4 ms·

Authors sell the rights to their books for income. The shorter the copyright period is the less valuable those rights will be. So it's not a question of "sust

by tsotha 15y ago

Authors sell the rights to their books for income. The shorter the copyright period is the less valuable those rights will be. So it's not a question of "sustained commercial value", it's a question of the value of rights at the time of publication. 2-3 years would make writing a hobby for all but the very most popular authors.

sp332 15y ago
I don't really care if the rights are less valuable. The author has no inherent (property) right to tell me that I can't make copies of his book. Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now.
- tsotha 15y ago
  >Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now. No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be available from any source, because it would never get written at all. There's only so much time people are willing to put into an unpaid hobby.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Why do you assume he wouldn't get paid for it?
    - tsotha 15y ago
      Who would pay?
      - sp332 15y ago
        Anyone who thinks it's worth the money, anyone who wants to thank him for writing a book, anyone who wants to encourage him to make more books, anyone who makes an impulse buy, anyone who wants a physical copy... you know, all the same exact people who pay for it now.
        res0nat0r 15y ago
        Except for all the people who will be happy to get it for free instead, which they couldn't do previously without breaking the (copyright) law. If you were able to walk into your local Barnes & Noble tomorrow and everything was free to take, I'm sure you wouldn't be ponying up the money for everything you walked out the door with in your arms.
        sp332 15y ago
        Actually, the people who currently get stuff outside the bounds of copyright law ("pirates") are the ones who currently spend the most money on it. http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-... The COO of EMI knows that pirates are their best customers. http://www.cnet.com.au/will-former-google-exec-help-save-the-music-industry-339287896.htm http://www.cnet.com.au/will-former-google-exec-help-save-the... People do business with each other because they feel like it, not because they are legally obligated to. People give money to Kickstarter projects in return for very small rewards, or even nothing at all. e.g. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scott-documentary-three-pack/comments http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scot... I think Louis C.K.'s statement about piracy, while not especially insightful, has exactly the right idea: Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I’m just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can’t stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way. Sincerely, Louis C.K.
        tsotha 15y ago
        Will they still pay when the novelty wears off, though? Also, it's one thing to send money to a guy who makes you laugh. How many people would voluntarily send money for a textbook or an SAT prep workbook? I doubt anyone would be buying music if Napster hadn't been shut down.
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  Correct. He doesn't have property right(s), he has COPYright(s). Until you can abolish copyright protection in the USA this practice is still illegal.

by tsotha 15y ago

sp332 15y ago

I don't really care if the rights are less valuable. The author has no inherent (property) right to tell me that I can't make copies of his book. Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now.

tsotha 15y ago
>Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now. No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be available from any source, because it would never get written at all. There's only so much time people are willing to put into an unpaid hobby.
- sp332 15y ago
  Why do you assume he wouldn't get paid for it?
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Who would pay?
    - sp332 15y ago
      Anyone who thinks it's worth the money, anyone who wants to thank him for writing a book, anyone who wants to encourage him to make more books, anyone who makes an impulse buy, anyone who wants a physical copy... you know, all the same exact people who pay for it now.
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        Except for all the people who will be happy to get it for free instead, which they couldn't do previously without breaking the (copyright) law. If you were able to walk into your local Barnes & Noble tomorrow and everything was free to take, I'm sure you wouldn't be ponying up the money for everything you walked out the door with in your arms.
        sp332 15y ago
        Actually, the people who currently get stuff outside the bounds of copyright law ("pirates") are the ones who currently spend the most money on it. http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-... The COO of EMI knows that pirates are their best customers. http://www.cnet.com.au/will-former-google-exec-help-save-the-music-industry-339287896.htm http://www.cnet.com.au/will-former-google-exec-help-save-the... People do business with each other because they feel like it, not because they are legally obligated to. People give money to Kickstarter projects in return for very small rewards, or even nothing at all. e.g. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scott-documentary-three-pack/comments http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scot... I think Louis C.K.'s statement about piracy, while not especially insightful, has exactly the right idea: Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I’m just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can’t stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way. Sincerely, Louis C.K.
        tsotha 15y ago
        Will they still pay when the novelty wears off, though? Also, it's one thing to send money to a guy who makes you laugh. How many people would voluntarily send money for a textbook or an SAT prep workbook? I doubt anyone would be buying music if Napster hadn't been shut down.
res0nat0r 15y ago
Correct. He doesn't have property right(s), he has COPYright(s). Until you can abolish copyright protection in the USA this practice is still illegal.