At 10:41 AM -0600 3/2/09, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm trying to avoid getting side-tracked on issues that I think you're
wrong on, but which aren't the big important issue, since that's big
enough to occupy any amount of time we want to put into discussing it.
On Sat, February 28, 2009 22:39, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Property 1. a possession 2. Something tangible or intangible to which
its owner has a legal title Intellectual Of or pertaining to intellect
The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. Actually intellectual
property is a bit like any other property, but the only real difference is
how it comes into existence. If a man goes out and builds a canoe with
his own two hands, its his. It is his to control. There are no
situations where someone can steal it and claim ownership or whoops. He
can pass it down to his son, and his son to his son and no one ever
questions it. At no point in that canoe's life can anyone come and say,
ok the guy that built it is dead and its been over 75 years so anyone that
wants to use that canoe can do so for free without permission from anyone,
including the builders family. In fact that family would likely be left
standing on the bank watching. You don't take the ownership of a home
away from a family because the man that built it has been dead for over 75
years. It is all a possesion to which one has a legal title.
The historical basis of the patent and copyright systems has always been
to create a NEW short-term right for the creator, to allow them to profit
from their creativity more than they could before, in return for their
creation becoming part of the public domain at the end of that term. Even
cursory research into the history of patents and copyrights makes this
very clear.
So? That makes it equitable, or even reasonable? Artists are
supposed to struggle to pay the gas bill because it's always been
that way?
Before the 18th century, there was no copyright.
Yes. And Gilbert and Sullivan, for one, were fit to be tied by that,
not to mention Rossini. Even Bach spent hours editing engravings of
his scores in an effort to head off the thieves.
This didn't, obviously,
prevent there from being a thriving literary and dramatic and musical
scene, but as technology improved and those things became more important
to society, and the technology for reproducing and transmitting those
works got more available (printing and trade), society started to feel
that the people creating these works they liked so much weren't being
treated decently. So they invented a completely new kind of right, never
before considered -- a specific right *to make copies*. Which was called
"copyright".
Actually I believe it was the creators who had the fit.
Historically, your view of copyright is simply false-to-fact. The people
who invented copyright did not see it anything like the way you apparently
do.
And it's time to look at it another way. Especially as employment
becomes self-employment, it becomes even more important to facilitate
creators actually being able to make a living. The age of royal
employers passed a long time ago and creators have pretty much been
on their own for about 300 years now.
> The only real difference between that canoe and a book, is one was created
with the man's hands. The other was created with his mind and soul.
Which has more value??? How its treated legally is a joke. Its not an
abstract. The thought process itself might be abstract, but once its
becomes a product such as an image or book, it is not an abstract at all.
It can be touched, handled and sold or given away just like any other
> property.
> Being in copyright doesn't mean you can't do anything with it. Quite the
opposite, and the big companies know it. It does mean you can not do
anything with it FOR FREE!!!! You might buy a copyrighted product just as
easily as you buy a canoe.
The maximum penalty for copyright infringement of a registered work
in the US is $150,000 PLUS lawyers fees. That's quite a possible
value and the firms that grab copyright and insist on work-for-hire
know it quite well.
If I, as a publisher, want to publish a book, and that book is in
copyright, I have to find the copyright owner and get permission.
Yessirree. You sure do.
This
isn't an issue for *new* books; the copyright owner is the person
submitting the manuscript (sometimes via an agent), so you've got him
right there to negotiate a deal with him, and for him to benefit from the
deal. This is copyright working properly.
However, suppose you want to reprint a story from Amazing Stories from
June 1935. Since the magazines bought first serial rights, finding the
successor corporation to the original publisher won't help, they don't own
the rights currently. So what you've got to work with is the name of the
author (which may be a pseudonym). Some of them are still alive, maybe,
or at least their children are still alive and remember their parent's
glorious writing career. But sometimes it's a couple of generations and
namechanges down the road. So the net effect of the work still being in
copyright is that the work cannot be included in a new anthology; or at
least that the editor has to be willing to do a lot of work to find the
rights holder. Much of the art that's important *to me* is not the
big-name obvious hugely popular stuff.
So? The system was set up poorly and now it's much harder to find
the person from whom you need to get permission. That's not the
fault of the creator. It's the fault of the basic assumption in the
law - that the creator has to give up his interest in the work for
your convenience 70 years hence.
Sorry. I don't feel that's equitable.
But this is an example of how copyright makes works unavailable.
Not to me. It's an example of how copyright law was poorly written,
with lack of foresight and a failure to consider long term
implications, and a willingness to rip off the creator over the long
term.
Copyright is NOT benefiting the author if it is not causing money to flow
from publishers to that author!
Yup. And even more so, as we cling to the stupid idea that the
creator should forfeit control over what s/he creates after some
arbitrary period of time because it was done that way when kings and
princes and academic institutions supported the arts.
Similarly, many authors would like to quote some poetry or song lyrics in
chapter headings or in the body of the text. Turns out that the courts
think as little as one line of a multi-page poem is protected by
copyright. And some of the estates are asking for $50 to quote one line
of poetry.
And let's see. It costs me $80 every time I go to the grocery store,
$30 bucks to fill my car so I can go look for more photographs, $350
the month of January when I use the most fuel to heat my house.
My wife has had to deal with this; from some poets, when she
could find them, she got permission cheaply or for free. Others wanted a
high enough rate that she felt she couldn't afford it, and removed the
quotation or found another. In both cases, it was a massive amount of
work.
Yup. And it could be much less work with an array of good searchable
databases online. But basically, it is going to come down to work.
The artist did the work, the user figures in the time and pays a
miserable 50 bucks to use the quote. Such a piddling amount in a
society that pays $70 every month for a cell phone, $23,000 for a new
car, $650 to fly to England for a holiday.
I don't feel your pain, sorry.
I've sold a number of photos commercially, including illustrating an
entire book at one point.
And right there it's clear you don't understand the importance of
copyright even to you. You SOLD, you actually sold your copyright?
I hope you got paid well, like the full value of your copyright as
established by the copyright law.
You won't catch me SELLING my copyright for less than that - $150,000
minimum depending on the intended usage. More if it's worth more to
the user.
Actually I'd rather license the usage, thank you. Not sell it. I
might get that 150K 2 or 3 times and be sorry I sold out to the first
person who came around.
And my actual day job is software development,
And there you have it. You have a day job.
The world looks very different when you have a day job.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
