Free books question

[paradanmellow]

Okay so I don't know much about copyright, I just know you can't have it if the owner doesn't want you to.
Here's what bugs me: why the books of dead writers still need to be paid for online, why isn't every book of a dead author public on the internet, like say a library? I know there are ways to get it anyway and that many are free, but it's not official and it should be imo.
What do you think?
Actually, I have a better question: if there's someone who doesn't agree, I would very much want to know why.

 

[invisible]

well, for many of these older books, there are other issues, such as of type and edition or something, which make new editions such as the very fine norton range remain worthwhile, as considerable scholarly work goes into both resolving into a readable format and representing the problems that have become part of the way that these texts are read, and which is part of why they continue to remain current.

but, maybe of these older works for which the copyright has expired are available in some fashion online, through say like project gutenberg or something. perhaps it is just the demand for certain works which ensures their availability through these means. but i don't really know very much about that.

 

[Gaze]

Well, families can still make money from the author's estate. And simply because the author is no longer living doesn't mean the book should be free.

 

[invisible]

yes, i agree - the value of the intellectual product determines what it's worth; if it's worth that much, why shouldn't its value persist through posterity, say as any other property that could be inherited and sold? otherwise, maybe we need to revise our ideas about estate law, which is really a whole other debate.

 

[barbad0s]

yeah, families/friends may have the copyright in their will as a way to make income.

think of it this way. after you die, would you be okay with strangers squeezing your cadaver's boobies? not everybody would.

 

[paradanmellow]

yeah i know of project Gutenberg
so if people would get organized and ask for a certain book to be free it might actually happen (it is not such a mean world after all)

Well, families can still make money from the author's estate. And simply because the author is no longer living doesn't mean the book should be free.

if you have something to say, do you expect money for it?

if so it's just a business and I doubt it's actually worth anything

on the other hand, if writing is your profession and life and calling and takes most of your time and can't have other sources of income then yes, someone has to take care of you. be it you join a writer's colony, a writer's church, funded by state in a clever way, something but don't make people pay, give free and they'll happily give back (some of them XD)

yes, i agree - the value of the intellectual product determines what it's worth; if it's worth that much, why shouldn't its value persist through posterity, say as any other property that could be inherited and sold? otherwise, maybe we need to revise our ideas about estate law, which is really a whole other debate.

are you saying you can OWN an idea? ideas don't subject to ownership, they are far better than that, (says the idealist)

yeah, families/friends may have the copyright in their will as a way to make income.

think of it this way. after you die, would you be okay with strangers squeezing your cadaver's boobies? not everybody would.

it's nothing like that. why have some lazy ass kid or relative that hated your guts get the cash? why stay in the shadow/coziness of it and be nothing but a leech?
a solution would be to ask every writer before they get published, if they want to be free online after they die or not (?)

 

[barbad0s]

if they willed it to them then they wanted them to get the cash. they have to give it to someone, or it just goes to the publisher i guess.

and ideas are a business. people have enough trouble finding ways to make money as it is.

 

[paradanmellow]

if they willed it to them then they wanted them to get the cash. they have to give it to someone, or it just goes to the publisher i guess.

and ideas are a business. people have enough trouble finding ways to make money as it is.

well yeah that's why i calmed down and said the writers should be very clear about who represents them after they die (not that they aren't) but it should be gradually more susceptible to be free on the internet especially if it's very famous already

nothing gets done without ideas but I think that's a different story

 

[barbad0s]

ya i guess maybe... but *someone* has to own something especially if it was owned before >< like can copyrights just vanish and be free for all? idk. does it just vanish or go to the state who says that it can be used for whatever purposes.

 

[Peppermint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

http://www.archive.org/

 

[bamf]

I think the length of which copyrights exist after an author's death is far too high. 70 years after death? Ridiculous.

 

[the]

it's nothing like that. why have some lazy ass kid or relative that hated your guts get the cash? why stay in the shadow/coziness of it and be nothing but a leech?
a solution would be to ask every writer before they get published, if they want to be free online after they die or not (?)

What about the opposite: have some kid or relative that loved the author get the cash?

I think that a lot of people want their children to be better off than they were, leaving things, sometimes profitable things, is a way for them to do that.

The solution you posed is indeed a solution that can happen right now. However I imagine most writers want their legacy to go to who they want it to, not the internet. But then I have no idea really what it is they actually end up doing.

 

[invisible]

no, i don't think you can own an idea, but i do think you can own an intellectual product.

this is how i see it. in hypothetical narrative terms. a young boy dreams that one day he will build a house. through his teen years he works hard at school to get the grades he will need to go to university and get a job that will pay well so he can build the house that he dreams of. the house takes five years to build. at the end of that period, he owns the house. it's probably worth more than the value of the land and other raw materials that took to build it. he can sell it if he wants to, for the appreciated value. or he can will it on to his children, who can sell it at a further appreciated value, or whatever it's worth at the time.

so, another young boy dreams that he will grow up one day to write a book. he doesn't necessarily jump through all the hoops that it will take him to get a well paid job, because he has different ideas about the work he will have to do in order to write a book. he ends up with no skills that an employer is interested in paying for beyond minimum wage, but he has put himself through all these series of learning experiences that he planned would be necessary for him to create this product. it takes all of this work to create the book. the book takes five years to write. when it's finished it's not just one idea, it's a whole network or web of ideas, that was built from the ground up, kind of like a house.

so. why should the first boy have rights to the sale of his house, but the second boy shouldn't have just the same sort of rights to the sale of his book, which he poured his life into building?

 

[paradanmellow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

http://www.archive.org/

thanks for the links, that'll keep me busy for a while

I think the length of which copyrights exist after an author's death is far too high. 70 years after death? Ridiculous.

agree.

What about the opposite: have some kid or relative that loved the author get the cash?

I think that a lot of people want their children to be better off than they were, leaving things, sometimes profitable things, is a way for them to do that.

The solution you posed is indeed a solution that can happen right now. However I imagine most writers want their legacy to go to who they want it to, not the internet. But then I have no idea really what it is they actually end up doing.

I know. here's another solution: let people choose whether to pay for a dead man's book online or not and use all sorts of persuasive guilty inducing warnings. example of two possible buttons one can click before downloading:
1. Pay and make someone happy you appreciate their work even if they are already dead
2. Don't pay and get it for free you heartless thief, let the nephews starve because they don't want to make their own money and who are you to judge us?

so, another young boy dreams that he will grow up one day to write a book. he doesn't necessarily jump through all the hoops that it will take him to get a well paid job, because he has different ideas about the work he will have to do in order to write a book. he ends up with no skills that an employer is interested in paying for beyond minimum wage, but he has put himself through all these series of learning experiences that he planned would be necessary for him to create this product. it takes all of this work to create the book. the book takes five years to write. when it's finished it's not just one idea, it's a whole network or web of ideas, that was built from the ground up, kind of like a house.

so. why should the first boy have rights to the sale of his house, but the second boy shouldn't have just the same sort of rights to the sale of his book, which he poured his life into building?

I never said to take someone food from their mouth or the rewards of their work! i never even discussed paperback books; i simply said internet ebooks should be free AFTER the author dies

 

[invisible]

then perhaps by the same token someone's property of whatever type should always go to the government after they die - they shouldn't be able to will it to their kids? or, there could be a limit on the copyright, so that loved ones are taken care of for a time, before the work passes into the public domain?

 

[the]

I know. here's another solution: let people choose whether to pay for a dead man's book online or not and use all sorts of persuasive guilty inducing warnings. example of two possible buttons one can click before downloading:
1. Pay and make someone happy you appreciate their work even if they are already dead
2. Don't pay and get it for free you heartless thief, let the nephews starve because they don't want to make their own money and who are you to judge us?

Allow my ISTJness to shine forth. I come across this and all I can think is: "We already have a suitable solution." You just sound like you are trying to troll RL.

 

[paradanmellow]

or, there could be a limit on the copyright, so that loved ones are taken care of for a time, before the work passes into the public domain?

that one.

Allow my ISTJness to shine forth. I come across this and all I can think is: "We already have a suitable solution." You just sound like you are trying to troll RL.

nice try :sarcastic clap:

 

[Norton]

I think that one's perspective about intellectual property changes once one writes a successful novel or conceives of a valuable invention. One develops an extremely strong proprietary sense of one's creations considering the requisite risk, struggle, and sacrifice demanded for success. I'm an inventor and I'll sue anyone (corporations included) who infringes my patents. Indeed, I have.

 

[Gaze]

I have an issue with the argument that someone's rights should be taken away simply because they're dead. It's similar to the argument somebody's diaries or letters should be in the public domain just because they're dead. I don't see the logic or reasoning. Your rights should be protected after death because the work still exists as still a production or creation authored by the creator. In the case of diaries or letters, those are still private thoughts. I am not saying that it should only be protected because it allows family to make money from it. But the copyrighted works should be protected. It's your complete work and thoughts. It should be preserved.

 

[Norton]

Interestingly, consistent with his will, Mark Twain's autobiography wasn't published until last year, 100 years after his death. So, the legal imperative of his will was lawfully respected and the world waited a century.

Don't like copyrights and patents? Forget progress (and, in the U.S., forget the Constitution--yes, IP is enshrined therein).