If you had a vote for copyright? - Page 4

HarryT · 01-17-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I'm not sure what my post has to do with plays.
Society would benefit because without people being able to make money from selling something that the public has a right to get for free Amazon wouldn't have 87,404 results showing for Shakespeare.

But where would you get it from? That's my point. It's being published that keeps books in circulation. Without publication these works would disappear.

Quote:

There wouldn't have been a need for this. According to wikipedia The Silmarillion was published in 1977, but J.R.R Tolkien tried to publish it since 1937. If it would have entered the public domain after 20 years, people would have had access to it much earlier mainly because publishers would have a limited time to make money of the book. So worst case scenario it would have been available in 1957.

No, it wouldn't. Again, I ask, where would the public get it from? Without publication, there's no book.

pdurrant · 01-17-2012, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Also nobody should be allowed to make a profit of it after it entered the public domain because this is the only way to stop the publishers from making money of PD books.

What's wrong with publishers making money from PD books? The whole point of PD is that anyone is now free to make whatever use they want of the work, including selling it.

gweeks · 01-17-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

He didn't have to "copyright" the speech. It was automatically protected by copyright the moment that he set pen to paper.

Not true. Though it would be today. At the time he gave the speech he had to file specific paperwork to acquire the copyright in the US.

Greg Weeks

CWatkinsNash · 01-17-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What's wrong with publishers making money from PD books? The whole point of PD is that anyone is now free to make whatever use they want of the work, including selling it.

Exactly, especially since some (not all, certainly, but some) put a great deal of work into the versions they sell.

Sil_liS · 01-17-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

But where would you get it from? That's my point. It's being published that keeps books in circulation. Without publication these works would disappear.

Then or now? Remind me how long has Project Gutenberg been around for, making books available without looking for a profit, keeping books from disappearing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it wouldn't. Again, I ask, where would the public get it from? Without publication, there's no book.

What I'm suggesting is a system where an author registers a manuscript to get the copyright for 20 years. A manuscript would stay there and when 20 years pass anybody can make copies of it.

Sil_liS · 01-17-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What's wrong with publishers making money from PD books? The whole point of PD is that anyone is now free to make whatever use they want of the work, including selling it.

People already have a right to make copies of PD works. There should be no reason for anybody to be able to make money from selling those copies.

Sil_liS · 01-17-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Exactly, especially since some (not all, certainly, but some) put a great deal of work into the versions they sell.

And put minimal or no effort into the books that are not PD. Aren't people complaining that some ebooks don't seem to benefit from proper editing?

carld · 01-17-2012, 01:48 PM

With only those two draconian options to pick from, I had to go with copyright forever.

Giggleton · 01-17-2012, 01:54 PM

The problem with the whole life of the creator thing is what happens when we are able to download (upload?) ourselves into the network? At what point does death occur? You might be saying, "Well a virtual entity living inside of the network has no need for compensation..." But you might be wrong about that, it is still too early to tell.

Time for these virtual entities is a factor as well, what is ten years to an entity that can simply go into sleep mode for a century whenever it chooses to?

In the short term we will have AI creating entertainment products for us, should the products of these AI's go to the AI itself or the creator of the AI? What if an AI creates a better and stronger AI? Should the compensation for the products of this new AI still go to the creator of the original AI? What if all AI's stem from a single original AI? What if a majority of the products we consume are created by these new and improved AI's? The situation would be all compensation heading towards one source...

In other words, planetary corporations. Or "I Robot" style government.

Just one of the many reasons I voted to do away with copyright forever.

RHWright · 01-17-2012, 01:56 PM

Didn't vote for either of these extremes.

My opinion, in brief: copyright should be life + 20 years. (That way any minor children are covered when a parent dies.)
Provisions would have to be worked out for collective works and works-for-hire.
Trademarks should be short-term but extendable. Also they must be limited and specific. See: Droid. (Why Lucas should get paid every time someone buys a phone, I just don't get.)
Patents should be short-term and subject to challenge if not brought to market. (No "conceptual" patents that you can't produce. Wait for someone else to produce a similar product and then suing them for "infringement.")

Hellmark · 01-17-2012, 02:11 PM

The Copyright Act of 1976, which went into effect on January 1st, 1978, is when things switched to not require registration. Anything before then, required you to register in order to receive copyright protection.

HarryT · 01-17-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Then or now? Remind me how long has Project Gutenberg been around for, making books available without looking for a profit, keeping books from disappearing.

There are many people who make books freely available without looking for payment (my humble self included), but there are a heck of a lot more that are only available because publishers keep them in print. You seem to be suggesting that it's some kind of "crime" to publish public domain works for a profit. It's not - the whole point of the public domain is that it encourages reproduction of the work by any and all means. There's nothing wrong with publishing for profit - it's what keeps books in print.

sonofpendragon · 01-17-2012, 03:28 PM

I think it should last forever anyway, so that's an easy one for me. I think others have mentioned here something similar, but none of us can turn up at someone's luxury villa on the Algarve 70 years after it was built, and say to the residents' 'clear out, folks, it's ours now', yet we can do this with books (based on the authors' demise, not the age of the book itself). And digressing slightly, did you know that for recorded music, the artists and writers don't even have to have passed on? All that is currently needed is 50 years to elapse since release, bang, you can take it, repackage it to your hearts delight, and sell it. That is why you see those endless compilations of all the artists from the 50s and further back; the makers of these don't need permission and they don't have to pay anyone for rights. Now things may change soon, but you know why don't you? Four moptoppy chaps from Liverpool have singles and albums rapidly approaching the 50 year mark. The industry, especially EMI, know what they will lose out on if the law doesn't finally change in their favour. Digressing in a way, but, still in the same tent at the county show.

latepaul · 01-17-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phogg

Fourteen years, renewable once.

This.

HarryT · 01-17-2012, 03:51 PM

Why fourteen years? That's a very strange figure to choose. Why not ten, or fifteen?

View Poll Results: Which would you vote for
Copyright forever	32	21.77%
Fully do away with copyright	115	78.23%
Voters: 147. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Seriously thoughtful a voté !	zelda_pinwheel	Lounge français	1	03-21-2010 12:58 PM
Unutterably Silly Vote for me!	pshrynk	Lounge	90	11-06-2008 01:59 PM
In Copyright? - Copyright Renewal Database launched	Alexander Turcic	News	26	07-09-2008 09:36 AM
Government US Copyright Office: Report on Orphan Works. US Copyright Office. PDF	Nate the great	Other Books	0	01-03-2008 07:16 PM

01-17-2012, 01:48 PM	#53
carld Wizard Posts: 2,698 Karma: 4748723 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Kindle Paperwhite	With only those two draconian options to pick from, I had to go with copyright forever.

01-17-2012, 01:54 PM	#54
Giggleton Banned Posts: 1,687 Karma: 4368191 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Oregon Device: Kindle3	The problem with the whole life of the creator thing is what happens when we are able to download (upload?) ourselves into the network? At what point does death occur? You might be saying, "Well a virtual entity living inside of the network has no need for compensation..." But you might be wrong about that, it is still too early to tell. Time for these virtual entities is a factor as well, what is ten years to an entity that can simply go into sleep mode for a century whenever it chooses to? In the short term we will have AI creating entertainment products for us, should the products of these AI's go to the AI itself or the creator of the AI? What if an AI creates a better and stronger AI? Should the compensation for the products of this new AI still go to the creator of the original AI? What if all AI's stem from a single original AI? What if a majority of the products we consume are created by these new and improved AI's? The situation would be all compensation heading towards one source... In other words, planetary corporations. Or "I Robot" style government. Just one of the many reasons I voted to do away with copyright forever.

01-17-2012, 01:56 PM	#55
RHWright Addict Posts: 219 Karma: 2617122 Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: North Carolina Device: NOOK ST, Nexus 7	Didn't vote for either of these extremes. My opinion, in brief: copyright should be life + 20 years. (That way any minor children are covered when a parent dies.) Provisions would have to be worked out for collective works and works-for-hire. Trademarks should be short-term but extendable. Also they must be limited and specific. See: Droid. (Why Lucas should get paid every time someone buys a phone, I just don't get.) Patents should be short-term and subject to challenge if not brought to market. (No "conceptual" patents that you can't produce. Wait for someone else to produce a similar product and then suing them for "infringement.")

01-17-2012, 02:11 PM	#56
Hellmark Wizard Posts: 2,549 Karma: 3799999 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: O'Fallon, Missouri, USA Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3	The Copyright Act of 1976, which went into effect on January 1st, 1978, is when things switched to not require registration. Anything before then, required you to register in order to receive copyright protection.

01-17-2012, 03:28 PM	#58
sonofpendragon Member Retired Posts: 56 Karma: 696290 Join Date: Sep 2011 Device: Kindle for PC	I think it should last forever anyway, so that's an easy one for me. I think others have mentioned here something similar, but none of us can turn up at someone's luxury villa on the Algarve 70 years after it was built, and say to the residents' 'clear out, folks, it's ours now', yet we can do this with books (based on the authors' demise, not the age of the book itself). And digressing slightly, did you know that for recorded music, the artists and writers don't even have to have passed on? All that is currently needed is 50 years to elapse since release, bang, you can take it, repackage it to your hearts delight, and sell it. That is why you see those endless compilations of all the artists from the 50s and further back; the makers of these don't need permission and they don't have to pay anyone for rights. Now things may change soon, but you know why don't you? Four moptoppy chaps from Liverpool have singles and albums rapidly approaching the 50 year mark. The industry, especially EMI, know what they will lose out on if the law doesn't finally change in their favour. Digressing in a way, but, still in the same tent at the county show.

01-17-2012, 03:51 PM	#60
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Why fourteen years? That's a very strange figure to choose. Why not ten, or fifteen?

Advert

Advert