A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[The Straven]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It's my opinion. I don't believe in different rules for different types of property.

A reply gracious in its forthrightness. Kudos to you.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Those same Founding Fathers were also slave owners.

Ad hominem, I believe. Half a kudos deducted; overall credit: 1/2 kudos.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't see a difference between tangible property and intellectual property.

Umm, you are kidding right?

Lets say I have a watch. If give you the watch; I no longer have it.

Now, lets say I have an idea. I tell you the idea; I still have the idea.

Normal property laws are there to protect something that exists in a limited sense. There is only so much land, or goods that exist at a given point in time. Property rights are designed to protect markets (i.e., you get to keep exclusive use of your book, your patent, etc. so you can make a decent profit on it before anyone else has a chance to).

--
Bill

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Straven

Ad hominem, I believe. Half a kudos deducted; overall credit: 1/2 kudos.

Any chance I can swap that for half a banana?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Now, lets say I have an idea. I tell you the idea; I still have the idea.

An idea isn't property. Creating something with it is.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

An idea isn't property. Creating something with it is.

And if I copy your book, you still have your book. Therefore, the distinction exists.

[anamardoll]

Isn't it interesting, though, that one really does not own copies of one's likeness? Good luck trying to get most social sharing websites to take down a picture of you that was taken without your permission, in a non-public place, that may or may not damage your reputation or career.

Throwing that out there.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We are talking about access to books. You can easily access them legally just by paying for them.

I can legally access a great multitude of books without paying for them.

Why is "picking up a book someone left at the mailboxes in my apartment and chopping and scanning it" a reasonable action, but "reading a book I downloaded" is "slave labor from content creators for my personal pleasure?"

In either case, the author gets no money. In the case of the download, the author might get another reader; the book I chopped-and-scanned is a dead end for the creator.

[wodin]

What is it about “art” that makes it different than any other human endeavor? I work, I receive the rewards for that work in the form of a salary, I use that salary to accumulate stuff, I die, and my heirs inherited my stuff. Since I’m dead, I get no more salary. Neither do my heirs!

Why does an artist continue to receive a salary after he/she’s dead? Why do his/her heirs get to continue to receive a salary when mine do not? It seems to me that the heirs should be entitled to the stuff already accumulated, but not to accumulate more stuff.

[QuantumIguana]

The money that someone makes from a sale of a book is not a salary. Copyright ending at the author's death is a major disincentive to continue writing. Copyright is a deal where the author gets a limited time exclusive right to copy a work. It gives the author incentive to create, and in exchange, the work eventually enters the public domain.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by wodin

What is it about “art” that makes it different than any other human endeavor? I work, I receive the rewards for that work in the form of a salary, I use that salary to accumulate stuff, I die, and my heirs inherited my stuff. Since I’m dead, I get no more salary. Neither do my heirs!

Why does an artist continue to receive a salary after he/she’s dead? Why do his/her heirs get to continue to receive a salary when mine do not? It seems to me that the heirs should be entitled to the stuff already accumulated, but not to accumulate more stuff.

Actually, I think you are being a little unfair here. I agree that copyright terms should be limited. But it is clear that there are certain human endeavors that continue to pay off for the family of the individual who did the work.

Consider the following:

I buy a piece of cheap land, be it swamp, forest or whatever. I then spend years working to improve that land and plant a vineyard. My family can then, with far less effort maintain the vineyard and reap profits from the grapes produced long after I am gone.

Likewise, if I build a business, my heirs can continue to profit from that business; Bill Ford is not Chairman of the Ford Motor Company Board because the Board thinks it is neat that he has the same last name as the company founder.

--
Bill

[wodin]

How is this:

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The money that someone makes from a sale of a book is not a salary. Copyright ending at the author's death is a major disincentive to continue writing.

related to this?

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Copyright is a deal where the author gets a limited time exclusive right to copy a work. It gives the author incentive to create, and in exchange, the work eventually enters the public domain.

And whether or not it is a “disincentive to continue writing” is entirely dependent on the author’s motivation. My experience is that artists’ motivations are more dependent on their art than their heirs.

And by the way, if "salary" can be defined as a reward for my labor, then "The money that someone makes from a sale of a book" most certainly is, just as the profit from a business is. Heirs inherit the business, and receive any profit they make from their own labor in that business.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by wodin

And whether or not it is a “disincentive to continue writing” is entirely dependent on the author’s motivation. My experience is that artists’ motivations are more dependent on their art than their heirs.

That depends on the author, and what they are writing. And besides, there is writing and then there is publishing. I have referenced him before, and I will again. Salinger appears to have wrote 15 novels in the last 40 years of his life and published exactly none of them because his existing work provided him enough to live off of.

Other authors, even serious authors, have written books purely to cover the expenses of living. Sometimes these works are throw aways while they pursue their more serious work, other times it is the serious work and finally sometimes work that was meant to earn quick buck out lives the more "serious" work.

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

A salary is what an employer pays you for work. If I sell you a book, that is income, but not salary. A technical writer will get paid a salary for writing, they don't make their living by selling their writing. Someone who writes books to sell isn't paid for writing them, but makes income when the book sells. Salary ends when the work ends, but selling doesn't.

Money is a part of most people's motivations, artists included. People who have heirs tend not to care what happens to them. The artist who claims not to care about such things probably doesn't have anyone buying their products.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

An idea isn't property. Creating something with it is.

But you've said that you recognise no distinction between physical and intellectual property. An idea is intellectual property, and is a protected intellectual property if patented.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But you've said that your recognise no distinction between physical and intellectual property. An idea is intellectual property, and is a protected intellectual property if patented.

And we all know the havoc that that idea has caused… no? Just ask Apple and Samsung!

Oh well, I guess lawyers have to make a living too.