The efficient internet and cheap fast manufacturing for physical goods changes the equation. New business model?

Copyright is a technological anachronism, and attempts to create scarcity where none exists.
The internet, which is by no means perfect, is really good at?

Copyright is a state-sanctioned monopoly. Cutting through all the emotional stuff about moral rights and material rights, that's what it comes down to. The state grants?

70, 80, 90 years, or more, that's fair, seems to be the argument.

Yes, sounds very fair to publishers, but it is not fair to authors, on the whole. Some authors favour a reduction in Copyright term to less than 10 years. This frees them of restrictive?

I think that large parts of copyright are natural rights, though — the right to the fruits?

Who says they cannot have "fair return" on the fruits of their labours with short Copyrigh terms? If you combine a?

Oh, for heaven's sake, most creators (and I'm going to use creators because that's the common thread) don't actually want to lock up 13 y.o.s, and nor do most copyright holders. You?

1. Recoup costs with fair margin
2. Costs of production by anyone are declining
3. Costs of enforcement by collective are increasing
4. No scarcity of product has been demonstrated

Thus the suggestion would be, and evidence supports, a much shorter term is sufficient.

It occurs to me that many arguments?

The best analogy I've seen is it's like jumping the fence to a swimming pool.

That's actually pretty good. I like "If I steal your CD, you don't have it anymore and can't listen to it. But if I copy your CD, you have a copy and I have a?

Dickens clearly didn't suffer much from those conditions

Yep, one of the most fantastically successful authors to have ever lived was wildly successful, as were two other authors who were ridiculously successful. Although Twain wanted longer copyright terms to protect his children, it should be noted.

We have a system?

I doubt Tolkien would've starved, but that's just not fair. His Estate wouldn't have got any money from the vastly popular films, even though he provided the important creative basis.

Why should his estate have gotten any money? Your garbage men's families don't continue to get his wage from the?

Why should his estate have gotten any money? Your garbage men's families don't continue to get his wage from the council after he kicks the bucket.

I can't accept this comparison. If the garbageman owned the grabage removal business, that would indeed pass to his family (if he so chose)?

Your garbage men's families don't continue to get his wage from the council after he kicks the bucket.

First of all, one of the most important writers of the 20th century =/= a garbage man.

Look, the wage-earner does a job and then gets the money straight away; the creator?

but in terms of the creation of IP, we've never had it so good

In terms of reusing existing IP, we've never had it so bad. And when Mickey's next coming due for release into the public domain, it'll probably get worse. How can you possibly say that it's not?

"Because Tolkien was popular, his descendants are entitled to a whopping income for decades to come."

Yup. That's about the measure of it. Hugely successful businessmen make their descendants hugely rich; hugely successful whatevers tend to be able to make their children rich.

Why shouldn't creators?

You're making a powerful?

How can you possibly say that it's not a broken system when every time a century-old cartoon character is about to become available for everyone to use, he's retroactively granted a couple more decades of protection?

I can't see anyone arguing for copyrights being extended based on the demand of?

Yup. That's about the measure of it. Hugely successful businessmen make their descendants hugely rich; hugely successful whatevers tend to be able to make their children rich.

Why shouldn't creators?

To be of value, a business must be successful. If it's inherited, in order to provide income to the inheritors?

Copyright protects people who make a living selling certain kinds of information (keeping it secret is obviously not an option). Computers work by copying information. It will be copied. I don't really know what the new model?

I can't see anyone arguing for copyrights being extended based on the demand of one person or company. That's a silly system, but you get that in the USA. If it's copyright for life plus 50, or plus 70 or whatever, that should be the system, if it changes it?

it exists to benefit the creator and to benefit society

I'd have said it exists to benefit society by benefiting creators (and the 'creation' industries). One bit you miss is that the social benefit isn't just from having the work in the public domain, it's from having it exist at?

Why can't it just be a fixed term

Actually, I'd always assumed that was administrative convenience.

Contrast this with copyrights, which are of value to society as a whole only when the subject matter passes into the public domain.

You've mentioned this notion a couple of times and I don't get it. Doesn't society benefit from art/music/ideas regardless of whether the creator owns them or not?

Contrast this with copyrights, which are of value to society as a whole only when the subject matter passes into the public domain

They are of benefit to society even while still under copyright. You can tell this because people choose to pay money for works. In general people are?

Er, you do know that businesses are arbitrary creations of the state, just like copyright, and in fact rely heavily upon the coercive power of the state all the time?

Extremely good point, Keir.

I'm very much down with a shortening of copyright period and with various other tweaks, but?

If it's inherited, in order to provide income to the inheritors it must continue to be successful.

This also applies to copyrighted works. If they don't continue to be successful (ie, reprinted, reproduced, re-released) then they don't provide income to the creator.

Yes, that success is passive, but it originates?

Copyright is benifitial in creating content we all love. The creater has a?

Most contracts for writers will specify just what areas publishers want to obtain – audio, dramatisation, electronic, etc.. In some of my work, I am happy?

I do think that it's easier to sermonise about the evils of copyright when it's not the way you actually earn your living.

Ah, but then you have a conflict of interest ;-)

@keir

They are of benefit to society even while still under copyright. You can?

Actually, it's not.

Um, it is pretty similar. Consider the case where you steal $7.50 from me; that's theft. Now consider the case where you infringe my copyrights to the tune of $7.50. In both cases, you are depriving me of $7.50 I have a right to in law.

Now,?

Treasury bonds are not the same thing. You pay money for them and they accrue interest. They are a form of property. Copyright is not.

Jesus, you really have this mantra that you aren't going to let go of, don't you? Treasury bonds aren't property in that sense either, being?

but I do think that it's easier to sermonise about the evils of copyright when it's not the way you actually earn your living.

As a software developer I do earn a living as a result of Copyright. Just though I would point this out to the "Creators" on this?

because the issues I have brought up are not only cogent, they're bloody close to the bone-

I probably wouldn't bother doing either if I?

I wrote the words. I invented the?

The issue is about stifling others and taking away other peoples' freedoms to maintain your monopoly.

But copyright doesn't prevent that. It simply requires that you get permission from the copyright holder before reproducing their work. I have to do it sometimes for my job and I've hardly ever been?

We differ on the main identities of Copyright holders. I agree that individual authors, artists etc. are?

The issue for copyright now is similar to the major problem with DRM.

DRM potentially destroys all the benefit for society. If an uncrackable DRM scheme is somehow created (and believe me, I doubt (and sincerely pray) it could ever happen), everything protected by that scheme will never pass into?

Jesus, you really have this mantra that you aren't going to let go of, don't you? Treasury bonds aren't property in that sense either, being purely societal promises to pay, and solely potential money, just like copyright is a societal promise to pay on use of an idea.

Just like?

They were mesmerized by Beatlemania, Abba-mania and Elvis-devotion, but they saw the as

Sorry wife arrived home as I was revising that sentence and i forgot to finish it ;-)

They were mesmerized by Beatlemania, Abba-mania and Elvis-devotion, but they saw the hype as a reason for sales, not a?

For information on ACTA, have a look at http://acta.tracs.co.nz/ (I can haz new URL!)

For the text of the Copyright Act and amendments (and all current legislation), please go to http://legislation.govt.nz/

You'll have to use Search to find the New Technologies Amendment, as it hasn't been added to the?

I'm really enjoying the theoretical back and forth, but you're really saying there was no "benefit to society" in J.M. Barrie assigning the Peter Pan copyright to Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in 1927, which was confirmed in his will a decade later?

I have scrupulously avoided the first statement, because it is false. The second, however, is mainly true, and therefore I have said it.

Also, I'm quite happy to agree that the RIAA are thugs & lawyers,?

Abuse of copyright is what I argue against, and we may differ as to the definition?

On examining my opinions I find that I do believe copyright is less artifical than I said. Artists are entitled to recompense and control of how their work is used.

While I don't think this is supportable from a natural rights?

Quite apart from all the evils and problems currently, the DRM's hardly going to vanish when the copyright expires. If it doesn't, will it still be illegal to circumvent?

Just seeing the letter DRM up there – there's no reason for copyright law to have anything to do with DRM.

When talking about copyright in a digital world, you can't ignore the role (largely negative) that DRM has played (and is playing) in shaping the debate.

DRM is more?

Matthew Poole et al- tell me why anyone should have the right to use my words in other media for their own benefit without paying me for the use of those words? During the copyright period? (Or my estate once I'm dead?) And, my words sometimes make memorable characters which?

Not that it illustrates anything (much), but I'm reminded Don Quixote. The history of the book, rather than the idea that the RIAA is tilting at windmills.

Cervantes wrote a second part to Don Quixote, at least partly as a rejoinder to a conterfeit part two that had circulated.?

The debate here could (partly) be described as between your question and "Why should anyone have to pay you?"

When you get down to it the answers to both questions rapidly approach "because".

(The idea of everybody having a lawyer's dead body lying around is kind of intriguing too.)

I've had someone break into my house, go through my wardrobe, steal my clothes and jewellery. And I've had someone steal my writing, and by 'steal' I mean publish it verbatim?

Lyndon Hood – in response to your question 'Why should anyone have to pay (me)?" Intellectual property rights.

We need better ways to reflect the value to society of creative work, as I said at the beginning of this thread. I really?

*use* ANY of my characters and I'lll try to financially kill you -Mark, we are not talking?

OK, I'll give up, just go away and die – because very obviously what I do is not esteemed (sure as shit even now isnt paid for!) and isnt important in any way,

Way to personalise it, dude. I'm in the same boat, as a creator, but the way I?

Just seeing the letter DRM up there – there's no reason for copyright law to have anything to do with DRM.

Except, as I just remembered, that it already does. Section 226 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008

. . . there are plenty of jobs that involve pouring your heart and sweat into creating material which you subsequently have no control over the use of – so I can see why some people are asking what's so special about artists and authors.

Do you have any examples?

DomPost: Copyright backdown ruled out by Tizard

I think Creative Commons?

I'm not buying the line about folks envying the courageous entrepreneurs.

That's nice. Just to make things absolutely clear, it's not a line I'm avocating. All I'm saying is that creators should enjoy a similar level of security to that of entrepreneurial shareholders.

And that feeds me & mine, right?

Sacha, pretty well every bureaucrat I've ever had dealings with – and an Intellectual Property Bank would be a bureaucrat's wet dream – is earning more?

If you choose to take on a legendarily low paying profession and expect it to make you a living when your local catchment is a minority percentage of 4m people, on your own head?

No one owes me a living? Right – but my?

Although I do think Islander should possibly have come clean a bit earlier?

Despite your distrust of bureaucrats, I don't see the private sector rushing to help you – other that the well-established mechanisms of?

best catch to date here was nearly 10kg for the tide – and that was two big fit 'baiters plying nets on the north bank, and a 10yrold looking after the sock net, and – not least – a cleaner-sorter making sure the catch was?

I can totally relate to the stormy arthritis grumpiness (and probably only a day behind you as those southerly fronts sweep over). I found the last few years much worse, and I'm not sure if it's actually climate change, me getting older, or?

Keir – um sorry,

Oh, it's just the idea of Mark telling you that the catchment area for your work was a small part of 4 million was too — I dunno — bizarre? — to pass. (That and I was kind of curious if I was right or not.)?

Keri, when you were writing it, did you imagine it would win the?

Keir, I came to the same conclusion while you were typing your post (hence the whitebait question as I knew I'd get a decent answer) – so I doubt we were alone. The whisky conversations were a giveaway, too.. :)

Nobody else does the Aue thang quite like . .?

For every JK Rowling, there are 10000 others writing in their off hours, hoping to make some pocket money. Sorry to disillusion you, but I live in the real world with real expectations.

And, Mark, groups like the Society of Authors and the Writers Guild of America (which has at?

But for every right there has to be an obligation, which is to release the work to society to benefit society.

And that's where I keep getting stuck, though to be fair I'm just the kind of person for whom the words "benefit society" tend to get my scepticism gland?

But for every right there has to be an obligation, which is to release the work to society to benefit society.

But if we are to put Islander's work in the spotlight for a few seconds, where would the benefit to society be if it was out of copyright now?

It's not so much the making available of an existing work in new formats that enhances the culture?

I'm working on my Apple lemon (o yes! There are such-) so I hope it doesnt freeze as it's done several times over the past months: Mark, there are quite a few?

Anyway – further clarifications? More intimate revelations apropos royalties/rates/extreme nastiness on the part of publishers/CLL? Here is your deep throat-

I'm not sure if I'd consider one of society's rights to take the creation of one person, and then fiddle around with it and make it into something different.

How would you ever progress a theme, then? It's what we do with Shakespeare all the time. Marlowe, Wilde – anyone?

"Support for the Arts. Artists may join a union from which they receive insurance against unemployment. In this system of employment security, artists must produce input in the form of work, and many artists take menial?

"Without reinvigorating the public domain,"

-holusbolus?

"the whole thing goes rancid"

-WTF?

"and we enter a dark age"

-doh?

"whre (sic) no one can create anything"

-I'm sorry, everyone is limited to what has been previously created? No shit eh?

"because?

How would you ever progress a theme, then?

This already happens all the time without circumventing copyright. Exploring similar themes, ideas, places and stories to someone else in whatever creative media is allowed right? Golden age sci fi authors didn't have to steal from each other to progress the overall?

There's nothing in nature to stop me from copying your work, there's only the law.

Isn't that like saying there's nothing in nature to stop someone coming into your camp and stealing your food?
previously there was the ability of you to stop them stealing it, but with media now?

for me copyright deals with property and ownership. The problem lies with people's difficulty in perceiving ownership and rights in something they can't hold or see. That doesn't mean?

Rob, what did you think of Rick Shera's cogent points above?

still reading sasha, got a day job kinda thing going on right now and although I'm reading while my client does their recording I think they're getting pissed off at my inattention. (no I really am listening to that?

they would like to lock away 13 year olds for listening to MP3s.

13 year old's can't(shouldn't be allowed to) go into a store and take items off the shelf without paying. even if they can walk out of the store without being caught they've still broken a law. are?

Look at Rowling, who's gone from beneficiary to 12th-richest-woman-in-Britain in the space of a decade. Obviously she's a bit of an extreme case,

your answer's in your own sentence.
there's how many billion on this planet? rowlings should be excluded from the data cos she doesn't represent anywhere near the?

Laws like section 92A which we have managed to have delayed but which will come into force no matter what apparently on 29 Feb 09. S92A effectively requires ISPs (which includes schools, libraries, universities, businesses as well as the more traditional ISP) to terminate completely users' internet access on the?

I can't see anyone arguing for copyrights being extended based on the demand of one person or company.

why should intellectual property be treated any differently than physical property, such as a piece of land. your dad buys a piece of land. passes it on to you etc and so?

why does a creative property lose its value after a certain period of time yet a physical property maintains it?

That wasn't what I was saying at all, in fact I've come down more on the side what you've said here.

What I was saying is that "Mickey Mouse is?

What does this actually mean? `Outdated' seems to be doing an awful lot of work here.

- It is being used as a tool to protect outdated business models

What does this actually mean? `Outdated' seems to be doing an awful lot of work here.

Sorry.

why does a creative property lose its value after a certain period of time yet a physical property maintains it?

Because part of its appeal is its timeliness. The further away you get from the inception of a creative piece (in the main), the less relevant it usually is to?

– It is being used as a tool to protect outdated business models

What does this actually mean? `Outdated' seems to be doing an awful lot of work here.

It goes with the rest of what Rick wrote, about artificial scarcity and value. In the old publishing model, which publishers?

The further away you get from the inception of a creative piece (in the main), the less relevant it usually is to its cultural environment.

I think any decent English teacher (not my strong subject) could look at Shakespeare, Dickens, heck, a lot of classical literature and say that it's?

Without reinvigorating the public domain, the whole thing goes rancid and we enter a dark age whre no one can create anything. . .

If nothing else, that might go some way towards explaining why Rancid sound so much like The Clash.

What does `artificial' actually mean here? After all, all prices are essentially artificial — or rather, what society agrees will be the price, via the market or other mechanism.

This is what I really, really dislike about the Lessig/Doctorow axis — the slipping in of moral/subjective?

You can also look at Making Light (PNH (head editor at Tor) & TNH and various other fannish types), especially their discussions on copyright and fan fiction.

Note?

I think any decent English teacher (not my strong subject) could look at Shakespeare, Dickens, heck, a lot of classical literature and say that it's still very relevant to the current cultural environment.

So Shakespeare was the only playwright of his day? Dickens, the only novelist of his? I said?

Note that neither PNH nor TNH think that publishing is dead, at all, or that they're `just middlemen' (esp. not TNH, for obvious reasons!) I'm pretty sure there's a post somewhere about what will publishing be like in the 21st century, but I can't be bothered looking.

I don't think?

Keir Leslie mentioned the empathy & inspiration that sci-fic/fan?

If an author aged 20 releases a stunning new book which has a huge impact on society, then lives to 103, that's 83+50 years before anyone can do more than comment on it.

This is nonsense — look at Modern art and observe people using and reusing ideas without needing?

Unauthorised photography is essentially stealing an image that is for sale and artists get quite concerned about it.

How do you try?

Because part of its appeal is its timeliness. The further away you get from the inception of a creative piece (in the main), the less relevant it usually is to its cultural environment.

by lose I mean stripped of its legal right to hold value or be owned.
you and?

Culture is not property

why?
just cos society deems it to be relevant to them does that give them the right to strip the creator and owner of a work of its value?
isn't that communism for intellectual property and capitalism for everything else?
is consistency too much too ask?

but it was pointed out up-thread that exceptions like Rowling (and Dickens was bigger in his day than Rowling in hers) don't count.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your intepretation of my comment but I meant that if you want to infer all writers are rich from?

If an author aged 20 releases a stunning new book which has a huge impact on society, then lives to 103, that's 83+50 years before anyone can do more than comment on it.

that's nice but why do you think that it is societies right to strip a citizen of?

that's nice but why do you think that it is societies right to strip a citizen of their possessions in a non communist society. why in a democracy are capitalism rules only for non IP.

Copyright is a right granted by society for a limited time. Initially, it was?

I really *cannot* understand your desire to 'want(ed) to build on' someone else's work: be inspired by it, great -there's so many writers who do this. But they/we create something new: we dont just steal someone else's characters/storyline – especially when & while copyright holds-

I don't want to build?

While publishers tend to take 40/45% of?

No, to make the Doctorow model work, you need to be Cory Doctorow. And not an inch to the side, either — John Scalzi couldn't do it, Charles Stross couldn't do it, Ken MacLeod certainly couldn't.

You might be surprised at some of Charlie Stross' thinking on this.

I mean,?

]]> Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:14:28 +1300 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/discussion-on-copyright/?p=72750#post72750 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/discussion-on-copyright/?p=72750#post72750 Whoa whoa Mark H -I didnt *complain* about the level of income I get: I stated that I earn less than the average wage. And I dont *expect* to *deserve* anything – except what copyrights I have, earn-

the system we have currently isnt exaxtly fair for writers et al?

]]> Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:37:12 +1300 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/discussion-on-copyright/?p=72752#post72752 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/discussion-on-copyright/?p=72752#post72752 To be sure, Islander.
But even so, most of those cases — yourself included, I think — will be people whose lifestyle or personality are distinctive enough to be a marketable selling point for a new work, with or without the physical presence of the writer in the marketing process.?

]]> Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:57:45 +1300 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/discussion-on-copyright/?p=72757#post72757 http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/discussion-on-copyright/?p=72757#post72757

Those laws that grant you copyright over your creation also set limits on it, for the benefit of society as a whole. We live in societies for mutual benefit. This is one of the prices of gaining those benefits, like rode rules or taxes.

you didn't answer my question mark.?

...because, "Intellectual Property" is simply and expression of ideas. We have ideas all the time, probably hundreds a day. Writing those ideas down is a pretty trivial task (whether in book or computer code form). The idea that the action of?

Why one set of rules for Intellectual property people and another set for everyone else?

There's only a contradiction if you regard copyright as a property, rather than a licence to control and benefit. Which you appear to do.

Otherwise, there are plenty of examples of separate goups within society?

I couldn't resist forwarding this one ...

Lebanon Claiming Only It Owns Hummus, Falafel, tabouleh And Baba Gannouj

Another day, another ridiculous intellectual property lawsuit. Along the same lines as various regions in France declaring that only they can sell?

The idea that the action of writing out an idea should somehow exclude everyone else having a similar thought and acting upon it is not only repugnant, it is stupid.

repugnant a great word.
ok apply your views to the early elvis recordings. why are they public domain?
someone paid?

because, "Intellectual Property" is simply and expression of ideas.

you talk of it likes its a conversation over a cup of tea.
creative works be they stories music, inventions etc all take a lot more effort that that. 99.99999999% take a lot of development trial and error and dare I?

I said "in the main" because there are always exceptions, but it was pointed out up-thread that exceptions like Rowling (and Dickens was bigger in his day than Rowling in hers) don't count.

No doubt Rowling, who often has her copyright infringed, and on occasion pursues legally those that do?

As I saud upthread, copyright violation is more like jumping the fence at the swimming pool than theft.

Also not something that everyone can do 20/50 etc years after the swimming pool was built.

Also not something that everyone can do 20/50 etc years after the swimming pool was built.

Perhaps that one wasn't durable enough to throw in at that point.

Anyway:

Yoko Ono Withdraws 'Fair Use' Lawsuit – Stanford Law School

you talk of it likes its a conversation over a cup of tea.

That's exactly what it is like. How do you differentiate between a "good" idea and a "cup of tea" idea? Your "individual ownership" ring fences everything into a series of mini monopolies. We are talking about means?

They way you describe them, the 'thing' they are is information.

which is the common mistake a layperson makes. you're looking at the end result, not the resources effort time and skill that went into that end product. music isn't information, its entertainment. you use the information angle as an?

that's just plain stupid prejudice.

Er. Do you know what I mean by the Californian Ideology? I honestly don't see how it is at all prejudiced, or at all stupid, and I certainly don't see how Doctorow's passport makes any odds. The place I first met the term was a?

That's exactly what it is like.

spoke either like a man who's never actually created anything, or as a genius who hasn't had to work hard in his life :)
Either way you don't value the work of creatives which is sad, but a society who doesn't comprehend and value?

You can talk about copyright being?

Your "individual ownership" ring fences everything into a series of mini monopolies. We are talking about means to reproduction here, not physical objects.

Sure, but the onus is on you to demonstrate essential difference between the two.

The swimming pool owner is well within his rights (I think we all?

spoke either like a man who's never actually created anything, or as a genius who hasn't had to work hard in his life :)

Don would be the first to say he is no genius (sorry, Don ;-) but lots of people think he's quite clever. He also?

You can talk about copyright being property till you are blue in the face – it won't change the fact that, under that same law, it is not property.

Laws come from somewhere – typically principles, but not always. Arguing that copyright isn't property just because the law says it?

which is the common mistake a layperson makes. you're looking at the end result, not the resources effort time and skill that went into that end product. music isn't information, its entertainment. you use the information angle as an excuse to justify marginalizing its commercial value.

Layman? I'll have?

Physical property works differently because the costs and benefits (and logistics and, yes, perceptions) of physical property are different. Which is why the state doesn't take a third of your net creative output into a copyright equivalent of the general fund every year.

Actually, income from creative sources is taxed?

Currently your argument is about as useful as "sodomy is illegal, so gay people having sex should be arrested".

Daniel Davies has quite a brilliant take on this — i.e, that copyright should continue as illegal because then lots of people break the law, and this incubates a healthy distrust?

Yeah, I did know that. I was going to say that wasn't my point, but if you try to apply my analogy that is where you end up. Having a bad day for that. Is there a pill I can take?

The other sentences I'm standing by.

Sorry it came out sounding so bitchy. :)
My pills don't seem to be working well today.

Either way you don't value the work of creatives which is sad

For sure. I don't believe in deities. But don't be sad for me, I still lead a pretty complete life.

As far as valuing the work of artists, writers, programmers, film makers and musicians go all I can?

Take music – why should I not be able to take a song that meant?

Copyright expires as an intentional part of its design.

why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?

As far as I can see it was utterly unfounded, although if any one could explain what is `stupid & prejudiced' about the term `Californian Ideology', I'd be happy to listen.?

why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?

Because if it doesn't, then all new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more.

That's just one reason.

why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?

er, yes we have. Countless times in many different ways. Your comment comes right below one clear explanation by Robin Sheat.

I am going to be kind and assume deliberate miscomprehension.

A great example of this is is that Romeo and Juliet move that came out 10 or 15 years ago. All the original lines, but applied to a modern situation. Were Shakespeare's plays tied up in copyright, society loses out because they can't do that.

That's not necessarily the case.?

all new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more

Wah??

You could always contact the copyright holders

Harder than you would think, quite often.

Having now read the paper in question, I don't think it's a Californian ideology as much as a global digital ideology – it?

J R R Tolkein's work has obviously just been redone and come to the big screen.

And if his estate had just said no? Maybe because they don't like movies or something. Society loses.

It is detrimental to everyone else to allow one person or group to control something that?

Fair enough, I do withdraw and apologise for that comment. I hadn't heard the term before and thought you were just bagging Californians for being Californians.

No worries; it isn't what you might call a very common term.

Wah? If you can't get hold of an original copy, you can't copy it to start with. Let's say you want to copy and distribute it: "new access" is simply begging the question of whether you should be allowed to copy and distribute without permission.

Say it's 200 years later,?

That becomes a choice. You could always contact the copyright holders- and if necessary (gasp, how unfair!) offer to pay royalties to publish it yourself!

(Assuming music for convenience) I don't want to publish it. I want to listen to it. Maybe remix it into something new to see how?

Were Shakespeare's plays tied up in copyright, society loses out because they can't do that.

no, you could do it but you would have to contribute some reddies to the originator of the work, or get their permission. your work would not exist as referential if their work did not?

How bout Mr Jackson hired some writers to come up with a new story. Why would that be so dreadful?
In net terms, society would have gained a new cultural artifact, and not lost the old one.

So, copyright should be used to prevent people telling the stories how they?

Because if it doesn't, then all new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more.

surely a not published becomes public domain clause would deal with that, rather than stripping everyone of their rights.

Because that's part of the arbitrary deal. There's no real underlying reason exactly, it's just that society gives and society takes.

is that a good enough explanation in the modern world.
The whole social good argument doesn't really add up when compared to other endeavours, like land speculation and oil?

no, you could do it but you would have to contribute some reddies to the originator of the work, or get their permission. your work would not exist as referential if their work did not pre exist so it seems only fair to acknowledge it.

And their work wouldn't exist?