Lessig Spins Copyright Law 279
ceebABC writes "In the always riveting CIO Insight magazine, tech-pundit (and professor) Lawrence Lessig examines the copyright laws and how they can be applied to e-books and other electronic forms of rights management... i.e., in today's world, the author doesn't receive a royalty everytime someone reads a book from the library. Will they in the future?"
What is more likely, (Score:2, Interesting)
Good points, except... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is, that before eBooks, you couldn't "loan" your copy of the book to 10,000 of your friends on Kazaa.
There are some interesting ideas in there, but I don't think his ideas are the answer. They are a good start though.
There isn't... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pay for long copyrights? (Score:5, Interesting)
This way, the list of long-term copyrights would be small, maintained in a single place, and thus easily searchable. There would be a financial disincentive in place to keep companies from locking up works unless they were actively making money. Companies are happy, museums are happy, the gov'ment is happy, and the internet is happy.
Re:Library Royalties (Score:2, Interesting)
They do, chuckwhite. Unless the author donated the book, they get a cut of the sale to the library.
That is, after all, why your tax dollars are paying something to the library. So it can get new books.
Actually, in the future I think it'd be grand if authors got a little bit of money (a few pennies) everytime someone outside their family checks out one of their books that was still copywritten. Cut out the middleman, streamline the publishing biz, and keep the economic incentive for authors to keep writing things people want to read.
Hmm... if a book costs $5 to get on the library shelves and the author gets $0.25 from each read, once it's been read twenty times they make pure profit... and that could even be paid for out of the pockets of the readers without too much trouble.
Re:Meta Information (Score:2, Interesting)
Like what? Playing with computer code? Flipping hamburgers? Lying to the public?
There are a LOT of people who want to write books or play instruments for a living. Most of them suck.
The written word wasn't worth all that much after the printing press--but the gov't stepped in to make sure that the authors didn't get screwed. Copyright, in this form, has been with us for longer than any work has been or ever will be covered by it, and no one's had a good objection to it.
The key to ebooks et al is TRANSFER of the copies. If I buy an ebook, I should be able to give that book to any one person that I want to.
A low-level switch from "copy" to "move" as a default for these files would do the trick. But since that's not technically feasible (for a whole lot of reasons), a physical tie-in would be the best.
Re:Pay for long copyrights? (Score:4, Interesting)
I also think obfustication should make it impossible to get a copyright. If the work is made such that it blocks copying of that work such that it'll be hard for people to use/copy/modify when the copyright has expired then they should not be granted a copyright.
Re:Good points, except... (Score:5, Interesting)
And things were better before eBooks and Kazaa how?
Also, are things better now that we have made a dramatic leap in information transfer technology, but are restricted from using the new tech because it makes the old tech (and everybody who profited from the old tech) obsolete?
See, I might even accept the restrictions on use of new tech--If it were part of a well-reasoned, long-term plan to phase in the new tech without destabilizing the economy, spiking the unemployment rate, or creating a whole new area of ethical/legal conundrums that we haven't really had any time to think about or address.
Since that's obviously not the reason the old tech is being preserved (nor will it ever be, probably), I say fuck it: release the hounds and go for broke.
I'm glad you're not in charge (Score:5, Interesting)
Authors should definitely recieve royalties - just not from a public library that my tax dollars went to fund.
I'm an author, and I don't object at all to my books ending up on library shelves. When it happens, it means I'm probably "relieved" of 97% of my royalty for each time the book is read -- given that I suppose the average library book is checked out 30 times. But I don't care that this is such a bad deal for me, since I think it's great that people are reading my book.
But I bristle at your notion that libraries ought to be entitled to distribute recently created copyrighted works, with no compensation whatsoever to the author. On what basis do you feel that government should essentially engage in intellectual theft?
I'm trying to understand your point of view, but I can't make any sense of it. It seems totally selfish and poorly thought out.
What I call a "copyright ripoff" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pay for long copyrights? (Score:2, Interesting)
Makes a lot of sense. And I also figure that the first payment should be substantially high hurdle in order to force most stuff out quickly. But then perhaps it could double every 5 years or so?
Copy rights (Score:5, Interesting)
You buy a book. You own the book. You can sell the book. You can make copies of the book for personal use. If you sell the original, all the copies have to be destroyed, or go with the original. You can't sell copies with out the copy right holders permission. You can even loan the book, as long as the person you loan it to returns it and doesn't keep a copy.
I can't understand why software is being treated in a different manner.
Just my two cents.
Scalability (Score:3, Interesting)
Libraries are a wonderful institution that doubtlessly cut into the income of those who produce the books. More importantly (to me) they are repositories of books that are out of print and can't easily be located. Older books doubtless stimulate interest in buying newer ones. In the very earliest days, of course, few could afford books at all.
The thing is, electonic distribution blows up the apple cart. It's just too easy. And I worry it will somehow fundamentally change a system that we have grown used to over many decades. Just because the library system is familiar and effective doesn't mean that scaling it to the Web will work. It will be wonderful for the user, but the producer? In fact, in could be a disaster, save the current reality that reading books on a computer just isn't like a real book.
What's the point of copyrighting again? (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright laws are made to prevent others from publishing copyrighted material and making $$ off that copyrighted material, i.e., it's to prevent the sale of a creative work in which none of that $$ goes to the creator of that work. This isn't about money they would have made but aren't making. This isn't about "fair use" or "unlimited use" or "restricted use" at all. This is about preventing other people from stealing your work and making money off it. As far as I know, KaZaA isn't charging me to download e-books or mp3s. As far as I know, I'm not paying someone to read a book they transcribed into text and posted on their website in HTML format. A third party is not profitting from the sale of another person's intellectual property without that individual getting royalties.
I think online publishing of material is great; it allows amateur authors, musicians, etc to get much more exposure than they would in traditional media. Additionally, it allows for many more alternative opinions and ideas to be expressed because publishing is not based on the demand for a book but rather the author's desire to publish it. In the paper book world where most publishers are looking for New York Times Bestseller books, you get very little good literature. I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to read less popular authors who I find interesting rather than the newest hackjob of a book by Stephen King, Michael Crichton, etc. Online publishing allows for a diversity of ideas you don't get when the stakes are as big as they are in paper publishing.
In other words, Adobe and the DCMA and the MPAA can take their opinions, sit on them, and rotate.
Re:What is more likely, (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is, what exactly constitues an open? A file open? A read from memory? A sleep cycle? A power off/power on cycle? A pause of reading over X minutes of time?
This sticks of something else: the ruling that called a read from a hard drive to memory a 'copy'.
I feel that this is one point where the analogy between physical and digital breaks down...
Re:I'm glad you're not in charge (Score:2, Interesting)
You're now guaranteed 1/30 of the sales on these people who wouldn't have bought your book if the library didn't exist, through the purchase by the library, and there's sales for x% of these readers after they read your book, and want to have a copy forever.
Economics is really convoluted, but if we all knew how it works, all our material wants would be close to satisfied. It's also a shame how contemporary society seems to treat artists/writers/whatevers. It seems like all my friends who have their art/social degrees have little hope at financial success.
Good luck with the authoring business. No sarcasm intended.
Well of course the ultimate answer is that. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
And for the most part customers of libraries *don't want ebooks.*
This is not to say they do not *pay* royalties to authors though.
What do you suppose would happen if *libraries stopped buying books*?
I guess most people aren't aware of the fact that for a comparitively huge percentage of books published library sales make up a huge percentage of *total* sales.
If libraries boycotted publishers an awful lot of publishers would simply go out of business overnight. Particularly the "specialty" houses.
What the hell kind of world are we building anyways when *public libraries* are regarded as "theives"?
KFG
Copyright Law should Reflect Reality (Score:5, Interesting)
The question of copyright shouldn't revolve around the technical interpretation of existing law. The question should be how, in real terms in today's world, copyright law can best implement the intent that is stated in the Constitution, which is simply to provide incentive to produce new works.
If e-books are to be considered a threat to creativity and invention, it should be because e-books might make it difficult for an author to recoup the cost of creating the work, thus discouraging new works. It should not be because somebody decided that transmitting an e-book is technically making a copy. The latter argument assumes that the point of copyright is to protect authors indirectly by protecting the copy-making business directly. It isn't, and it never was.
As much as I respect Lessig, I wish he and other high-profile people who are thrashing out this issue would depart from dissecting the fine points of laws that weren't written with enough resolution to cover current conditions. What they are doing amounts to adding extra zeroes after the decimal point and arguing over the accuracy of the numbers. I wish they would consider that in a very few years, when almost anybody on earth will have the capability to publish their own work to the entire world at practically zero cost. Copyright law of the future should provide an incentive for the people and institutions who PRODUCE new works, not for those who merely make and sell copies.
Re:Pay for long copyrights? (Score:2, Interesting)
Originally copyrights did have a payment (of sorts) to the public. In exchange for the copyright the author would publish the work, instead of keeping it secret under non-disclosure agreements. But that's laughable nowadays with century long terms and implicit contracts. A tax on copyrights restores the balance.
There is a problem with the scheme however. It's the Berne Convention. What's to prevent an author from publishing his or her work in a nation that doesn't have a copyright tax? Would the Bahamas become a copyright haven as well?
Copyright flawed by definition (Score:3, Interesting)
And that technical solution is flawed in several ways
- It is legal to prevent an auhor form getting revenue as long as no copies are made (by lending or reselling a book)
- It is illegal to make copies even if it does not hurt the author revenues (out of print works).
The notions of copies and public performance have greatly evolved during the last decade and the copyright laws are innapropriate.
These flaws were less apparent when copy and distribution were restricted to publishing companies, but now that Internet gives these possibilities to individuals, these flaws are becoming more and more evident.
You do get royalties from library loans.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Some authors already get paid for library loans (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, actually, in the UK they do. See The Public Lending Right Website [uk.com]:
Under the United Kingdom's PLR Scheme authors receive payments from government funds for the free borrowing of their books from public libraries in the United Kingdom.
It would appear that the system works so well that most people haven't even heard of it
sTRANGE CONVOLUTED THINKING (Score:1, Interesting)
I suspect too much ganja was involved with this article. Whether the copy is digital or a book passed from friend to friend, the copy right is the same. If an author of an ebook or hard copy novel can convince millions of people to purchase the work, more power to them. If no one thinks the work is worth the money, tough luck bucko! It is the nature of copy right. If I author the definitive book of Belly Button Lint Colors...and zillions of folks purchase it for a dollar a shot, I get my percentage. Woohoo! If I spend 30 years of my life writing the book, and no one cares about the book, tough shit. Them are the breaks. Congress keeps changing the law regarding the actual duration of copy right. Congress is one of those enimies they speak about in the Oath they take when entering office...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States agaisnt all enimies, foreigh and domestiv. They are the domestic variety.
Re:Copyright Law should Reflect Reality (Score:1, Interesting)
Bravo, you hit the nail on the head!! Too bad most folks have no clue, especially lawyers.