Copyright Laws Threaten Our Online Freedom

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The difference is because the bricklayers and executives are doing what they are told for the benefit of a single entity(their boss or their company for example). For their labour they are compensated by the entity that is directly benefiting from that labour.

Kind of like an author being paid by a Publisher?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The original of the digital copies do not have any physical value, either. A teacher, a manager, or a trainer (in the world of sports), a musician performing live do not create anything of physical value. That is an arbitrary distinction made by you. Sure, some artists, authors seem to be overpaid. But if they bring in the big bucks because people are willing to pay for their works they create a lot of value for society. What you get paid depends on how much you are making for your employer and how easy it is to replace you.

You do have a certain point regarding copyright after death. 70 years is a long time. But you have given no specifics on how else the artists should be paid.

Comparisons between real-life and digital are always massively flawed because they don't work the same way. But you're right in a way, most authors now are 'employed' by a company (the publisher) because traditionally they would have no other way to gain an audience. The company pays the author an advance on what they think they can make profitably from the book (all other expenses considered). In this employer/employee relationship only the very few make big bucks, a tiny minority will make a living and the rest have to take second jobs to make ends meet. Culture isn't promoted under this model, its reduced to a profict incentive, a job where art is limited to only that which will make profits for the company.

Under a digital model there is a chance at equity. A chance to redress the balance of our creative endeavours. Under this model we'll see less and less 'big buck' writers, but we'll probably have more and more 'making a living writers' independently publishing their works. Writers supported by fans of their work. Take a long hard look at that word 'supported'. That word is inclusive, the reader isn't just buying a product anymore, they have vested interest in the life of the artist. A stake in the outcome.

Capitalism teaches us that everything is for sale, everything is a product, even our joyous time when we create.

But maybe we're moving away from that finally, into a realm where creator and audience aren't just in a traditional buy/sell relationship. Where the audience is closer than ever to the culture, able to freely derive their own works from that culture without fear of recriminations. Copywrong and the Big 5 Corps stand in the way of us building something worthwhile. They're the wall that we must dismantle brick by brick if we're to have any kind of culture worth a damn in the future.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

What interests me is why so many people seem to think artists should have no control or rights over what they create? That the audience should have total and sole rights? Why do so many people feel they have the right to enjoy the labours of artists for free but they certainly don't want to work for their own boss for free?

What makes you think anybody should own an idea or creation? There is no natural "right" to own a creation. Copyright creates a temporary artificial right (theoretically in order to encourage more creation).

Assume that two people independently come up with the same creation. IE, they both write the same story or song. Yeah, the odds of that happening are really low, but it is possible. Why does the first one "own" the idea and the second one has no rights, even though they created that idea just as the first one did. The concept of ownership of a thought or an idea (which is where the creation comes from) is just silly.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I'm sure artists have complete control over what they create as long as they don't publish it. When it's published, they lose much of that control.

The purpose of copyright laws, in the US, is to encourage that publication by granting them some control after they publish.

Without those rights--a limited-term monopoly on some uses of their creative work--there's much less incentive to publish. Certainly much less incentive to publish widely, and more incentive to seek out reclusive patrons who don't want to share the work.

More incentive for, perhaps, releasing a novel online in serial format, with a PayPal button and a notification, "I'll release the next chapter when I get $X." Or a login system, that only shows the novel to people who've paid $X to get in, and the novel itself is in streaming flash format, not impossible to copy but difficult.

Or, as we're noticing, refusing to allow authorized digital versions at all. Yes, there are bootleg versions of almost all popular novels... but there are not bootleg versions of most textbooks, most nonfiction books, most books of the last eighty years that didn't make the Big Important Books lists.

This is because the artists (or their literary heirs, whoever they are) are nervous about being able to get compensation for their work--compensation the law allows them to demand. Saying, "you shouldn't have the rights to that; people should just take it" is not making them more likely to publish.

If you want to hasten the full digitization of all interesting human creativity, find a way to promote the idea that doesn't outrage the people who've created it. Lobby for shorter copyright lengths; don't try to convince people to follow the law they think should exist. Offer solutions to copyright laws that don't boil down to "the artist should only get paid if people feel like they can afford it, and they should have access to his works regardless of that."

Lobby for ebook sellers working out a transfer-of-ownership option for their DRMd books. Lobby for software that actually moves a file from one place to another, not just copies it. Lobby for better understanding of copyright laws, so artists & authors don't think they're obligated to file legal objections to fans who quote their works on fan sites.

Arguing for the removal of copyright law just makes you look greedy and selfish. It's like arguing for the abolition of union protections because some union leaders are corrupt, or because you're annoyed that a local strike made your life difficult for a few weeks.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I'm not in the number of people who wants it all for free.
But, if BAEN gives me a free sampler CD, I download it, and I'm happy with it.
I suppose you don't...



I'm sure artists have complete control over what they create as long as they don't publish it. When it's published, they lose much of that control.

In the actual copyright-large publishing companies-real world, artists don't have control over what they create, not even during creation itself.
So, whatever change is, it's always for the better.

[SNIP]
PS: my one is just a phylosophical lunchtime musing, but I'll be happy and honoured by every reply I'm wothy of.

It's worth noting that those Baen sampler CDs you mention are fully authorized by the copyright holder -- that is, by the authors! This is true two different ways:

• The author's contract with Baen allows Baen to provide promotional materials for free. No payment to Baen and no royalty to the author. That contract provision does not require further specific permission from the author.
• Even though the contract permits them to do so, Baen still doesn't put books on those free CDs unless the author (or his/her agent) specifically agreed that it would be OK to do so.

The reason those CDs exist is that both Baen and (presumably) the authors whose books appear on them think that the free samples increase future sales enough to more-than-offset any possible losses in current sales. Results from both eBook and dead-tree sales appear to indicate that their belief is correct.

Xenophon
(who knows this particular stuff because I asked about it over at Baen's Bar a few years ago)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The purpose of copyright laws, in the US, is to encourage that publication by granting them some control after they publish.

That used to be it's purpose, yes.

Arguing for the removal of copyright law just makes you look greedy and selfish. It's like arguing for the abolition of union protections because some union leaders are corrupt, or because you're annoyed that a local strike made your life difficult for a few weeks.

I think most of the time, when people argue for the removal of copyright law, what they're really arguing for is the removal of CURRENT copyright law. The original intent of attempting to balance the interests of both sides in order to encourage more creation is a valid concept. But the current implementation of that concept is horribly flawed.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

The author's contract with Baen allows Baen to provide promotional materials for free. No payment to Baen and no royalty to the author. That contract provision does not require further specific permission from the author.

That's pretty much what Format C said. In most cases, the author doesn't really have control anymore.

Even though the contract permits them to do so, Baen still doesn't put books on those free CDs unless the author (or his/her agent) specifically agreed that it would be OK to do so.

That's because Baen are "nice guys" in their dealings with artists. Many other companies are not.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What makes you think anybody should own an idea or creation? There is no natural "right" to own a creation. Copyright creates a temporary artificial right (theoretically in order to encourage more creation).

Assume that two people independently come up with the same creation. IE, they both write the same story or song. Yeah, the odds of that happening are really low, but it is possible. Why does the first one "own" the idea and the second one has no rights, even though they created that idea just as the first one did. The concept of ownership of a thought or an idea (which is where the creation comes from) is just silly.

But valid. The patent for the telephone was filed only 2 hours before another patent for the same device was filed...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Comparisons between real-life and digital are always massively flawed because they don't work the same way. But you're right in a way, most authors now are 'employed' by a company (the publisher) because traditionally they would have no other way to gain an audience. The company pays the author an advance on what they think they can make profitably from the book (all other expenses considered). In this employer/employee relationship only the very few make big bucks, a tiny minority will make a living and the rest have to take second jobs to make ends meet. Culture isn't promoted under this model, its reduced to a profict incentive, a job where art is limited to only that which will make profits for the company.

Under a digital model there is a chance at equity. A chance to redress the balance of our creative endeavours. Under this model we'll see less and less 'big buck' writers, but we'll probably have more and more 'making a living writers' independently publishing their works. Writers supported by fans of their work. Take a long hard look at that word 'supported'. That word is inclusive, the reader isn't just buying a product anymore, they have vested interest in the life of the artist. A stake in the outcome.

Capitalism teaches us that everything is for sale, everything is a product, even our joyous time when we create.

But maybe we're moving away from that finally, into a realm where creator and audience aren't just in a traditional buy/sell relationship. Where the audience is closer than ever to the culture, able to freely derive their own works from that culture without fear of recriminations. Copywrong and the Big 5 Corps stand in the way of us building something worthwhile. They're the wall that we must dismantle brick by brick if we're to have any kind of culture worth a damn in the future.

You are an idealist (and let us hope you turn out to be right!). A writer can have a relationship like that with his readers in a forum like this one. But to make a living you have to get the word out to a wide audience. You can publish yourself, but will enough people know about it? How many books will crowd the internet and how can readers choose? And with this emerging "everything on the internet is free" mentality I am afraid we will just wind up with ad-supported versions by the big corporations who in this way could very easily defeat the system you have in mind.

By the way, I was only talking about the "big bucks" because that was what seemed to anger member FormatC.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I think most of the time, when people argue for the removal of copyright law, what they're really arguing for is the removal of CURRENT copyright law. The original intent of attempting to balance the interests of both sides in order to encourage more creation is a valid concept. But the current implementation of that concept is horribly flawed.

Agreed, yes. But arguing it should be removed, without offering something to take its place, is part of what makes authors, artists & publishers so paranoid and unwilling to consider new business models.

Baen's doing well, and isn't having to abolish current copyright law to do so. So's Doctorow. Both those models--cheap ebooks w/o DRM, and creative commons releases--are effective economic models, but so obscure that mainstream publishers are certain they won't work for them.

The ebook world seems to be at an impasse... as long as most popular books are released in DRM'd formats, they get bought, stripped, and released to the darknets (or scanned & OCR'd & released to the darknets), and publishers think that would be more common if the digital form were less protected. As long as they think of every e-copy being one less print copy sold, they'll fight viciously to prevent unpaid digital copies.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are an idealist (and let us hope you turn out to be right!). A writer can have a relationship like that with his readers in a forum like this one. But to make a living you have to get the word out to a wide audience. You can publish yourself, but will enough people know about it? How many books will crowd the internet and how can readers choose? And with this emerging "everything on the internet is free" mentality I am afraid we will just wind up with ad-supported versions by the big corporations who in this way could very easily defeat the system you have in mind.

By the way, I was only talking about the "big bucks" because that was what seemed to anger member FormatC.

I am very much an idealist, yes Writing is a passion, its a vocation, its not a career, it's not something you can get a qualification in and then apply for a job. Writing is a way of life. To make a living from this would be amazing, but writers should not kid themselves any longer that money will be a reward for what they do. I believe writers should treat money as an afterthought, a surprise when it occurs, a miracle when they can support their life upon that same money. Saying that, I do believe more writers will make a living when they're freed from the corporations and publisher's teets. I believe that audiences aren't just consumers and when they're treated as equal in the creative relationship they will repay this with loyalty and possibly monetary rewards (although there are hundreds of ways to pay for a work, you could simply spread the name of the author around and that would be payment enough).

The question of who will read and how do we choose are interesting. Like everything, word of mouth is prime, especially within the social media rich internet. Some writers (as in traditional publishing) will gain an audience on the back of a gimmick or a timely idea -- Jane Austen & Zombies, and the Badalcacci debut novel come to mind. Some will have buzz created for them or a transferred buzz, as in traditional publishing - any kind of tie-in with a movie/video game/shared world. And others will have to work hard to gain their audience and keep them, whether they make money or not. Choice, well that's up to you and won't change much from now to then. You'll make decisions with the new model as you did with the old; individual taste, reccomendations, reviews, reading the work, interests etc. Only with the new model you'll be experience a lot of culture freely in the first instance, and payment will be your own choice afterward. You, as the audience, will gauge the worth of a cultural artifact, if any. (Christ, I wish I could have done that with the last four Stephen King novels).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I believe writers should treat money as an afterthought, a surprise when it occurs, a miracle when they can support their life upon that same money.

So you believe fledgling writers should devote a few hours a week to their craft, their art, and devote the majority of their waking hours to a career that doesn't capture their heart?

I like the idea of writing as a vocation rather than a job--but saying "the money doesn't matter" ignores the fact that money does indeed matter to their ability to continue writing. Money for rent and food and whatnot has to come from somewhere, and by saying "they shouldn't expect it to come from writing" you are also saying "writers should do something they like a lot less than writing to support themselves."

I'm not seeing the good in that approach. I understand it's the situation for most writers, but I don't agree that it's the ideal, that it's what they should strive for.

I don't write for a living. I barely write as a hobby. I have no idea if I could be A Great Novelist or A Great Nonfic Author, and I'm not likely to find out for another decade or two, maybe longer. I treat my writing as a vocation... and as a result, pretty much nobody gets to read it.

Are you better off thereby? Am I? Is my family? My friends on LJ think some of my writing is screamingly funny and should have a wider audience... it's not going to happen, because there's that 9-5 job thing in the way of developing both my craft and my publicity. (I suppose you could say, "if it were really your vocation, you would find time for it." I suppose that's true. If you agree that the majority of potential writers shouldn't bother to develop their skills, that's a reasonable answer.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But valid. The patent for the telephone was filed only 2 hours before another patent for the same device was filed...

US patent laws are probably more flawed than copyright.

In that example, assuming they came up with the idea independently (I don't know the details) why should the first one to the patent office be considered the "owner" of the invention? Why should the second guy to the patent office get screwed? They're just as much a creator of the invention as the first guy. If we're saying that a creator should "own" an idea, shouldn't they both own it?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Agreed, yes. But arguing it should be removed, without offering something to take its place, is part of what makes authors, artists & publishers so paranoid and unwilling to consider new business models.

I don't think that's really true for publishers. It's not that they want to see alternatives, it's that they know full well that the current deck is "stacked" in their favor and they want it that way. Current copyright is not about promoting the arts, it's about maximizing profit/control for the big companies. Any effort to change current copyright (whether you offer an alternative or not) is going to be met with strong resistance from publishers.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's pretty much what Format C said. In most cases, the author doesn't really have control anymore.



That's because Baen are "nice guys" in their dealings with artists. Many other companies are not.

There's a real and valid reason for that clause in publishing contracts. It's in the best interest of both author and publisher when the publisher sends out review copies or engages in other publicity and marketing activities. The clause is there to ensure that the publisher doesn't have to pay a royalty on copies that are not actually sold (but rather provided essentially as advertising). Similarly, it prevents the publisher from saying to the author "Sorry, we can't send your book to any reviewers because we'd have to pay you a royalty, but we won't get any revenue for that copy."

The authors protection is that the publisher is presumed to consider what will lead to the greatest level of sales (although one may often be puzzled about the choices publishers actually make), so the publisher is not likely to deprive the author of income by giving away far too many copies. Similarly, the publisher is required to pay royalties on copies they get paid for (and thus to not stiff the author there).

It's not a matter of "the author has no control," but rather that "the author has delegated control to either publisher or agent" with a reasonable expectation that the publisher or agent won't be too egregiously stupid -- if only to protect their own income potential.

Xenophon

P.S. I'd rather have my favorite authors writing more, and spending less time on things like marketing and worrying about paying the bills. Your mileage may vary.