There is no copyright

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But your employer does, I suspect. If they didn't make a profit, you'd be out of a job.

Actually, it didn't really matter about the copyright...It was/is all custom code, strictly for the business purposes of a particular company. won't work (without much modification for any other company. It's value is in the cost saving to that particular company...

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But your employer does, I suspect. If they didn't make a profit, you'd be out of a job.

True but many companies that hire programmers for internal system do not sell that output in anyway. So, copyright would not affect them.

Of course, this would mean the programmer would be able to take the software and sell it to other companies... if this software gives said company a competitive edge they might stand to lose it.

But essentially programmer would be required to sign contracts that dis-allow them from giving/selling any code they produce to an outside party. So, the lack of copyright in this case would only mean that contract law would be protecting the IP.

BOb

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

True but many companies that hire programmers for internal system do not sell that output in anyway. So, copyright would not affect them.

Of course, this would mean the programmer would be able to take the software and sell it to other companies... if this software gives said company a competitive edge they might stand to lose it.

But essentially programmer would be required to sign contracts that dis-allow them from giving/selling any code they produce to an outside party. So, the lack of copyright in this case would only mean that contract law would be protecting the IP.

BOb

Correct. But the cretors got paid, as work for hire. No residuals for life + 70, ect. Unit work for unit money. It's not totally evil....

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by leebase

All knowledge created and put into book form up to now is free available to all.

How is that any different to how it was yesterday when copyright still existed?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by leebase

Where comes this notion of "authentic"? Without copyright, I can put my name on anyone else's work. It would be no less legitimate for me to put my name on someone's work than to use characters others have invented in my own stories. There is no ownership.

Who is going to pay for this site? Why are they going to spend money sifting through an endless supply of novels to try and figure out who the real author is? And who care's who the real author is? Is "Dune by Joe Shmoe" any less desirable than "Dune by Frank Herbert" when they are the exact same book? Who knows....maybe Joe Shmoe makes an even better cover or sprinkles illustrations throughout the book.

Internet 2.0. Restructuring of the network, an end to anonymity, all work will be traced back to the source, nothing will exist without attribution.

The authentic site will be one that the most popular creators spend most of their time at, the readers will follow. All other sites will be fully capable of hosting ebooks, attributable as always to the creator, but the authentic site will be where the money is.

NO BOOK WILL BE SOLD, ALL WILL BE FREELY GIVEN.

It seems that some think that if I give a book away, another will be able to sell it somewhere else, this is not the case.

NOTHING DIGITAL WILL BE SOLD.

[jbjb]

Those accusing leebase of trolling are missing the point. He's put forward an interesting hypothetical scenario, and has played devil's adocate to prompt debate. I see no trolling here (at least not from leebase!).

The debate about what the state of creative endeavours (arts, sciences, engineering etc) would be in a world without copyright is fascinating one, and the answer isn't necessarily the same in all fields. Getting past the politically motivated dogma to discuss the actual consequences is a worthy goal. Kudos (and Karma) to leebase.

/JB

[carld]

Well, if we're doing this seriously then I stand by what I said in post #6.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by leebase

We have an ongoing series of discussions about copyright -- whether it's a good or a bad thing....at all...not just in it's current implementation.

No, we have an ongoing discussion about where copyright law stops balancing the needs of creators with those of society at large, and starts being a tool for greed and oppression--and one or two trolls who claim that means it should be abolished.

It is possible to ignore the trolls and have coherent discussions about which laws or actions tip the balance from "useful" to "harmful."

[ebusinesstutor]

Originally Posted by leebase

It's selfish to withhold knowledge and entertainment for the poor. Have you no heart?

And yes, I agree, in our capitalist society a lot of such evil occurs. Getting rid of the unvirtuous notion of intellectual property and copyright is just the first step in making society better.

Wouldn't it be better if every book in every university were freely available to the poor? You think we are best served by withholding knowledge for only the elite?



And such "day jobbers" will continue to have jobs. Isn't that the best way?

Lee

I think that open source textbooks are a great idea - a big help to developing countries.

In our capitalistic society, if people who create are not paid, then our entire arts, culture, and entertainment realm would go over to unpaid amateurs.

I am not totally against this as there is a lot of talent out there. But how do unpaid amateurs create sets for a play or movie? How do they pay for book printing or DVD production? How do they hire cameramen, people to move sets, or pay for marketing to get people to see it.

If our society were more like Star Trek, where people's needs were taken care of without money, then people could create solely for the joy of it and the recognition.

But until then if we totally removed all copyright, etc., the only art we would have is folk art and the only books by amateurs.

[zespectre]

As Heinlein so aptly put it. "TANSTAAFL" (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)

Authors already have the option of declining to work with publishers. They are perfectly free to write something new and put it out on the internet for free consumption.

In fact some do precisely this.

Most don't bother, or only do it with a "teaser" book or excerpt and then charge for the rest in a traditional fashion. Why? Because they want some compensation for their work or it's not worth the time/effort.

That's not to say that I don't believe copyright laws are out of control. I personally think that copyright should be "life of original author" and not one second longer, but I don't think "all books free" would result in anything but a decrease in what is published out there.

[OtterBooks]

Titles can't be copyrighted, last I checked. I could write a novel called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and have it be about ninjas.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Titles can't be copyrighted, last I checked. I could write a novel called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and have it be about ninjas.

But they can be trademarked, and that title is a trademark. You therefore couldn't use it.

[carld]

Oddly, the "Harry Potter" name itself has only one trademark -- for "Bath linens, namely, bath towels and wash cloths; bed linens, namely, bed blankets, bed sheets, bed spreads, pillow cases, comforters, pillow shams and bed spreads; textile wall hangings."

[HarryT]

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is a registered trademark in the UK, owned by Warner Brothers:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E5587951

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they can be trademarked, and that title is a trademark. You therefore couldn't use it.

You could use it, as long as you found a way to indicate your book has nothing to do with Warner Bros' trademarked property. Which, with that title, would be quite a feat. However, you could easily make a book or even movie called "Avatar" or "Star Wars" without stepping on the trademarks. And you could make a book called "The Deathly Hallows."

I used to have a collection of books titled "The Changeling" by several different authors.