Author explains why book piracy is not a victimless crime

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

If the plastic maker's company exists after her death and her children own the company they should make money from what the company makes and sells.  Not necessarily the patent.  

Mr. Abercrombie's point about giving producers time to produce after your death is a good one and does provide a reasonable rational for extending copyright for sometime after the creator's death.  That said this ability to create copyright for all eternity seems overblown in my opinion.

[TrackerNeil]

If a work is in the public domain, anyone can produce a version of it, which seems a lot more likely to keep the work alive. If the copyright is privately held...well, what if the inheritor dies without a will? Then the work is in limbo, not quite owned but not quite free, either. 

I suppose there are some distributors who refuse to produce a work unless they have sole rights, but personally I think their concerns should not outweigh public accessibility to art.

[sologdin]

patent will have expired in 18 years, usually, anyway?  and if the reasonable practitioners are smart, they will mine the specification in order to produce generic versions thereafter, and possibly develop new patents within its term in order to obsolesce it?  patent, i.e., is a world apart from copyright.

 

Quote

what if the inheritor dies without a will?

the law can accommodate this via intestate transfer of title through mere operation of law.  worst case is that it becomes titleless property, abandoned or fugitive, subject to claim by any person who reduces it to their intentional possession.

[JGP]

53 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the law can accommodate this via intestate transfer of title through mere operation of law.  worst case is that it becomes titleless property, abandoned or fugitive, subject to claim by any person who reduces it to their intentional possession.

Yep. And if there is no family remaining who could benefit, then possession doesn't matter anymore.

[C.T. Phipps]

4 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Why? I honestly do not understand why you seem to consider it self-explanatory: If I (invented plastic|wrote a book), then it is not my kids who did that: I did it, so I get rewarded for my work... I get the money, then of course I can redistribute it to my kids if I decide to do so, but this does not mean that my kids get their pocket money when I'm not here to give it.

I'm going by the assumption you actually would want them to maintain your cut from the invention versus you leaving your cut of the proceeds from the IP to, say, Doctors Without Borders ala Marion Barry. While a work should eventually pass into the public domain, the death of the author (no pun intended) benefits any corporation you're involved with versus a standing agreement.

To go with Superman rather than plastic as an actual example of IP, it's not so much Siegal and Shuster's children deserve a cut of the Superman pie so much as Siegal and Shuster deserved a cut of the pie which they should have been able to pass down to their kids.

FYI, under my suggestion, that would have been until 1988 when Superman would have become PD. So, it'd be enough for S&S and their kids but not necessarily their grandkids to have a permanent free ride. Albeit, with a cut of Superman's pie, I doubt they'd ever have to worry.

[C.T. Phipps]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

patent will have expired in 18 years, usually, anyway?  and if the reasonable practitioners are smart, they will mine the specification in order to produce generic versions thereafter, and possibly develop new patents within its term in order to obsolesce it?  patent, i.e., is a world apart from copyright.

the law can accommodate this via intestate transfer of title through mere operation of law.  worst case is that it becomes titleless property, abandoned or fugitive, subject to claim by any person who reduces it to their intentional possession.

See: Lovecraft and Howard.

[TrackerNeil]

7 hours ago, sologdin said:

the law can accommodate this via intestate transfer of title through mere operation of law.  worst case is that it becomes titleless property, abandoned or fugitive, subject to claim by any person who reduces it to their intentional possession.

Sounds like that could get messy. To me, far easier to just say that the protection lasts for the life of the creator or X years, whichever is longer. After that, it goes into the public domain.

[JGP]

46 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Sounds like that could get messy. To me, far easier to just say that the protection lasts for the life of the creator or X years, whichever is longer. After that, it goes into the public domain.

If you're ok with that, sure. But for me, being one not alright with that, it's removing my choice. 

And it's not as messy as you'd think. It could get complicated, certainly, after a couple of generations. Say I were to write something successful or have a notable career, were it up to me I'd transfer ownership to a Trust under direction that immediate family and their descendants are beneficiaries of equal standing, excepting under 30s. In their case it would be discretionary.  

Take the complicated right out of it.    

[Astromech]

17 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

If you're ok with that, sure. But for me, being one not alright with that, it's removing my choice. 

And it's not as messy as you'd think. It could get complicated, certainly, after a couple of generations. Say I were to write something successful or have a notable career, were it up to me I'd transfer ownership to a Trust under direction that immediate family and their descendants are beneficiaries of equal standing, excepting under 30s. In their case it would be discretionary.  

Take the complicated right out of it.    

Yes, set up a literary trust with a literary executor who has expertise in these areas and specify their duties and powers. It's your property, you should determine what happens with it after death. I'm not necessarily in favor of perpetual copyrights, but it's the copyright holder's and therefore part of the estate after death until the law determines it lapses.

[Darth Richard II]

Well you've all completely lost me with your legal doublespeak.

[Errant Bard]

12 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

I find it strange when someone espouses an opinion that intellectual property should be deemed different somehow to other types of property. 

I buy some land, build a house, pay it off and leave it to my children-- so long as they maintain upkeep and pay their property taxes, it's theirs in perpetuity to do with as they will. 

I write a book [say for the sake of the argument say it's wildly successful] and while others will share in my success [publisher, agent, etc] the [intellectual] property is mine. Unless they were to sell their rights, why shouldn't the potential benefit stay with my children and children's children?

I really don't understand why there's so much resistance to the idea. 

Because IP is not actually property. It's a great trick to have included "property" in that term, but you do not own anything tangible. In my language, IP is actually called "Author's Rights", entirely different spin given by the expression compared to "IP" yet it designates the same concept.

The very existence of Public Domain shows that your stance is problematic for most: actual tangible property does not become public after a time.

In the end IP is a social construct that did not always exist (it's actually a modern invention of capitalism, I think), and we should stop and think about its purpose: as I said, originally it was created to protect creators and promote innovation: why, in a capitalistic world (enlightenment creators would create for the sake of humanity, but were generally independently wealthy) would anyone create if he could not live off its creations? This being said, what is then the purpose of extending copy rights to people who did not create anything? All I see here are negatives: this hurts actual creators (who would create their own original thing but cannot get funding because parasites are taking a market shares with an IP they have had no hand in creating), and this hurts society as a whole (as old stuff is promoted, choking innovation).

 

7 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I'm going by the assumption you actually would want them to maintain your cut from the invention versus you leaving your cut of the proceeds from the IP to, say, Doctors Without Borders ala Marion Barry. While a work should eventually pass into the public domain, the death of the author (no pun intended) benefits any corporation you're involved with versus a standing agreement.

To go with Superman rather than plastic as an actual example of IP, it's not so much Siegal and Shuster's children deserve a cut of the Superman pie so much as Siegal and Shuster deserved a cut of the pie which they should have been able to pass down to their kids.

FYI, under my suggestion, that would have been until 1988 when Superman would have become PD. So, it'd be enough for S&S and their kids but not necessarily their grandkids to have a permanent free ride. Albeit, with a cut of Superman's pie, I doubt they'd ever have to worry.

See, the problem I have is exactly defined by your words: nobody should have a "free ride". Not your children, nor a random corporation, not even yourself: you get to have a just reward for your work, and that should be the end of it.

Why should someone receive a salary for a job they did not do?

 

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

EB,

If the plastic maker's company exists after her death and her children own the company they should make money from what the company makes and sells.  Not necessarily the patent.  

This is the limit of the analogy, but to me, the plastic maker company is the author's brain: it is not inheritable. If you posit that the legal exclusive rights are bound to the idea, not the physical objects, then the product is the idea, and you cannot inherit a product that has already been sold.

Quote

Mr. Abercrombie's point about giving producers time to produce after your death is a good one and does provide a reasonable rational for extending copyright for sometime after the creator's death.  That said this ability to create copyright for all eternity seems overblown in my opinion.

It's easy enough to put a time limit starting from the idea's first production, without any link to the author's lifespan: this would entice producers to produce quickly, and creators to continue creating without resting on long-withered laurels.

[C.T. Phipps]

Quote

See, the problem I have is exactly defined by your words: nobody should have a "free ride". Not your children, nor a random corporation, not even yourself: you get to have a just reward for your work, and that should be the end of it.Why should someone receive a salary for a job they did not do?

Well, that becomes a question of politics then. If we can eventually eliminate poverty and make it so everything is done by robots so everyone gets a free ride, let alone the fact people should be allowed to help their families out of love, we should absolutely do it. Otherwise, we end up like Black Mirror's second episode where everyone is cycling just because the government doesn't want you to have something for nothing.

My father wanted to make sure I never had to worry about anything and I've done everything I can to make sure the same is for my nieces and nephews.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

IP is bad for people who create???

How is it "bad" to create a legal framework that allows and encourages people to create and to get paid for their creation.  Thank yous and plaudits are wonderful but they will not keep food in the cupboard or a roof over your family's head.  The only people who benefit from the complete elimination of IP are those who want to copy the product of someone else's time and intellect without compensating the creator.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Because IP is not actually property. It's a great trick to have included "property" in that term, but you do not own anything tangible. In my language, IP is actually called "Author's Rights", entirely different spin given by the expression compared to "IP" yet it designates the same concept.

And isn't the very notion of property something governments invent anyway? It's not as if property is a law of nature like gravity or relativity; it's just something we as a society decided to invent and enforce. It seems to me that we should therefore enforce intellectual property rights in the way that is most beneficial to the majority of people.

I think, also, that IP is different from a piece of land or a house, and should be treated as such. Only so many people can enjoy 200 square feet of grass, but there is no limit to how many can enjoy The Handmaid's Tale or Fahrenheit 451. There's more public good in ensuring that IP passes into the public domain than there is in guaranteeing that, someday, that piece of land is something everyone can use.

[JGP]

11 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Because IP is not actually property. It's a great trick to have included "property" in that term, but you do not own anything tangible. In my language, IP is actually called "Author's Rights", entirely different spin given by the expression compared to "IP" yet it designates the same concept.

The very existence of Public Domain shows that your stance is problematic for most: actual tangible property does not become public after a time.

In the end IP is a social construct that did not always exist (it's actually a modern invention of capitalism, I think), and we should stop and think about its purpose: as I said, originally it was created to protect creators and promote innovation: why, in a capitalistic world (enlightenment creators would create for the sake of humanity, but were generally independently wealthy) would anyone create if he could not live off its creations? This being said, what is then the purpose of extending copy rights to people who did not create anything? All I see here are negatives: this hurts actual creators (who would create their own original thing but cannot get funding because parasites are taking a market shares with an IP they have had no hand in creating), and this hurts society as a whole (as old stuff is promoted, choking innovation).

 

 

Your language, my language-- we're both speaking english, Errant. Semantics aside, in my opinion, IP laws are as antiquated as the minds that drafted them. Admittedly, I have few qualms about limiting the corporate clutch of IP [patents and the like] but my philosophy definitely favors the creator and creator's determination. Would that it were so.

Keeping in mind that my position is grounded in having been a professional illustrator and am now an aspiring writer, I really don't see how my scenario hurts society. To clarify, I can see how you think it could, but see no case in which it actually does, or would.   

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

 

Your language, my language-- we're both speaking english, Errant.

 

 

I imagine, when he says 'my language', he means his first/home language, and not the language he's talking to you right now in.

It's the same in Polish. IP is 'Prawa Autorskie', which translates more literally to author's rights.

[Errant Bard]

20 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Well, that becomes a question of politics then. If we can eventually eliminate poverty and make it so everything is done by robots so everyone gets a free ride, let alone the fact people should be allowed to help their families out of love, we should absolutely do it. Otherwise, we end up like Black Mirror's second episode where everyone is cycling just because the government doesn't want you to have something for nothing.

My father wanted to make sure I never had to worry about anything and I've done everything I can to make sure the same is for my nieces and nephews.

I am a bit surprised by your remark: Aren't laws always a question of politics? Whether they allow heirs to enjoy free rides or they make works go into public domain.

I have no doubt that parents may want to help their progeny to get ahead in life out of love, but to me their motivations are entirely disctinct from the ways they choose to do that -and some of those ways are not just on a bigger scale-. Your Black Mirror analogy feels like the setup of a false dichotomy: pushing a work into public domain instead of keeping it private property is precisely the opposite of making everyone cycle: it's allowing the whole society to sit back and read that work instead of cycling to get it... Yeah, your heir will not benefit from your nepotism and will be forced to earn his share (and what's bad about that? He will be able to read a lot of stuff that went into public domain from other authors, too, so it's not as if he won't have benefits too.), but it's the whole humanity that benefits from it.

 

19 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

EB,

IP is bad for people who create???

How is it "bad" to create a legal framework that allows and encourages people to create and to get paid for their creation.  Thank yous and plaudits are wonderful but they will not keep food in the cupboard or a roof over your family's head.  The only people who benefit from the complete elimination of IP are those who want to copy the product of someone else's time and intellect without compensating the creator.

I was not clear, probably: I never argued for the elimination of IP, my point was about inheritance and time limits. IP is made to support people who create, it's a good concept, if it does not get out of hands, it has to exist, it should absolutely not be eliminated.

In my response to you, you will notice that in the lastic maker company analogy, I linked a creator's brain to the plastic factory: I meant that the creator can produce ideas and sell them, protected by laws against copy (really, people who sell loobootin shoes from china are as much legit as people who copy books), but once he is gone, the company is gone too, and heirs may inherit the creator's fortune, but not the brain/factory. The analogy is necessarily flawed as tangible good are vastly different from ideas in about all aspects, but on the production and inheritance front, it works more or less, I think.

20 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

And isn't the very notion of property something governments invent anyway? It's not as if property is a law of nature like gravity or relativity; it's just something we as a society decided to invent and enforce. It seems to me that we should therefore enforce intellectual property rights in the way that is most beneficial to the majority of people.

I think, also, that IP is different from a piece of land or a house, and should be treated as such. Only so many people can enjoy 200 square feet of grass, but there is no limit to how many can enjoy The Handmaid's Tale or Fahrenheit 451. There's more public good in ensuring that IP passes into the public domain than there is in guaranteeing that, someday, that piece of land is something everyone can use.

Whatever may be our disagreements on other facets of copy right law, I wholeheartedly agree with this.

14 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

 

Your language, my language-- we're both speaking english, Errant. Semantics aside, in my opinion, IP laws are as antiquated as the minds that drafted them. Admittedly, I have few qualms about limiting the corporate clutch of IP [patents and the like] but my philosophy definitely favors the creator and creator's determination. Would that it were so.

Keeping in mind that my position is grounded in having been a professional illustrator and am now an aspiring writer, I really don't see how my scenario hurts society. To clarify, I can see how you think it could, but see no case in which it actually does, or would.   

Native language I mean: I am not from the US, or the UK, or any english-speaking country for that matters, sorry I was not clear.

I don't understand how you can think that blocking poor people (the number of them rising lately) from accessing cultural assets for free just so one guy can get money he only earned by virtue of being born in the right family isn't bad for society, likewise.

If you are focusing on the idea of the shorter and hard deadline, well, heh, I don't understand how it's a favour to the creator to give him life-long free ride instead of an incentive to produce new stuff again (taking into account the time needed for artistic production of course). Maybe it's a favour to the person, who can coast along in life (I suspect it's the 1% of creators or less who can do that though, so the argument is not really pertinent to real life anyway, but it certainly would target a much bigger percentage of corporations), but it kills the creator (again, no I'm not asking for them to struggle, but to set a reasonable time limit, that would anyway match with the end of exploitation of a standard work, but would allow investment in new stuff from corporation instead of reusing again and again the same big old Mickey Mouse or Superman)

[red snow]

Just watching Formula one and thought it'd be an interesting paralog to the downloads vs sales debate. In the UK 2.15 million watched the highlights while only a million watched the full exclusive coverage on the sky sports pay channel. When live races are on both channels simultaneously it's 1.9 million vs 0.8 million. In a sport at least it suggests that people will watch if free and not at all if it costs them.

I think this tends to be true of a lot of sports programming. Obviously it gets muddier if you ask "how many people would pay if they didn't have access to illegal streams/downloads" but I do think it's optimisitic to think every download equals a lost sale. There's no argument that there's still lost revenue especially in book sales where publishers are happy with something selling 10s of thousands as opposed to TV that deals with millions. Again I suspect authors are in the most susceptible medium as they don't exactly get money for advertising just book sales and if they are lucky the occasional film/tv deal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Red Snow,

I think this tends to be true of a lot of sports programming. Obviously it gets muddier if you ask "how many people would pay if they didn't have access to illegal streams/downloads" but I do think it's optimisitic to think every download equals a lost sale. There's no argument that there's still lost revenue especially in book sales where publishers are happy with something selling 10s of thousands as opposed to TV that deals with millions. Again I suspect authors are in the most susceptible medium as they don't exactly get money for advertising just book sales and if they are lucky the occasional film/tv deal.

 

Which is why I get frustrated with the "you can't prove it 'nah nah nah nah nahnah'" we get from anti-copyright folks when we can show huge numbers of downloads and they claim such downloads are harmless.  It's obvious some of those downloads are lost sales.

[Seli]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Red Snow,

 

 

 

Which is why I get frustrated with the "you can't prove it 'nah nah nah nah nahnah'" we get from anti-copyright folks when we can show huge numbers of downloads and they claim such downloads are harmless.  It's obvious some of those downloads are lost sales.

That is because there are two interconnected issues. The actual losses in income to the actual downloads for any author is probably low. While the actual threat to livelihood to the authors from a culture that doesn't consider anything worth paying for is high.