EU Piracy Report

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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?

Why do I have to pay over $7,000 per year to keep my house and land? Or $750 per year to keep my car? Both of those are property taxes that I have to pay every year, or risk losing my property. If I die, and leave the house and car to my child, she will have to pay as well. The amount of tax I owe goes up every year. If copyright is *indeed* property, why shouldn't copyright owners have to pay to keep it?

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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?

One, it is not property, it is a time limited monopoly.

If it were property, it could be taxed. Copyright would have no reason to be exempt. And you would have to register it somewhere, and provide documentation of ownership.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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?

Define "benefit".

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

Why do I have to pay over $7,000 per year to keep my house and land? Or $750 per year to keep my car? Both of those are property taxes that I have to pay every year, or risk losing my property. If I die, and leave the house and car to my child, she will have to pay as well. The amount of tax I owe goes up every year. If copyright is *indeed* property, why shouldn't copyright owners have to pay to keep it?

Shari

Oh so we should pay $20 a year on something we created to sell? Otherwise, some other person can just take it over and profit from it.
You don't make money off your house or your car.

Ok, on the property taxes, if you don't pay them, can anyone just move into your house?

If you drive without registration can the cop just take your car? No, you get a ticket. That registration is for driving on roads.

Whoa. $750 a year for your car? Are you counting insurance or is that just inspection and registration?
Though thank you for making me realize that $100 a vehicle is cheap.

I noticed you didn't answer the second question.
You need shelter and transportation.
I can't think of ONE book that is absolutely a must for everyone.

Ok so "How to use a bidet" goes out of print, I am almost positive there is another book covering the same topic.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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

She is not paying $20/yr to keep her property. Her property is the intellectual work. The copyright is not property, it is a legislated right of advantage granted to her by "the many" (to borrow Hitch's terminology) through their elected (or otherwise, if not a democracy) representatives.

In the wider world it is usual that the granters of rights, of whatever sort, have some rights on their side of the agreement too and both the granter and the receiver of the right usually overtly acknowledge and respect that. As houses have been mentioned I will use those as one example. I may grant a right to a tenant to live unmolested in my house but I have the right that the house be protected by the tenant.

However, it seems to me that most authors do not see the world that way at all, and feel no responsibility whatsoever to the granters ("the many") of the right. Hence, perhaps, the concept of their regarding copyright as their own "property". In fact I find it very hard to think of one thing that authors widely recognize as being a right of "the many" and posts in this thread demonstrate the grasping and exaggerated sense of worth many authors have for themselves and their work. That said, I do know of copyright holders of important works who, after some years, have made their work downloadable free in eBook form for individual use.

Authors would, of course, come to a realization if "the many", through their elected representatives, decided to remove all copyright protection until the rights holders conceded that other people have rights too. What the rights of "the many" might be are a matter of opinion, but one might be the right to receive a payment as shalym has suggested. Whether the payment is regarded as a contribution to "the many" for their granting of the right (payment being into the Government's consolidated fund), or, for example, as a disincentive to sit on a previously published but no longer printed work does not matter.

One may not agree with that specific suggestion in which case one has to either suggest alternatives, such as shorter term of copyright, or at least agree that there should be some rights of "the many". Else one has to take the stand that "the many" who granted the right to authors in the first place have no rights at all.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh so we should pay $20 a year on something we created to sell? Otherwise, some other person can just take it over and profit from it.
You don't make money off your house or your car.

Ok, on the property taxes, if you don't pay them, can anyone just move into your house?

If you drive without registration can the cop just take your car? No, you get a ticket. That registration is for driving on roads.

Whoa. $750 a year for your car? Are you counting insurance or is that just inspection and registration?
Though thank you for making me realize that $100 a vehicle is cheap.

I noticed you didn't answer the second question.
You need shelter and transportation.
I can't think of ONE book that is absolutely a must for everyone.

Ok so "How to use a bidet" goes out of print, I am almost positive there is another book covering the same topic.

If I did make money with my house or my car, I would have to pay income tax on that.

If I don't pay my property tax, then the town/state can foreclose and sell them to anyone they want.

The $750 per year is ONLY for property tax--insurance and registration are an added expense.

As to your second question, the only things that there are in the world that are essential to everyone is water, food, and oxygen. Anything else is a want. So no...there is no book that is "absolutely a must for everyone". So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

She is not paying $20/yr to keep her property. Her property is the intellectual work. The copyright is not property, it is a legislated right of advantage granted to her by "the many" (to borrow Hitch's terminology) through their elected (or otherwise, if not a democracy) representatives.

In the wider world it is usual that the granters of rights, of whatever sort, have some rights on their side of the agreement too and both the granter and the receiver of the right usually overtly acknowledge and respect that. As houses have been mentioned I will use those as one example. I may grant a right to a tenant to live unmolested in my house but I have the right that the house be protected by the tenant.

However, it seems to me that most authors do not see the world that way at all, and feel no responsibility whatsoever to the granters ("the many") of the right. Hence, perhaps, the concept of their regarding copyright as their own "property". In fact I find it very hard to think of one thing that authors widely recognize as being a right of "the many" and posts in this thread demonstrate the grasping and exaggerated sense of worth many authors have for themselves and their work. That said, I do know of copyright holders of important works who, after some years, have made their work downloadable free in eBook form for individual use.

Authors would, of course, come to a realization if "the many", through their elected representatives, decided to remove all copyright protection until the rights holders conceded that other people have rights too. What the rights of "the many" might be are a matter of opinion, but one might be the right to receive a payment as shalym has suggested. Whether the payment is regarded as a contribution to "the many" for their granting of the right (payment being into the Government's consolidated fund), or, for example, as a disincentive to sit on a previously published but no longer printed work does not matter.

One may not agree with that specific suggestion in which case one has to either suggest alternatives, such as shorter term of copyright, or at least agree that there should be some rights of "the many". Else one has to take the stand that "the many" who granted the right to authors in the first place have no rights at all.

Hmmm. Let's see I decide to write the ultimate guide to life.
Did the many tell me to write it? Now if I decide to publish it, I am guaranteed the right that no one else will copy it for profit for my entire life and probably almost the entire life of my grandson. If I want to actually protect this right, I do need to give our government $60.
Why would I need to pay more if I suddenly decide to pull it off the shelf?
Do you or Ralph or Shari have any rights to profit off of my hard work?
Maybe, I pulled it because the many were not buying it. Maybe I pulled it for financial reasons.
Now if for some reason in 100 years or so, Shari's descendants decide the advice is still relevant than they are more than welcome to it.
But as long as me or my descendants have the right to decide than the many don't have the right to profit off my work.

You want authors to make their works available no matter what, well then would you do your job for no pay?

You don't think authors should get paid for their work after a certain time. Would you work 40 hours a week but only get paid for 30? Same difference.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Hmmm. Let's see I decide to write the ultimate guide to life.
Did the many tell me to write it? Now if I decide to publish it, I am guaranteed the right that no one else will copy it for profit for my entire life and probably almost the entire life of my grandson. If I want to actually protect this right, I do need to give our government $60.
Why would I need to pay more if I suddenly decide to pull it off the shelf?
Do you or Ralph or Shari have any rights to profit off of my hard work?
Maybe, I pulled it because the many were not buying it. Maybe I pulled it for financial reasons.
Now if for some reason in 100 years or so, Shari's descendants decide the advice is still relevant than they are more than welcome to it.
But as long as me or my descendants have the right to decide than the many don't have the right to profit off my work.

You want authors to make their works available no matter what, well then would you do your job for no pay?

You don't think authors should get paid for their work after a certain time. Would you work 40 hours a week but only get paid for 30? Same difference.

I don't understand why you think anyone would have to pay more to "pull something off of the shelf"? (I assume that means you want to unpublish it, right?)

I never said that I wanted anything for free, or that I wanted to steal anything from an author. PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth.

The difference is that if your book is a marvelous bestseller (think Mark Twain's books or Jane Austen) your descendents could still have exclusive rights to produce/sell the book for as long as they want...all they have to do is pay $20 per year. If the book isn't making any more money, then nobody has to pay any money for it, they just stop selling it and paying the $20 per year and let the rights revert. If you create something, and decide that you don't want anyone to have access to it, then you can either *never publish it* or pay $20 per year so that nobody has the right to publish it ever. (or both, if you're really paranoid)

By the way...you do know that even after a book is in the public domain, it can still be sold, right? There are quite a few publishers making good money selling public domain books.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

I don't understand why you think anyone would have to pay more to "pull something off of the shelf"? (I assume that means you want to unpublish it, right?)

I never said that I wanted anything for free, or that I wanted to steal anything from an author. PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth.

The difference is that if your book is a marvelous bestseller (think Mark Twain's books or Jane Austen) your descendents could still have exclusive rights to produce/sell the book for as long as they want...all they have to do is pay $20 per year. If the book isn't making any more money, then nobody has to pay any money for it, they just stop selling it and paying the $20 per year and let the rights revert. If you create something, and decide that you don't want anyone to have access to it, then you can either *never publish it* or pay $20 per year so that nobody has the right to publish it ever. (or both, if you're really paranoid)

By the way...you do know that even after a book is in the public domain, it can still be sold, right? There are quite a few publishers making good money selling public domain books.

Shari

Rights revert to who? Note: I said others profiting that means selling.
Ok. We may be having a word problem. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Here is how I read your post:
If the author/author's family doesn't want to make their out of print book as an ebook, they should either pay a fee or let others publish it and make a profit of the author's hard work because the work is more important than the one that did the original work's wishes.

Tell me this: why should you or anyone else be entitled to make money off my work while I am still alive?
What if your boss suddenly decided that you do the work but he will pay me? Would you do it?
That is how I read your post. Others should profit from the author but the author if they don't want it in print should get nothing.


Profit means make money.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

...Now if I decide to publish it, I am guaranteed the right that no one else will copy it for profit...

Actually no one other than the rights holder has the right to copy for almost any reason at all, and that for a very long period of time. If that were not so then the illicit downloading, and hence sharing, on torrent sharing sites, for example, would not be legislated against as those sharing make no profit nor even any revenue.

That said, in my own country the legislation is structured so that there is a financial and procedural disincentive for copyright holders to take action against casual downloaders of illicit works. Intended or not, the legislation here results in giving an "informal right" for "the many" should they choose to download.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Dutchbook

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

Wasn't Roman Law enacted by Roman Government?
Apache

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Actually no one other than the rights holder has the right to copy for almost any reason at all, and that for a very long period of time. If that were not so then the illicit downloading, and hence sharing, on torrent sharing sites, for example, would not be legislated against as those sharing make no profit nor even any revenue.

That said, in my own country the legislation is structured so that there is a financial and procedural disincentive for copyright holders to take action against casual downloaders of illicit works. Intended or not, the legislation here results in giving an "informal right" for "the many" should they choose to download.

Unfortunately, I think that is the case in most places. Either by legislation or legal costs.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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

Originally Posted by Dutchbook

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 invoke

Your statement implies Roman law had nothing to do with government.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Rights revert to who? Note: I said others profiting that means selling.
Ok. We may be having a word problem. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Here is how I read your post:
If the author/author's family doesn't want to make their out of print book as an ebook, they should either pay a fee or let others publish it and make a profit of the author's hard work because the work is more important than the one that did the original work's wishes.

Tell me this: why should you or anyone else be entitled to make money off my work while I am still alive?
What if your boss suddenly decided that you do the work but he will pay me? Would you do it?
That is how I read your post. Others should profit from the author but the author if they don't want it in print should get nothing.


Profit means make money.

NO...I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that if someone wants to keep control of their work in any way, then yes...why shouldn't they have to pay a very nominal fee to keep control of it. I have to pay a (not nominal) fee to keep control of my property. Nobody is "entitled" to make money off of your work--I'm not saying that in any way, shape, or form. I actually said that if you don't want to publish it, you shouldn't have to, as long as you do *something* to acknowledge that you want to keep it. I would even go so far as to say that as long as the creator is alive, no fee would be needed.

What about authors who die with no heirs? Or heirs that just don't care about their works? In that case, the work would revert back to the public domain. If the heirs wanted to keep control, they would have to pay the fee. Again...this would enable the heirs of classic works to keep control for far longer than they currently can.

I'm not saying that ANYONE but the author (or heirs) should be able to profit from the work...as long as the author (or the heirs) cares enough to keep the work.

Shari

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by shalym

What I'm saying is that if someone wants to keep control of their work in any way, then yes...why shouldn't they have to pay a very nominal fee to keep control of it.

I am all for this.

Maybe there is a shortcut, but I think this requires reconvening of the Berne Convention (1886). A wonderful dream: Peace and prosperity become so well established that concern about old books becomes a significant international issue.