Comments on: Sane copyright doesn't treat all copying as the same http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: wygit http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html#comment-697862 wygit Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-697862 Cory's stuff will NEVER go out of print, because it's all on the web, which means it's out there, forever. I've bought all of Cory's books, but also downloaded all of them, because I do most of my reading on the Sony... (I just went from a 505 to a Touch, just for the speed in turning pages...) I just can't see buying some crappy DRM'd ebook that I can't move from my Kindle to my Nook should I decide to buy one of those devices... Nor can I see paying hardback prices for an ebook. Come on, you have to give SOME kind of break for skipping the entire printing process... I buy Cory's books for the art, and to support the artist... but I read the copies I download from craphound. Hell, I buy Scalzi's books from subterraneanpress.com just to get the autographed copy, and because I love his work, and he doesn't give a hoot about ebooks... "Well, The Ghost Brigades is available for the Kindle right now. As for everything else, well, who knows? That’s a whole bunch of Tor and Macmillan corporate strategizing that I’m frankly not going waste a lot of brain cycles on." But I ... um... get his books in html so I can format them they way that's most convenient for me to read... Oh, yeah, um... I made myself one of those nifty book scanners and do it myself... http://bit.ly/cfkYLv I would much RATHER just buy ebooks, but just can't bring myself to spending money on these poor, crippled bytes that they're available in at present. But... I own a dead-tree copy of EVERYTHING in my Calibre library... Don't rip off the people you love. That's sort of a rule for life, the universe, everything. Cory... what can we, the little people, do to help promote what you're proposing here? I mean it... this is a peeve of mine, and I'm willing to help. Cory’s stuff will NEVER go out of print, because it’s all on the web, which means it’s out there, forever.

I’ve bought all of Cory’s books, but also downloaded all of them, because I do most of my reading on the Sony… (I just went from a 505 to a Touch, just for the speed in turning pages…)

I just can’t see buying some crappy DRM’d ebook that I can’t move from my Kindle to my Nook should I decide to buy one of those devices… Nor can I see paying hardback prices for an ebook. Come on, you have to give SOME kind of break for skipping the entire printing process… I buy Cory’s books for the art, and to support the artist… but I read the copies I download from craphound. Hell, I buy Scalzi’s books from subterraneanpress.com just to get the autographed copy, and because I love his work, and he doesn’t give a hoot about ebooks…
“Well, The Ghost Brigades is available for the Kindle right now. As for everything else, well, who knows? That’s a whole bunch of Tor and Macmillan corporate strategizing that I’m frankly not going waste a lot of brain cycles on.”

But I … um… get his books in html so I can format them they way that’s most convenient for me to read…

Oh, yeah, um… I made myself one of those nifty book scanners and do it myself… http://bit.ly/cfkYLv

I would much RATHER just buy ebooks, but just can’t bring myself to spending money on these poor, crippled bytes that they’re available in at present.

But… I own a dead-tree copy of EVERYTHING in my Calibre library… Don’t rip off the people you love. That’s sort of a rule for life, the universe, everything.

Cory… what can we, the little people, do to help promote what you’re proposing here?
I mean it… this is a peeve of mine, and I’m willing to help.

]]> By: Touch Ohana http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html#comment-697893 Touch Ohana Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-697893 Tax all copyrights and patents held by anyone other than original creators who are natural persons unless the "property" is available under a FLOSS license. Tax them as follows: (1) the copyright or patent holder sets the monetary value of the "property", (2) anyone may purchase the "property" at the stated value unless (3) the owner determines the value was too low and corrects it AND pays 3 years back taxes on the corrected value. In addition, because all copyrighted or patented material is being held in trust for eventual release to the public when its term expires, failure to protect said material and ensure its release to the public at the proper time is a crime: negligent or willful destruction of public property. Rational privilege entails responsibility. The above taxation idea for intellectual "property" is an adaptation of the real property tax scheme described by Robert Heinlein in Number of the Beast. _Touch Tax all copyrights and patents held by anyone other than original creators who are natural persons unless the “property” is available under a FLOSS license. Tax them as follows: (1) the copyright or patent holder sets the monetary value of the “property”, (2) anyone may purchase the “property” at the stated value unless (3) the owner determines the value was too low and corrects it AND pays 3 years back taxes on the corrected value.

In addition, because all copyrighted or patented material is being held in trust for eventual release to the public when its term expires, failure to protect said material and ensure its release to the public at the proper time is a crime: negligent or willful destruction of public property. Rational privilege entails responsibility.

The above taxation idea for intellectual “property” is an adaptation of the real property tax scheme described by Robert Heinlein in Number of the Beast.

_Touch

]]> By: sehlat http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html#comment-697761 sehlat Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-697761 The heading in the article reads: "Copyright may not be perfect, but when applied with common sense, it's the best system we've got". Come on, we're talking about LAWYERS here! The heading in the article reads: “Copyright may not be perfect, but when applied with common sense, it’s the best system we’ve got”.

Come on, we’re talking about LAWYERS here!

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html#comment-698531 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-698531 Indeed a well written article, but it skirts some of the primary issues of copyright law. I too hate evil corporations that make lots of money. Disclosure: I do not hate the owners--i.e., shareholders--of the corporations (have family and friends that are shareholders), just the legal entity that is the corporate organization. However, I find it ridiculous to ignore the fact that it is these corporations that put up the money to produce films, publisish books, finance cds, etc. Millions of dollars. Without their money, movies like Avatar would simply never get produced. While I love the internet, especially the free parts, I also find it difficult to overlook what it has done to the music, television, newspaper (arguably) and film industries. The internet does not afford viable business models for these industries. The music and newspaper industries have been decimated by the internet, and the same thing is starting to happen to the television and film industries. Are they a little paranoid? Of course they are. Big deal. I think the internet has a lot of great things, this website being a prime example. However, that doesn't make me happy to see newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle and The New York Times go bankrupt. I just do not understand why people are happy about this. Getting my news from the Huffington post is no consolation. And sure I love watching free shows on hulu.com, but Dancing with the Stars is no substitute for Conan. And as for music, there are of course plenty of great bands and artists out there, but it's just not the same. It used to be Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins that sold records. Now it's Britney Spears. And as for the movie industry, I fear it too is inevitably doomed. Perhaps not, only a year ago we had movies like "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will be Blood." However, people are beginning to settle for crap like Avatar, quickly forgetting (or never realizing) that there could be better. It was not too long ago when movies like Braveheart and Lord of the Rings were what made money. Maybe it's just me, but it just would not give me any pleasure to see Mirimax (a corporation) go banrkupt. Perhaps that is just me. Indeed a well written article, but it skirts some of the primary issues of copyright law. I too hate evil corporations that make lots of money. Disclosure: I do not hate the owners–i.e., shareholders–of the corporations (have family and friends that are shareholders), just the legal entity that is the corporate organization. However, I find it ridiculous to ignore the fact that it is these corporations that put up the money to produce films, publisish books, finance cds, etc. Millions of dollars. Without their money, movies like Avatar would simply never get produced.

While I love the internet, especially the free parts, I also find it difficult to overlook what it has done to the music, television, newspaper (arguably) and film industries. The internet does not afford viable business models for these industries. The music and newspaper industries have been decimated by the internet, and the same thing is starting to happen to the television and film industries. Are they a little paranoid? Of course they are. Big deal.

I think the internet has a lot of great things, this website being a prime example. However, that doesn’t make me happy to see newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle and The New York Times go bankrupt. I just do not understand why people are happy about this. Getting my news from the Huffington post is no consolation. And sure I love watching free shows on hulu.com, but Dancing with the Stars is no substitute for Conan. And as for music, there are of course plenty of great bands and artists out there, but it’s just not the same. It used to be Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins that sold records. Now it’s Britney Spears. And as for the movie industry, I fear it too is inevitably doomed. Perhaps not, only a year ago we had movies like “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will be Blood.” However, people are beginning to settle for crap like Avatar, quickly forgetting (or never realizing) that there could be better. It was not too long ago when movies like Braveheart and Lord of the Rings were what made money. Maybe it’s just me, but it just would not give me any pleasure to see Mirimax (a corporation) go banrkupt. Perhaps that is just me.

]]> By: cymk http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html#comment-697772 cymk Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-697772 Awesome article Cory. I would love to see some positive change in the arena of copyright law, but I fear that it will never come. The biggest, loudest voices are those with the most money and usually the ones who have the greatest interest in keeping copyright locked up, forcing people to pay up for even thinking about their IP without the copyright holders express permission. Now I understand that is a ludicrous statement and in no way could it be enforced, but if there was a way I'm sure the large corporate conglomerates would try their damnedest to enforce it. Trying to make one set of laws to govern both corporate copyright(the huge corporations) and personal copyright(you, me, and average joe smith) is good in theory but I worry that "one law to rule them all" would be too heavy handed and restrict personal use of IP. I also must admit, the more of your articles I read, the more it seems like I know nothing of copyright law; making it a daunting task for me to make suggestions to improve it, let alone understand it in all of it convolutions. In my limited understanding, I would suggest this; a tiered copyright system. The first tier covers the corporations, the publishers, and any one making money on producing IP. The second set would govern the user experience, how an individual can use the IP they "buy" or "purchase the rights to." Ideally, as long as I am not making money off of it, I should be able to make as many personal copies as I want, for my <em>own</em> use. Awesome article Cory. I would love to see some positive change in the arena of copyright law, but I fear that it will never come. The biggest, loudest voices are those with the most money and usually the ones who have the greatest interest in keeping copyright locked up, forcing people to pay up for even thinking about their IP without the copyright holders express permission. Now I understand that is a ludicrous statement and in no way could it be enforced, but if there was a way I’m sure the large corporate conglomerates would try their damnedest to enforce it.

Trying to make one set of laws to govern both corporate copyright(the huge corporations) and personal copyright(you, me, and average joe smith) is good in theory but I worry that “one law to rule them all” would be too heavy handed and restrict personal use of IP. I also must admit, the more of your articles I read, the more it seems like I know nothing of copyright law; making it a daunting task for me to make suggestions to improve it, let alone understand it in all of it convolutions.

In my limited understanding, I would suggest this; a tiered copyright system. The first tier covers the corporations, the publishers, and any one making money on producing IP. The second set would govern the user experience, how an individual can use the IP they “buy” or “purchase the rights to.” Ideally, as long as I am not making money off of it, I should be able to make as many personal copies as I want, for my own use.

]]> By: Julian Bond http://boingboing.net/2010/01/26/sane-copyright-doesn.html#comment-697792 Julian Bond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-697792 I'm curious to know how you feel as an author about copyright terms. And with particular relevance to out of print books. AFAIK all your stuff is still in print, but I'm amazed to find that Bruce Sterling's Islands in the net is out of print and unavailable new. A good seller in its time and just 21 years old. It doesn't feel right to me that the copyright can be used to keep this off the market. Go further back and the same thing is true of John Brunner's Sheep Look Up. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the book business. I’m curious to know how you feel as an author about copyright terms. And with particular relevance to out of print books. AFAIK all your stuff is still in print, but I’m amazed to find that Bruce Sterling’s Islands in the net is out of print and unavailable new. A good seller in its time and just 21 years old. It doesn’t feel right to me that the copyright can be used to keep this off the market. Go further back and the same thing is true of John Brunner’s Sheep Look Up. But maybe I’m misunderstanding the book business.

]]>