollar they can get out of it over their lifetimes.

That would absolutely stymie creativity and innovation as the most talented people want to be compensated for their work. How many great pieces of art, literature, music etc. have been done over human history that were not done for compensation or attract attention in effort to make money in the future? Else they wouldn't be selling it in the first place, as no one is forcing them to quit their day job and become a working author, musician etc.

Thankfully, I think your views are a pretty fringe minority, and at least in the US I can't see us every having a situation were copyrights expire before death. We may see changes that allow copyrights to expire on materials out of print for a set amount of time etc. so those can get in the public domain since no one is buying them anyway. But that's the most I can see happening.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I have to disagree, no right to control a creation for the rest of your life, a short set term is the only fair thing for society, once you publish you've given a work to the world. If you want to try to make a buck that's fair I'd go as far as 28+28...

As a side note, if they have the potential to expire in that way, then moral rights need to be recognised worldwide. To be properly attributed as the author (and not when not), and to object to derogatory treatment - those rights should be non-transferable and lifelong.

[Iphinome]

I keep telling you there's no right to make money none, never has been. You have the right to try. You think without permanent control people won't create, I think with such control they won't create, if you write $greatamericannovel hit the literary lottery why bother to create anything, you're set and as a bonus you stop others from building on $greatamericannovel and making something new and just as worthy of attention. If you don't get the public domain then you don't get copyright the purpose is to offer a chance at money in exchange for getting more things created that will end up in the public domain. If you can't make money off of something for the rest of your life you won't create? Fine, don't. That didn't stop Walt Disney even though the disney corporation won't let his work fall into the public domain, when he created it copyright was a fixed term everything before 1976 in the US was for a fixed term and I don't see a shortage of books written before then. But you're probably right all those people with a novel inside them just ready to burst out decided that it wasn't worth writing before then.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, okay not to your taste, I haven't read it personally but come on the title is funny, the idea is creative it's an excellent example of why we need a public domain, so is west side story so is forbidden planet, Larry Niven's Inferno and any vampire story where vampires are in any way like Dracula. You may not personally like any of that, I know I don't care for some of it but it is creative it does add to the shared culture and hey you should appreciate this, it makes money for the people who did the remixing. Side note, Walt Disney was quite the pirate, aside form his pillage of the public domain steamboat willy is a ripoff of a Buster Keaton movee that was popular at the time and was still under copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Bill_Jr.

I think it's a disgusting example of greed to think the only purpose of creativity is to milk every dollar and every bit of control out of something in perpetuity. Money Money Money Money is that all you care for? Does a child with paper and crayons think about selling their work? The great Renaissance masters were payed but they didn't keep control over their work and there was nothing at all done to prevent copies, it was expected encouraged, the way to teach painters was to make them sit and make copies.

Short copyright encourages creative people to get off their ass and create more, it also gives them more to work with. It gives to society as a whole in the form of older works to cherish and in the form of newer works based in varying amounts on the older ones since creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum it comes out of the surrounding culture. Long copyrights are tools of greed and control, a way to hold things away from the people who were kind enough to allow copyright laws as all, who payed for enforcement of those laws with no direct benefit to themselves until the copyright finally expires, people who put up with monopoly pricing, people who put up limited available formats (though kudos or the except to the law that allows copies to accommodate people with vision problems weather the authors like it or not.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

As a side note, if they have the potential to expire in that way, then moral rights need to be recognised worldwide. To be properly attributed as the author (and not when not), and to object to derogatory treatment - those rights should be non-transferable and lifelong.

At least in the US and similar countries I'm pretty sure you're always allowed to object to derogatory treatment, I'm doing it right now when i spout off about unjust copyright laws. If you mean some sort of adaption the author doesn't like then no the ability to censor other people ends when copyright does.

As for worldwide, though the US may like to impose its rules on other countries whenever possible it's not really enforceable except by reciprocal copyright treaties which we do currently have in place though most of those are for life +50 the us only pushed it to life +70 because the disney cooperation was willing to buy some senators and rent the rest of them.

Attribution is a moral rule on expired copyright but not an enforceable one I don't see it being a huge problem computers and the internet being what they are you'd be able to check someone's work and see if it was really someone else's, public domain stuff would end up easily earchable becuse it'd be stored in places like project Gutenberg.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I keep telling you there's no right to make money none, never has been. You have the right to try.

I never said people have a right to make money. What I'm saying is people don't have a right to OWN stuff others created for sale if they don't PAY for it.

Someone decides to write a book and try to sale, there's no guarantee's they'll make any money. But no one should be reading that book without buying it unless the author changes his mind and decides to give it away.

[quotes]
I think it's a disgusting example of greed to think the only purpose of creativity is to milk every dollar and every bit of control out of something in perpetuity.
[/quotes]


And I think it's a disgusting example of self entitlement to expect that others should create stuff, and not be able to make money off it for the rest of their lives just so you/the public can be cheapskates and enjoy it without paying for it.

Again, no one is forcing someone to write, paint, make music, make movies etc. to make a profit. They don't have to get their works copyrighted

People can and do create just because they enjoy it. But those who choose to do it for money, own the rights to their material and no one should get it without paying for it. They're not guaranteed money, but they've decided to try and copyright their material, so it's there's until they die.

Short copyright encourages creative people to get off their ass and create more, it also gives them more to work with.

Those with the talent to make a ton of money creating works will just say the hell with it and stop if copyrights don't last very long and others can make money off their works. No point in busting ass in that system. We live in a capitalist world. The majority of people want to get paid as much as they can for their talents. No band that can sign a multi-million dollar record deal, for example, is going to say no and keep playing clubs on the weekends for fun. Money, wealth and fame are the main driving incentives to humans. Start letting others take their work and sell it without them seeing a dime by putting work in the public domain while their alive and you'll see creativity stymied as more talented folks just quit making stuff and live off the money they made already.

It gives to society as a whole in the form of older works to cherish and in the form of newer works based in varying amounts on the older ones since creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum it comes out of the surrounding culture.

Society can enjoy them from the start. They can buy them (books and movies and cds etc. are pretty inexpensive), they can get them for free at the library, they can borrow them from a friend etc. etc. Stuff doesn't have to go into the public domain for society to cherish and enjoy works. That's a bunch of hogwash.


But I'm done talking about this with you as we're just polar opposites. I'm a raging capitalist (though I do lean socialist on things like taxes and health care etc.) and will support copyrights and rights of content holders to the death, and you seem more of the communist leaning of all works being public property which I find revolting.

So no sense in us butting heads when neither of us respects the other's point of view given the tone of our posts.

[Iphinome]

I'm no communist and here's my proof, you quoted my post I don't think it's fair use give me money.

Now stop insulting me, you call my ideas hogwash you've called them disgusting twice you've called me a cheapskate when I've said several times in several threads I don't have a problem paying for content I have a problem with the system that puts artificial and unjust restricting on what can be done with that content and now you dismiss me for disagreeing.

I feel this is very disrespectful.

For anyone who hasn't decided to just dismiss I've attached some citations in my posts, if you want more I'll try to find them.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I'm no communist and here's my proof, you quoted my post I don't think it's fair use give me money.

Now stop insulting me, you call my ideas hogwash you've called them disgusting twice you've called me a cheapskate when I've said several times in several threads I don't have a problem paying for content I have a problem with the system that puts artificial and unjust restricting on what can be done with that content and now you dismiss me for disagreeing.

I feel this is very disrespectful.

For anyone who hasn't decided to just dismiss I've attached some citations in my posts, if you want more I'll try to find them.

I didn't mean it as insulting, and I used the word disgusting in response to your use of it.

As I said in the other thread just now, it's nothing personal. I just don't respect the views you're putting forth at all, and have little tolerance for the types of views you have about copyrights etc. as I'm 100% capitalist and think no one has the right to have any content they didn't create themselves unless they paid for it or it was given away by the creator (by choice or because they died).

I just find views that stuff should go into the public domain while the creator is still alive abhorrent as it's against my capitalist world view.

If someone wants to create something for the common good, nothing is stopping them. But most of us spend our all our time on two things--1. Work and other activities that bring us money or other personal benefits. 2. Things we enjoy doing. Creativity will be stymied in terms of whats available to the public if you expect works to come from category 2 more so than category 1.

And even if that's not true, someone who decided to create something and copyright it, created that material to make money. Regardless of whether he/she succeeds in making money, that's their work and they own the rights to it until the die (and beyond, though should be much less than 70 years beyond). And that's the way it should be. They could have not gotten a copyright. They could decide it to start giving it away for free at any time. But unless they do their rights should be protected at least until the end of their life.

But again, it's time for us to agree to disagree as the tone of our posts is getting negative. I like debating, but sometimes it's just a waste of time when people on on polar opposite ends of the spectrum on an issue. This is just as fruitless as a staunch pro choicer like myself arguing abortion with a staunch pro-lifer. Neither of us will budge an inch, and it's eventually going to get nasty, so lets just agree to disagree.

Again, sorry if you took any offense. I hate your stance, but have nothing against you personally. Cheers!

[Iphinome]

I used the word disgusting in response to your use of it first. I hate to get childish here but you started it. And yes I did and do take offense. I note that you're only sorry if i took offense not sorry you made offensive comments.

In the spirit of 100% capitalism why should I respect copyright at all? I think most of us here have agreed that a copy doesn't deprive someone of their original at most it deprives them of the chance to profit off the copy so why bother giving people monopoly rights, without the costs of creation I could sell copies cheaper than you do and still turn a profit, isn't that good? There's no benefit to me if you're making money off a creation.

And if you don't create well then what's the harm to society there. Society only benefits when you no longer have control of a work and it's free (libre) for people to remix, even choosing to give work away free (beer) right now doesn't change your right to control it. A work under your control benefits you, a work open to everyone benefits everyone. A compromise is some time for you, the rest for everyone 56 years is more than fair as the original US copyright term was 7 years and people still managed to create.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

At least in the US and similar countries I'm pretty sure you're always allowed to object to derogatory treatment...

Nope. The US explicitly denies moral rights except on a very limited basis. Moral rights are entirely separate from economic rights - they are inalienable (even by choice, although an author does not need to enforce them) and exist for the life of the author only.

If you mean some sort of adaption the author doesn't like then no the ability to censor other people ends when copyright does.

Which is why America objects to moral rights, right. But afaik, they're wrong.

[Iphinome]

Dawn I'm not sure I understand you, why can you not object. I object to some comments dmaul1114 directed at me, see earlier posts. Did I justnto use my right to object? Maybe there's a UK/American English problem here?

[DawnFalcon]

I'm not sure you're clear on what's considered "derogatory treatment" of a work.

For example, in the UK: "Treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director".


You're complaining, which is not related