EU Piracy Report

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by shalym

Your owning a house doesn't apply either, whether you built it or someone else did. Homeowners have to pay property tax. They don't pay this tax because they're making money on the property--if they were doing that, they would *also* have to pay income tax on that income. They have to pay taxes on that property every year, whether they're using it or not. As long as they own it, they have to pay those taxes, or the government gets to take it back. Why don't we apply the same rules to copyright? If we did, it would solve the orphan works problem immediately. (I know you think that everyone looking for copyright reform is looking for free stuff, but that's absolutely NOT true. I would absolutely pay for copies of some books that aren't available in digital form, if anyone were to make them available.)

Shari

Shari:

Do you think that people earning money from a copyright don't pay taxes?

Why on earth SHOULD they pay taxes on something that they created, they own, and for which they've already paid taxes on the income therefrom? Now you're proposing that they pay taxes on something that ISN'T earning income, presumably?

Man, you folks are tax-crazy. Gee, while we're at it, let's tax the heirs, too, just for inheriting this copyright, whether it's worth anything or not! That'll teach 'em!!! /sarcasm.

A house or any other type of real property, typically--aside from bubbles--is increasing in value. It's not sitting idle. It can be sold, for an increased amount. Or, it can be rented or leased. During all that time, arguably, it's providing income, even if it's future income--simply by existing. The same is not true of a copyright. If a copyright sits idle, it earns nothing, and unless its a super-hot property, it's definitely NOT increasing in value.

An analogy would be: you buy a car. You pay the licensing/registration tax annually, while the car is running, and it has value to you. Sure, that makes sense. But, let's say it breaks down, and you have it up on blocks in your garage. Do you think that YOU should pay taxes, registration, licensing on it, while it's in the garage? Because it MIGHT someday run again, or have value? Should we tax you, so that you put it back into circulation, and let someone else have it, to cut down on the production of automobiles? Surely, giving your old crappy not-running car away to someone else, for nothing, would be in the public good too, right?

I'm truly shocked that so many of you feel that someone else's IP "belongs" to you, rightfully. What's next? You start stormtrooping unpublished manuscripts? What about those that have copyright filed--that never saw the light of day? Do those belong to you, too?

FWIW: I know several novelists--trade-pubbed, not "only" Indy pubbed--who see these discussions around the Net, and have told me that quite bluntly, this sort of attitude puts them off ever writing another book. They don't think it's YOUR property. They don't think you have a RIGHT to it. After the current, legal copyright expiration? Sure and fine. But until then? No. So: the belief that somehow, this shorter copyright period, this "demanding" that a copyrighted book be put back into circulation, whill somehow BENEFIT the public good? Seems to be having the opposite effect, from what I see and from what I'm told by the very people you're talking about.

The point of a copyright was to ENCOURAGE the writing of books. Not to discourage authors from publishing them.

Hitch

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Shari:

Do you think that people earning money from a copyright don't pay taxes?

Why on earth SHOULD they pay taxes on something that they created, they own, and for which they've already paid taxes on the income therefrom? Now you're proposing that they pay taxes on something that ISN'T earning income, presumably?

Man, you folks are tax-crazy. Gee, while we're at it, let's tax the heirs, too, just for inheriting this copyright, whether it's worth anything or not! That'll teach 'em!!! /sarcasm.

A house or any other type of real property, typically--aside from bubbles--is increasing in value. It's not sitting idle. It can be sold, for an increased amount. Or, it can be rented or leased. During all that time, arguably, it's providing income, even if it's future income--simply by existing. The same is not true of a copyright. If a copyright sits idle, it earns nothing, and unless its a super-hot property, it's definitely NOT increasing in value.

An analogy would be: you buy a car. You pay the licensing/registration tax annually, while the car is running, and it has value to you. Sure, that makes sense. But, let's say it breaks down, and you have it up on blocks in your garage. Do you think that YOU should pay taxes, registration, licensing on it, while it's in the garage? Because it MIGHT someday run again, or have value? Should we tax you, so that you put it back into circulation, and let someone else have it, to cut down on the production of automobiles? Surely, giving your old crappy not-running car away to someone else, for nothing, would be in the public good too, right?

I'm truly shocked that so many of you feel that someone else's IP "belongs" to you, rightfully. What's next? You start stormtrooping unpublished manuscripts? What about those that have copyright filed--that never saw the light of day? Do those belong to you, too?

FWIW: I know several novelists--trade-pubbed, not "only" Indy pubbed--who see these discussions around the Net, and have told me that quite bluntly, this sort of attitude puts them off ever writing another book. They don't think it's YOUR property. They don't think you have a RIGHT to it. After the current, legal copyright expiration? Sure and fine. But until then? No. So: the belief that somehow, this shorter copyright period, this "demanding" that a copyrighted book be put back into circulation, whill somehow BENEFIT the public good? Seems to be having the opposite effect, from what I see and from what I'm told by the very people you're talking about.

The point of a copyright was to ENCOURAGE the writing of books. Not to discourage authors from publishing them.

Hitch

You must have missed the part where I talk about the difference between income tax and property tax. I pay property tax on my house whether it makes me money or not. If I use my house to make money, I ALSO pay income tax, on top of the property tax.

I wasn't actually recommending a "tax" be paid on copyrighted books (or music, or art). I was just addressing the fact that even if you design and build a house yourself, you STILL have to pay property tax on it in order to keep it. Therefore, "intellectual property" is NOT like real property.

As to your car analogy, again...legally, I would still have to pay property tax on that car...at least in my state. I also pay for the place that I'm storing it, either through rental fees or property tax. So again...no. The analogy doesn't apply.

As to the part where I say "why don't we apply the same rules to copyright"? That would actually just be going back to how it used to be, except that if someone wanted to keep the copyright forever, they could. Imagine...pay $20/year (or even every 5 years) and you and your heirs can keep the right to your "intellectual property" forever--no more expiring 75 years after the death of the creator.

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Apache

How does fiction fit into progress of science and useful arts?
You also see copyright infringement in the jewelry business. I have had customers come in take a picture of a copyrighted piece of jewelry and have another jeweler make a copy. Then bring it in to my store and tell me how much money they saved.
Apache

Entertainment is not useful?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

What?

WHAT print books are you reading that are left-aligned? Cookbooks, perhaps, because justification can be utterly unneeded, in that environment, but certainly, not in fiction, which is pretty much ALWAYS justified. (FWIW: There is only justified. Despite the abuse of the term, by MS and other word-processing systems, there is no such thing as "left justified" or "right justified." Those are left-aligned, or ragged-right; or right-aligned. They are NOT justified. Nor is there such a thing as "center justification," by sheer definition.)

I have something like, I dunno, 4K print books, and honestly....it might take me HOURS to find one that isn't justified. Where on earth are you finding books that aren't?

@Wolfie: in many instances, there is NO viable alternative but to make a table as an image. For one thing, table formatting is still "iffy" on the older devices; for another, even on the newer, any table larger than 10+ rows or 3-4 columns can have issues. Lastly, "ET" (Enhanced Typesetting) will crash and burn on larger tables, so...there are MANY, many good reasons for bookmakers NOT to use HTML tables...even though most of us would prefer to do so.

Hitch

That was a total misunderstanding.
To me, what I read was something like this:
Indent then several words
Next set of words
Another set of words.

As left justified.

This would be center justified
Spaces words spaces
Space words space
Repeat.
Never touching the left margin.

This would be right
Spaces words to right margin.
Space space words to right margin.

Or in other words, I got aligned and justified mixed up.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

That was a total misunderstanding.
To me, what I read was something like this:
Indent then several words
Next set of words
Another set of words.

As left justified.

This would be center justified
Spaces words spaces
Space words space
Repeat.
Never touching the left margin.

This would be right
Spaces words to right margin.
Space space words to right margin.

Or in other words, I got aligned and justified mixed up.

This is left aligned

This is center aligned

This is right aligned

Shari

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hitch

A copyright is a property, whether you like it or not. It's not, under law, a "time-limited monopoly," or whatever those of you opposed to the dura of copyright want to call it.

I hate to disagree with you, but copyright is exactly a time-limited monopoly according to the USA constitution.

"The Congress shall have power
[...]
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

"limited Times" : time-limited.
"exclusive right" : monopoly

Now, the "Authors" can choose to sell or rent their "exclusive Right" to someone else, so it can be considered an 'intellectual property', but it is most definitely a time-limited monopoly in law.



Copyright is a government granted monopoly. There's no other way to prevent people from making copies of the text. Copyright didn't exist until governments brought it into being.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I hate to disagree with you, but copyright is exactly a time-limited monopoly according to the USA constitution.

"The Congress shall have power
[...]
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

"limited Times" : time-limited.
"exclusive right" : monopoly

Now, the "Authors" can choose to sell or rent their "exclusive Right" to someone else, so it can be considered an 'intellectual property', but it is most definitely a time-limited monopoly in law.



Copyright is a government granted monopoly. There's no other way to prevent people from making copies of the text. Copyright didn't exist until governments brought it into being.

You're absolutely right. It is, however, the property of the person who creates it.

Here's a simple question, which I put in my other post: if I write a book, and I copyright it, and NEVER publish it--is it the position of the "anti-copyright-dura" folks, that they're then entitled to that book, in some X amount of time?

Is that manuscript MY property, and that of any heirs and designees, or theirs? There's always a lot of kerfuffle about how the book is OOP, yadda, yadda. If the entire question somehow is being tied to the duration of copyright--then, X years after my death, who OWNS or is entitled to that unpublished--but copyrighted--manuscript?

Hitch

[Dutchbook]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Copyright didn't exist until governments brought it into being.

This is not true, copyright has existed for thousands of years and can be directly attributed to Roman law, where (amongst others) a vindicatio usus fructus could be invoked by both the 'naked'-owner and the current owner against third parties that used it without consent. There was actually a complete set of tools that could be used against these kind of wrong-do'ers.

Roman law was the law that seeded the idea that there was a difference between ownership law, property law and intellectual property law, whereas in countries that follow French law (continental Europe, amongst others) there are only 2 flavors: ownership law and property law

So I don't really expect a conclusion to this discussion, considering there are multiple correct answers

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You're absolutely right. It is, however, the property of the person who creates it.

Here's a simple question, which I put in my other post: if I write a book, and I copyright it, and NEVER publish it--is it the position of the "anti-copyright-dura" folks, that they're then entitled to that book, in some X amount of time?

Is that manuscript MY property, and that of any heirs and designees, or theirs? There's always a lot of kerfuffle about how the book is OOP, yadda, yadda. If the entire question somehow is being tied to the duration of copyright--then, X years after my death, who OWNS or is entitled to that unpublished--but copyrighted--manuscript?

Hitch

In my case, at least, the kerfluffle isn't about works that are being deliberately held back, really. It's more about works that aren't being made available because nobody is really sure who controls the rights. If a nominal fee had to be paid every few years to maintain copyright, that wouldn't happen.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You're absolutely right. It is, however, the property of the person who creates it.

Here's a simple question, which I put in my other post: if I write a book, and I copyright it, and NEVER publish it--is it the position of the "anti-copyright-dura" folks, that they're then entitled to that book, in some X amount of time?

Is that manuscript MY property, and that of any heirs and designees, or theirs? There's always a lot of kerfuffle about how the book is OOP, yadda, yadda. If the entire question somehow is being tied to the duration of copyright--then, X years after my death, who OWNS or is entitled to that unpublished--but copyrighted--manuscript?

Hitch

I have a question for all the anti-copyright people, if I have an unpublished ebook and let's say I graciously give Hitch a copy for her own personal use, does she have the right to profit off of it?
Note the book is not OOP, it is I don't want to invest the money at this time to turn it into a halfway decent ebook.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by shalym

In my case, at least, the kerfluffle isn't about works that are being deliberately held back, really. It's more about works that aren't being made available because nobody is really sure who controls the rights. If a nominal fee had to be paid every few years to maintain copyright, that wouldn't happen.

Shari

Yes, Shari:

But who is penalized, in that circumstance? It's not you, or the other people who want a given book back in circulation. What if the inheritor is not wealthy, or just getting by? What, they have to give up their rights, to the book, because they can't pay the tax or fee? What if they can't AFFORD to publish the book? You can't be sure that that person will inherit a publishable format--a print layout, or an ebook, etc. Hell, if it's like most of the people I see, with a book that they inherited from X, they're lucky if it's in print. What if all they get is a copy of the book, in hardcover? You have any idea what it costs, to have a book scanned, proofed, yadda-yadda, to reissue?

Sorry. I don't agree. This constantly, constantly comes back to an idea that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the creator or his family. I just can't get on board with that. It's never some scheme that would PAY the family, or this or that, to republish the books; it's always about TAKING or penalizing. I realize you didn't think of it that way, but....that's what it is, if the inheritor has low funds and no skills to do it him/herself. A book that was trade-pubbed X years ago may have ZERO interest now, in the publishing community, so the ONLY option to put that book back out is for the family to field the costs themselves. And if they don't, they get penalized with a tax or fee?

I have clients like this--that can't afford to republish Pop's book or what-have-you and have no ability do DIY.

What if they print 20 copies? What if they retype it, and print 10 copies? Then, it's back in circulation. Do they get taxed or assessed then?

You guys, you're just...I don't think you're thinking through the realities of what you're suggesting. If it were me, and someone else was trying to PENALIZE me, for inheriting a family member's books, I would bygod make sure that I printed 5 copies, hell, even if I had to buy an ISBN to do it, and then I just wouldn't distribute them. THEN WHAT would the penalty police do? They're printed. Musta been all bought. Then what?????

Hitch

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, Shari:

But who is penalized, in that circumstance? It's not you, or the other people who want a given book back in circulation. What if the inheritor is not wealthy, or just getting by? What, they have to give up their rights, to the book, because they can't pay the tax or fee? What if they can't AFFORD to publish the book? You can't be sure that that person will inherit a publishable format--a print layout, or an ebook, etc. Hell, if it's like most of the people I see, with a book that they inherited from X, they're lucky if it's in print. What if all they get is a copy of the book, in hardcover? You have any idea what it costs, to have a book scanned, proofed, yadda-yadda, to reissue?

Sorry. I don't agree. This constantly, constantly comes back to an idea that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the creator or his family. I just can't get on board with that. It's never some scheme that would PAY the family, or this or that, to republish the books; it's always about TAKING or penalizing. I realize you didn't think of it that way, but....that's what it is, if the inheritor has low funds and no skills to do it him/herself. A book that was trade-pubbed X years ago may have ZERO interest now, in the publishing community, so the ONLY option to put that book back out is for the family to field the costs themselves. And if they don't, they get penalized with a tax or fee?

I have clients like this--that can't afford to republish Pop's book or what-have-you and have no ability do DIY.

What if they print 20 copies? What if they retype it, and print 10 copies? Then, it's back in circulation. Do they get taxed or assessed then?

You guys, you're just...I don't think you're thinking through the realities of what you're suggesting. If it were me, and someone else was trying to PENALIZE me, for inheriting a family member's books, I would bygod make sure that I printed 5 copies, hell, even if I had to buy an ISBN to do it, and then I just wouldn't distribute them. THEN WHAT would the penalty police do? They're printed. Musta been all bought. Then what?????

Hitch

What in the world are you talking about?? I'm talking about paying $20 per year to keep a copyright alive. Who are the penalty police? If a book is being sold, then of course they will be taxed on the income that comes from the book, but if it's not, then why would they be taxed or "penalized"? Nobody is "penalizing" anyone.

With my idea, it wouldn't matter if you printed 5 copies, or 1,000 copies, or no copies--you pay your $20 per year to keep the copyright alive. There's no penalty for publishing or not publishing, except, as I said, for the income tax that may have to be paid on any sold copies.

Shari

[Greg Anos]

I'm sorry, Hitch, but you are confusing property with copyright ownership. They are two different animals - very different.

For example, patents expire. I don't see any hue and cry over losing the revenue from an expired patent. Currently, a patent lasts 20 years. (And it costs from a few thousand dollars to get one up to many tens of thousands of dollars. . . A filed copyright costs you 60 dollars, just fill out a form and a check - and under current US law, that is not even required.)

Both Paul and myself have pointed out the US basis for copyright. And it does not fall under property law. It has its own category.

I went though both US and Canadian copyright law in 2009, and built stickies for both of them here on MobileRead.

US Sticky - https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=53991

Canadian Sticky - https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=57184

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Apache

How does fiction fit into progress of science and useful arts?

Disney built an empire on the public domain fiction of the Grimm brothers, Charles Perrault, Lewis Carroll and Hans Christian Anderson.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

What in the world are you talking about?? I'm talking about paying $20 per year to keep a copyright alive. Who are the penalty police? If a book is being sold, then of course they will be taxed on the income that comes from the book, but if it's not, then why would they be taxed or "penalized"? Nobody is "penalizing" anyone.

With my idea, it wouldn't matter if you printed 5 copies, or 1,000 copies, or no copies--you pay your $20 per year to keep the copyright alive. There's no penalty for publishing or not publishing, except, as I said, for the income tax that may have to be paid on any sold copies.

Shari

Why should she have to pay $20 to keep her property?

Secondly, please name me one book not in print that would actually benefit humanity?