Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radio Controlled]

Yes, and he is trying to make money off of his mental labor. Which is hard if a big publisher could just copy his work and sell it at a fraction of the price (economy of scale, price per unit, like a physical book, goes down as you make more units) and keep all the money for himself.

Why, under these circumstances, would they buy it from a publisher.

Hell, we could ban publishers too if it makes you feel better. That's not a big deal.

Who is 'they' in this example? The customers? Because they would buy it from the publisher because they can get it cheaper then.

Cheaper than Project Gutenberg?!?

That's for digital copies (ebooks) of works whose copyright has expired (and a project which I think is great, makes literature more available, but is not relevant here). Say that customers want a physical copy, or that we're talking about something that's hard to digitalize, such as pop-up books for children.

And project Gutenberg is for free books. I am trying to make a decent wage by selling my mental labor, in the same way a construction worker is selling his physical labor.

[Bohandas]

Yes, and he is trying to make money off of his mental labor. Which is hard if a big publisher could just copy his work and sell it at a fraction of the price (economy of scale, price per unit, like a physical book, goes down as you make more units) and keep all the money for himself.

Why, under these circumstances, would they buy it from a publisher.

Hell, we could ban publishers too if it makes you feel better. That's not a big deal.

Who is 'they' in this example? The customers? Because they would buy it from the publisher because they can get it cheaper then.

Cheaper than Project Gutenberg?!?

That's for digital copies (ebooks) of works whose copyright has expired

Which it would be under this system

[Radio Controlled]

Yes, and he is trying to make money off of his mental labor. Which is hard if a big publisher could just copy his work and sell it at a fraction of the price (economy of scale, price per unit, like a physical book, goes down as you make more units) and keep all the money for himself.

Why, under these circumstances, would they buy it from a publisher.

Hell, we could ban publishers too if it makes you feel better. That's not a big deal.

Who is 'they' in this example? The customers? Because they would buy it from the publisher because they can get it cheaper then.

Cheaper than Project Gutenberg?!?

That's for digital copies (ebooks) of works whose copyright has expired

Which it would be under this system

I don't understand your post. What does 'it' refer to? That pop-up book that I just wrote, and am trying to make money off of?

Mind you, I agree copyright shouldn't last forever, or even as long as it does now, but you seem to have moved the goalpost here a bit.

[Rolepgeek]

Alright.

What's my incentive to create?

Time spent making creative works is time not spent doing something productive. And under the system you propose, producing creative works is not productive, because I can't feed myself doing it if I can't make money. Yes, I could receive donations. On the other hand, that's true today too. And while people are more generous than economists usually give them credit for, if someone else finds my work and puts it out while saying it's there's, then without copyright I have no real way of stopping them, very little way of proving that they did that to fans, and am likely to be attacked verbally and financially if I dare say that someone's favorite artist actually ripped off my stuff, if they're already well-established. Either way my income is decreased and I cannot afford to spend my time being creative. I have to eat.

How do you ensure people can be creative when they wish to in a capitalist system, beyond copyrights, patents, and IP?

[Bohandas]

...if someone else finds my work and puts it out while saying it's there's...

That's plagairism, not copyright infringement

....while people are more generous than economists usually give them credit for....

In a similar fashion there's a lot more people who are genuinely creative and like to write than you give credit for

[Tawa]

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense, and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement.

Link

[Bohandas]

What if we made copyright only apply to corporations, just not to people; That would solve the "greedy publisher" issue.

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense, and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement.

Link

Then we'll officially ban plagiarism, and/or fold it into false advertising law.

[Radio Controlled]

Still waiting for you to explain your post to me. What is stopping a publisher, or a particular person, from taking that pop up book I worked several months on, changing a couple of names and colors in the drawings over the course of an afternoon, then selling it and denying me the profits from my labor, while filling his own pockets?

[Starver]

What if we made copyright only apply to corporations, just not to people; That would solve the "greedy publisher" issue.

Sounds like a Mickey Mouse idea, to me.

(No, seriously.  It does sound like the Mickey Mouse idea.  Especially if complete with the effectively-eternal copyright extension plan.  And I seem to entirely miss the point about the greedy publishers by stymied by the above idea.)

Creator's-life-plus-(nominal-and-not-extended)-extra-years works well for me.  Phased introduction into public domain (where not already voluntarily released) so that existing works last longest (for the sake of the estate of the deceased having time to obtain a reasonable legacy from the possible unprepared creator's efforts to provide for his/her heirs) whilst the right for newly-created but derivative works, beyond those levels already covered by right-of-parody, get released earlier.

Disney Corporation could then sponsor their chosen successor-creators to create further post-Walt productions (with a mutually-acceptable contract betwixt company and creator) and get to brand them as official Disney productions, whilst non-Disney producers can also have a go at anything based upon the original source material but cannot brand them as 'official Disney' in a corporate way because of (separate) trademarking-handling laws.  But if they can come up with a better Mickey Mouse/etc product under their own 'Disnae Cam Frae Disney' brand, all well and good.  "Frozen" merchandise (and actual rip-offs) would probably (not having checked that the producer/screenplay-writer/whoever hasn't since died) still be Disney's own to monopolise, at the moment, but Steamboat Willy would definitely be free game to riff upon.

...to simplistically explain the concept without going into more complicated examples.

[Strife26]

Alright, time to break it off into a new thread.

[Bohandas]

What if we made copyright only apply to corporations, just not to people; That would solve the "greedy publisher" issue.

...And I seem to entirely miss the point about the greedy publishers by stymied by the above idea.)...

Well even though people could make copies freely, corporations wouldn't be allowed to because copyright would still apply to them

[Bohandas]

Creator's-life-plus-(nominal-and-not-extended)-extra-years works well for me.

If we must have it it should be for an absolutely fixed time period. No variables should enter into it. Especially not the creayor's life, that's out of line; too bloody long. It should be a fixed period of time for all works and that time should be no longer than 23 years; Though I'd prefer 12 or fewer.

(Ultimately thpugh I'd still like to abolish it entirely as punishment for the hubris of the current regime of IP law)

[Strife26]

Alright, time to break it off into a new thread.

Start the thread yourself. I ain't running shotgun on an ip thread.

[Rolepgeek]

That's plagairism, not copyright infringemen.

In a similar fashion there's a lot more people who are genuinely creative and like to write than you give credit for

I'm not saying nobody wants to. I'm saying even if I want to, I can't, because I can't make money to support myself off of it. And there's plenty of people who don't have the drive or the free time or the ability to do it whilst working a job. Starving artist is bad enough as it is.

And copyright is the right to make copies. Originally, if nothing else (it's mutated and blahblahblah). Plagiarism ruins ability of independent artists to live off donations, and no copyright ruins ability to make money off of actual selling of the product.

[Strife26]

Alright, time to break it off into a new thread.

Start the thread yourself. I ain't running shotgun on an ip thread.