The Marquis de Leech Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Okay, those are strong words. With what would you replace copyright to allow for authors to have a right to control the distribution of their work? I said *modern* copyright - death of the author plus 50/70 years (and likely to be expanded via Disney). Recall that when the Statute of Anne created the concept, it was a mere 7 years, with a one-time non-automatic right of renewal. Myself, I'd set it as death of the author or 20 years, whichever is longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I'd say 50 years rather than death of an author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: I said *modern* copyright - death of the author plus 50/70 years (and likely to be expanded via Disney). Recall that when the Statute of Anne created the concept, it was a mere 7 years, with a one-time non-automatic right of renewal. Myself, I'd set it as death of the author or 20 years, whichever is longer. 1 minute ago, C.T. Phipps said: I'd say 50 years rather than death of an author. I could live with either of those. The eternal copyright does need to end. This doesn't mean I in any way condone, support, or excuse copyright infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 maybe text-based rather than author-based? authors can alienate their rights under the statute, after all--which makes the author's life irrelevant to having the exclusive right to protect the author's incentive. and why not just make a corporate person the author and have it truly be immortal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 48 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: I said *modern* copyright - death of the author plus 50/70 years (and likely to be expanded via Disney). Recall that when the Statute of Anne created the concept, it was a mere 7 years, with a one-time non-automatic right of renewal. Myself, I'd set it as death of the author or 20 years, whichever is longer. Yeah, that's ridiculous. Nothing seems to move into the public domain anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said: As Ser Scot mentioned, I put a donate button on my web site for those who had illegally downloaded my books--the only place they are popular is on torrent sites--and to date I have collected $0.00. That's pretty interesting. I mean, I wouldn't have expected much, but exactly zero is also strange. I can think of two explanations of why this might be the case. First, people are somehow not associating your button with the downloaded file. That is, either the file is part of a bundle that includes a more popular work (i.e. people download your book, but they don't actually read it) or people read your book, but never see your site (one has to really care about a book to bother visiting an authors site -- I buy my e-books and even then the only authors whose sites I've visited in recent memory are George R.R. Martin and Daniel Abraham). Second, depending on how you've phrased the donation request and the options for donating, people might view it as a trap. That is, if you say "Donate here if you've illegally downloaded my books" and the only way to pay is by credit card, then donating effectively acknowledges an illegal action and ties it to an identity via the credit card information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Or people could just be worthless thieves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 It's possible, but it's not likely for large numbers of people. I could believe it if about 10 people who downloaded and read the book and then saw the button decided that they don't feel like paying (for reasons unrelated to admitting wrong doing and tying it to an identity). If there were 100 people, it's not very plausible anymore that not a single one of them would refuse to give even a dollar. With 1000 people, you'd have to be somehow selecting that sort of person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 it's not thieving you hastily generalizing legal laypersons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 41 minutes ago, sologdin said: it's not thieving you hastily generalizing legal laypersons! It's not stealing (or the strick definition of "stealing" even if the SCOTUS has called it stealing in dicta), but it's not legal either and the authors are being deprived of the their right to control the copying of their work regardless of whether or not the downloader was going to buy their work or not. A shoplifter who wasn't going to buy something anyway has still damaged the store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 i hear you. best to stick with 'infringement,' as larceny is asportation with intent to permanently deprive thereby. infringement by unlawful copying has neither component. 'piracy' is just assy industry public relations propaganda, as though unlawful downloading had anything in common with robbery & murder on the high seas--one of the few incontrovertible examples of hostis humani generis. it's fucking outrageous and disqualifies the opinion of anyone who uses the term without irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 4 hours ago, TrackerNeil said: Yeah, that's ridiculous. Nothing seems to move into the public domain anymore. Why should it? You know, the only people I ever see whining about the evils of copyright are people who don't create anything. Fuck those guys, especially the ones who say that copyright, in all it's forms, should be completely abolished. Intellectual property law is vital to so many aspects of our lives today. Without it, we'd be on a fast track back to the dark ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Why should it? You know, the only people I ever see whining about the evils of copyright are people who don't create anything. Fuck those guys, especially the ones who say that copyright, in all it's forms, should be completely abolished. Intellectual property law is vital to so many aspects of our lives today. Without it, we'd be on a fast track back to the dark ages. I think the life of the creator of the work copyrighted is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I think the life of the creator of the work copyrighted is reasonable. What about the author's children? Should they not be able to benefit financially from their parent's legacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, Spockydog said: What about the author's children? Should they not be able to benefit financially from their parent's legacy? They didn't write the work and presumably can inheret the money made while the copyright was valid. Why should they benefit, directly, from something they did not create? I'm willing to make an exception if the children are not in their majority when the creator dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: They didn't write the work and presumably can inheret the money made while the copyright was valid. Why should they benefit, directly, from something they did not create? I'm willing to make an exception if the children are not in their majority when the creator dies. What's the difference between an author creating a fictitious world and characters, and a dude building a business from scratch and leaving it to his kids when he dies? Or should anyone be allowed to come in and plunder the business and its assets upon the death of the owner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Spockydog said: What's the difference between an author creating a fictitious world and characters, and a dude building a business from scratch and leaving it to his kids when he dies? Or should anyone be allowed to come in and plunder the business and its assets upon the death of the owner? My best friend bought his father's business for a tidy sum. But to answer your question a copyrighted work is not an ongoing operation. It is a singular work created by an individual or a group. Where are you going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: My best friend bought his father's business for a tidy sum. But to answer your question a copyrighted work is not an ongoing operation. I'm sure Christopher Tolkien would have something to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 20 minutes ago, Spockydog said: I'm sure Christopher Tolkien would have something to say about that. Christopher Tolkien is assembling his father's unpublished works and publishing them as an editor of those works. That is not the same as Bob sitting at home and living off his mom's best seller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Christopher Tolkien is assembling his father's unpublished works and publishing them as an editor of those works. That is not the same as Bob sitting at home and living off his mom's best seller. He also manages the Tolkien Estate, which owns the publishing rights to his father's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.