Skip to main content

View Diary: Users are intentionally posting entire articles from copyright sources (237 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't mean to be rude, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    your SO is riding her old work for easy income, which from a creative standpoint, is rather shameful. Mr. Fox, your example illustrates my point exactly: Authors riding off of one work and not adding contributions was never the intended use of a copyright. It's a perversion of copyright.

    Now, imagine if patents - original ideas and concepts that could have personally benefited the inventors for decades - operated using the same, extremely liberal terms your SO's work enjoys. It would be a disaster. Digital publishing in its current form would likely never exist or be so ruinously expensive and restricted that your SO would not have any digital distribution to either exploit or complain about.

    The system for creative works is now a disaster. We have a relative handful of authors and media oligarchs cashing in on old work, forever, while they demand an ever expanding police force and ever more intrusive measures to lock down culture exclusively for personal profit.

    Under the original twenty-five year terms, she would have had an entire quarter of a century make money off the original work in all its forms,  add editions and write sequels to further extend the story.

    She should have made more than enough to build an investment. Creating is a job, like any other job. If she want's to get paid, she should go back to work and earn the money to invest in a retirement. If she doesn't want to create anymore then she should go do paid readings or something. At least coasting that way doesn't bear such an onerous cost on society itself.

    She could have just as easily produced a revised edition for online distribution and achieve the same affect as chasing down the children of her original readers. No one needs to coast off of one work for the rest of their lives and their grandchildren' lives.

    This entitlement mentality from the creative classes is very similar to the bankster attitude, really: acting entitled to cash in on a windfall forever and ever at a high expense to both society and culture.

    Look just tell her to just let it go already and create new works, she's screwing society over to cont

    •  this comment borders - no, NOT borders, (0+ / 0-)

      crosses the damned line and crosses back over it to stomp over it again in petulant ignorance!  

      what an idiotic post - totally belies your statement that you are a "writer".  where do you write?  and have you ever been paid for your work? (i seriously doubt it, because if you had, you would realize that a writer can write and sell continuously but does not receive this pie-in-the-sky amount that you think is possible!)

      just like those who scream at people who make high salaries as performers tend to forget, those same performers went decades before attaining high paychecks - balance out the number of years in the professional life divided by that paycheck for one move, one book, one song and you might be shocked to discover that the yearly earned income when averaged is a pittance to what the average person earns.

      Lady isn't screwing over society, you are trying to screw over her by demanding that she accede to your petulant demand that she work for you for nothing!  what the HELL have YOU done to demand that she "give" you her work and effort without you compensating her?

      do you walk into macy's, nordstrom's, tiffanies and see which merchandise has been there two weeks and decide that is long enough, you can take it without paying?

      according to YOUR concept, all ownership expires quickly so everything becomes "public domain" - guess that includes that diamond ring or cashmere sweater, too, if we follow your logic.

      oh, and do you expect the lawyer you hire to bail you out to no longer have to be paid after the case drags on for several months?  public domain?  

      i am SICK of those who demand that creative people OWE them freebies - why not go entertain yourself and create your OWN works, if you don't like the system, or have you published already?

      if you have, i want a copy of your book for free - and while you're at it, send everyone on this site a copy.... for why should YOU suck off society by demanding they pay for your work?

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Sat Dec 03, 2011 at 09:29:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know what's 'screwing over society,' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        instituting a virtual police state and a potential lock-down off virtually all electronic communication technology to milk a book written over half-a-generation ago. Now that's an unreasonable demand.

        The public domain existed long, long before copyright was an idea in some pols head. The public domain built all of civilization. The public domain was the system in place when the first griot recited the first tale, the Great Library of Alexandria and Timbuktu were built, Mozart wrote his symphonies and when Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense.

        However, society was nice enough to give you an extra incentive to create and provided you with twenty-five whole years to make a profit which is very reasonable and fair.

        I think you could really benefit from getting some historical perspective and start observing real life better. You see, most people who actually make things and do things have to keep working to earn a living. Everything they do is 'in the public domain'.  Most today, most bands for example are copyrighted up the wazoo and still have to work on stage for a living.

        You're not entitled to shout out things and expect people to forget them on your whim.

      •  fail some more. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        The purpose of copyright and patent in the Constitution wasn't to give anyone a free ride for life or a nest egg for their heirs.  It was to advance the development of the arts and sciences.  

        The present IP regime has traded the original Constitutional purpose for this newly conflated construct of entitlement, and erected a labyrinth of tyrannical nonsense around it, and you're sitting there rationalizing it from presumably a personal vested interest.

        Fail.  

        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Sat Dec 03, 2011 at 07:03:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  who the hell said anything about a free ride? (0+ / 0-)

          i said and am saying again that ARTISTS/WRITERS/MUSICIANS deserve to be PAID for their creative property.  it is from THEIR minds that these "products" originate, JUST as software is intellectual property.

          every time i hear some non-creative consumer whine "WHY should i have to PAY for... blahdeblahdeblah", my response is this:

          if you're so opposed to paying the artist for his/her work, go write your own music, paint your own picture, write your own book, etc.

          and why don't these "consumers" do this?  

          the answer is simple:  they've got absolutely NO imagination, talent, training, perserverance, ability.

          that's why - yet they think artists OWE them the works by those creating the entertainment for the masses.

          jeesh!

          give me a break!

          Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Sat Dec 03, 2011 at 08:02:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  sure they deserve to get paid, but not forever. (0+ / 0-)

            FYI, I've worked in the music industry (recording) and have studio tapes of stuff that could earn me a downpayment on a house if I was to bootleg them, which I won't ever do.  And I've never, as in not-even-once, done any infringing downloads or uploads.  So that kills off one of your straw men.

            You're working against the laws of physics, and that's a losing battle.

            "Information wants to be free" isn't just a clever slogan, it's a fact of physics.  All bitstreams of equivalent length have the same entropy cost in energy.  For example take three minutes of music, and three minutes of white noise: each requires the same (as in, exactly the same as far as can be measured) amount of energy to reproduce over speakers or transfer between digital devices.  

            From the perspective of physics, a recording of a song is no different to a recording of random bits.  Thus, ultimately, there is no way to constrain the reproduction or transmission of a song as compared to an equivalent quantity of random bits.  Physics doesn't care if a bitstream is white noise, Shakespeare (copyright-free), or the latest top 40 hit single (copyrighted).  Physics doesn't differentiate between them: they are identical in terms of entropy cost in energy.  

            All the legal hocus-pocus in the world won't change that.  All the Orwellian control-state tactics in the world won't change that.  Even if you imposed a Soviet-style system of controls on the internet that required something like a "free speech license" to upload content of any kind (say byebye to dKos), it wouldn't work, any more than trying to use a strainer to hold water.  

            And the blunt fact of human societies is that when an arbitrary cost is considered unreasonably high, it will be circumvented.  For example New York has a high tobacco tax compared to other states: thus cigarette smugglers do a booming trade buying truckloads of cigarettes in low-tax states and selling them on the sly in New York.  

            Copyright infringement was a relatively minor issue when the term of copyright was maximum 28 years.  There was no incentive to bootleg.  The arbitrary barriers were not so high as to create that incentive.  Today, with 90-year copyright, the arbitrary barrier is so high that it creates an enormous incentive, and the supply follows the demand.  

            So in point of fact, the response from the public recognizes the illegitimacy of perpetual copyright.

            But there's one more issue here.  The desire to profit forever from limited work.  That's also a violation of physics, and the short version is there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.  You can't get over-unity energy output.  

            The desire for perpetual profit from limited work is equivalent to the desire of the .00001% for unlimited profit from investment capital.  It's the quest for an over-unity machine, perpetual motion, and it's ultimately doomed to fail.  

            The fact that the .00001% have rigged the legal system and the economy to produce the appearance of unlimited profit is irrelevant: and today we see their bubbles bursting with the force of hydrogen bombs in the economy.  

            And the solution to that isn't for one class after another to demand access to the same systemic perversions and injustices that the .00001% have used.  The solution is to bring down the .00001% to the same level as everyone else in the economy, whose working life is bounded by the laws of physics:  there is no free lunch, and plus or minus the social safety net, if you want to eat, you have to work.  

            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Sat Dec 03, 2011 at 10:47:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  James, here's the Big Secret: (0+ / 0-)

      Some people really want to get paid to BE rather than to DO.

      Having done once, that's all the doing they're going to do, and after that, we should pay them for being.

      After they're dead, we should pay their heirs for their having been.

      This would work perfectly in a static universe where nothing ever moved or changed, and thus the measurement of time was not possible, thus time didn't exist, and everything was a shimmering eternal now.    

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sat Dec 03, 2011 at 07:42:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site