4 ms·

I think the what's missing from this article is the intransigence of publishers to give up anything, and the politicians will usually side with them too with co

I think the what's missing from this article is the intransigence of publishers to give up anything, and the politicians will usually side with them too with copyright law. There's a world of information out there which could benefit mankind but it's all locked up for profit.

KayEss 11y ago
Which might not be so bad if the copyright owners were actually profiting from it, but for the most part we're talking about books that are out of print and not earning their copyright owners anything -- it's just sheer intransigence.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  And many cases where the copyright holder no longer even exists or can be found.
DiabloD3 11y ago
Problem is, many rightsholders either no longer exist (orphaned works), or refuse to profit (keeping books out of further print). What we really need in the US is a copyright system that is "use it or lose it". For a mass produced work such as books, music, or 2D art (anything that is not strictly a limited edition run, or a one off, really), if you refuse to sell it to someone who wishes to buy it, you lose the copyright. A lot of things pirated are pirated simply because people cannot legitimately buy them. The reason Popcorn Time works so well? Because rightsholders refuse to do business with Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Rightsholders do not have the right to make that choice in today's America, and need to be forced to understand that they must make the sale if someone offers them an acceptable amount of money. Before computers and the Internet, yes, they had a right to say no, since publishing books and tapes/CDs and whatever cost money... now with the advent of modern technology, publishing works electronically now has a cost that is not relevant to this discussion. Literally, they are throwing money away by telling people no, and that actually MIGHT be illegal depending on how you interpret US law (given how most of these companies are publicly held).

KayEss 11y ago

Which might not be so bad if the copyright owners were actually profiting from it, but for the most part we're talking about books that are out of print and not earning their copyright owners anything -- it's just sheer intransigence.

WalterBright 11y ago
And many cases where the copyright holder no longer even exists or can be found.

DiabloD3 11y ago

Problem is, many rightsholders either no longer exist (orphaned works), or refuse to profit (keeping books out of further print). What we really need in the US is a copyright system that is "use it or lose it". For a mass produced work such as books, music, or 2D art (anything that is not strictly a limited edition run, or a one off, really), if you refuse to sell it to someone who wishes to buy it, you lose the copyright. A lot of things pirated are pirated simply because people cannot legitimately buy them. The reason Popcorn Time works so well? Because rightsholders refuse to do business with Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Rightsholders do not have the right to make that choice in today's America, and need to be forced to understand that they must make the sale if someone offers them an acceptable amount of money. Before computers and the Internet, yes, they had a right to say no, since publishing books and tapes/CDs and whatever cost money... now with the advent of modern technology, publishing works electronically now has a cost that is not relevant to this discussion. Literally, they are throwing money away by telling people no, and that actually MIGHT be illegal depending on how you interpret US law (given how most of these companies are publicly held).