Well, guys, I skipped from page 1 to here. I thought this is where it was headed when I saw it. Not sure how some of you figure things but if I own a car, park it in the driveway and leave it for a year that doesn't mean you have a right to come drive it away. That's theft. Same as when I put my lunch in the fridge at work and somebody comes and eats it because "I didn't know whose it was". Yes, that's happened to me. The point is, it's not yours. And just because I'm not using it right now doesn't mean it doesn't belong to me. Some people can't figure out that when you own a patent or a copyright, that makes it property.
As a songwriter I have some pretty strong opinions about this kind of thing. If it's something I created it means as much to me as the gazebo you built yourself. Want me to strip the lumber off of that so other people can use it for something? I still collect royalties from songs I wrote 25 years ago. People are not just supposed to take what belongs to you. I think there may be laws in the red states that proclaim that very fact. Not sure about the other states.
Nobody seem to think intellectual property is worth anything since algore invented the internet. Guess he should have gotten a patent, huh?
Geez talk about dredging up an old fight... OK, have it your way. Bob was much more succinct and kind than I'm capable of being.
You're free to have whatever views you want on copyright - if you were writing songs 25 years ago then I guess you're part of the old guard that just doesn't understand (or want to admit) how things have changed and that the old copyright system is almost completely useless in today's world. Case in point - here we have a book that has been pretty much unavailable for the last 30 years, with no plans of re-printing, and the author is making NOTHING off of it, and according to him never even did in the first place. The point is that WHERE IS THE HARM IN COPYING? Nobody's losing a damn dime since none of us would be buying it anyway due to unavailability - and even those used copies that are floating around are being sold second-hand with no royalties etc. being passed on to
either the publisher or the author. But no, for some antiquated reasoning that only old folks like you seem to understand, nobody else on earth should be allowed access to the information in this book because some idiot publishing house has "rights" to it, whatever that means.
However it's clear you haven't spent any time looking at data on distribution models and copyright reform. All that extremely tight copyright restrictions do is jack up the profits for publishers, record labels, and distribution channels. It's a well-known fact that recording artists make practically nothing off of album sales due to the heavy hands of the record labels, managers, etc. but instead make the bulk of their money through touring and merchandising. If this IS the case, would it not make more sense to let the music be either freely or very cheaply available, to promote an audience to come and see the shows and buy the schwag? There is a reason that many bands that CAN get out from under their labels' thumb, like Radiohead, and many independent artists have turned to such a strategy. It's got the record labels pissed right off because this truly IS eroding their profits, unlike music downloading in general. Me downloading an album isn't taking money away from anyone because it's not something i was going to buy anyway at $20 per CD. Make them cheaper, then I'll buy. There's no way something that costs 20¢ to stamp out should cost me $20 in store with maybe $1-2 at most going to the artist and everything else being lost in between. It's no wonder such a top-heavy business model is crumbling and I'm glad to see it happen - my generation is finally calling bulls:censored:t on the older generations' greed and business tyranny. Maybe artists can finally start making the money they should instead of handing 90% over to all the in-between bureaucracy. The only artists I've seen come out in very strong support of restrictive copyright are the ones who are slipping into obscurity and are scratching and clawing to protect years-old royalties rather than getting their asses in gear and producing stuff that people want to buy.
Bob, the point is, it ain't you or anyone else on this thread, is it? I don't care who it is. You mention in a reply it's not the author, it's someone else, whoever that is. The author must have either sold or signed away his rights. I don't care. This property is legally owned by someone and someone with no claim to it tried to copy it and give it away. That is clearly theft as it is with any book or recording or painting. Unless the owner, usually the author but not in this case, has given permission for it to be copied and distributed. Maybe where you live you don't mind people stealing your property or maybe it's not against the law. I don't know and I don't care. It is where I live and I'm glad.
Some people have trouble understanding that a published work (ideas contained within) is property. Are there really tree huggers on this site that think all ideas put into a published form should be shared freely and no one should own them? What incentive would there be to create art if it's a sure thing that you will starve?
Well first of all for not knowing and not caring all that much, you sure felt the need to come to a new forum, dredge up a near-year-old thread and troll everyone and bi7ch them out for a situation that's long been resolved and put to rest. I SAID FROM THE OUTSET that if I ever received any correspondence or request from either the author or the publisher I would gladly cease-and-desist and remove all copies. AT THE TIME I DID IT, I was under the understanding that Canadian copyright law only extended out for 25 years if the work had not been reprinted. THIS WAS MISTAKEN since it's actually something like 50 years. Which brings me to a counterpoint to your second paragraph - No, I don't think everything should be freely available. But I strongly support copyright reform to drop IP rights, patent rights, and copyrights down to maybe 10 years at the MOST. This WOULD foster further creativity, since artists/authors/inventors would no longer be free to develop one album/book/invention, charge an ungodly amount for it, and sit on their laurels for the next 70 years on the royalties. They would have to keep working and developing new things to keep the money flowing. Copyright law that is extremely strict and extends out almost indefinitely with very severe penalties only serves to stifle creativity and culture in general. Studies have been done and this is where the data points, but of course it's anathema to big business' power structure, and guess who it is that buys off the lawmakers? It ain't the artists.
:agree2:
