In article , Rob
wrote:


'Copyright' appears and is owned by the author as soon as the work is
created. The author may assign/rent/sell/permit/etc various
copyrights, but that is a matter for them. If they have sold or rented
rights, then the body or person who obtained the rights would have the
relevant control.

Yes, OK, I sort of know that. It's just *I think* copyright does more to
stifle innovation, reward and dissemination than it creates. It's just
my view, and I think you disagree, and that's fine.

That is really a matter of how people choose to use it.

The above is fine with me. It means the author decides if they want to
give work away, or charge for it, etc. Their work, their choice.
Otherwise, why should they bother in the first place?


That's a fettered choice.

In what way? The author decides how their work may be deployed or used.

it is only 'fettered' so far as someone else is concerned. e.g. if they
want the work for free, but the author expects payment. However in such
cases I'm afraid my sympathy tends to be with the author.



I regard it as a moral right of the author, and hence expect the law
to accord with that.

I think when you use the words 'moral right' it's necessary to look at
the intent of the perpetrator (for want of a better label) - if someone
is using something that isn't theirs, and attributes that use explicitly
(names the author) or implicitly (downloads a song), and no harm comes
from it (beyond perhaps a dented author's ego) I see no moral problem.

I do, since the work is not theirs to treat in such a way. There may be
'harm'. The author may be denied payment. They may find the way that the
work is being distributed affects their reputation. e.g. They may find it
harder to sell other work as anyone who might have bought may think, "Why
bother to pay him for it when if I wait someone else will let me have a
pirate copy for nothing?" There may also be 'harm' to people who pay for a
pirated version when they might have got a cheaper or better one by paying
the author.

I can appreciate that theft is attractive to the thief, and that people
like to think they are "causing no harm". But the point is that this is
not a decision they are entitiled to make.

fair enough, but in a capatalist/market system the author has to sell
his work, just as do others.


They don't have to.

Indeed. It is the author's choice, and then a matter for others if they
wish to pay or go without.


However I am also concerned about publishers and organisations who
make copies and distribute them *to make money* without consulting the
author or getting permission. This goes on, and is piracy or theft. It
steals from the author who might otherwise get payment for their work.
It steals from the purchasers who are being tricked into paying for
what they might have got at lesser (or zero) cost.


Well, that's a rather different argument and is simply exploitation -
although I would imagine from your comments above (**) legal redress
exists, absence of legal aid notwithstanding.

It does in principle. However trying to sue someone (civil matter) in a
distant country with different laws may be somewhat problematic.

Until recently, countries like Russia and China (and some others) simply
declined to recognise copyright, and freely pirated textbooks, etc. Indeed,
at one time India did a lot of this, and so did the USA! By denying the
author and assigned publisher the trade, the price for those who *did* pay
was higher. Thus both the author and those who bought the 'legitimate'
version were 'harmed'. This still goes on a great deal in various parts of
the world. In some cases the texts were hastily copied and hence had
serious errors or omissions, thus misleading the readers. Also potentially
quite harmful.

The problem is that once you start to try and excuse such piracy on the
basis that "I want a copy and I don't want to pay what the copyright
holders are asking" then you may do 'harm' regardless of believing
otherwise...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


'Copyright' appears and is owned by the author as soon as the work is
created. The author may assign/rent/sell/permit/etc various
copyrights, but that is a matter for them. If they have sold or rented
rights, then the body or person who obtained the rights would have the
relevant control.


Yes, OK, I sort of know that. It's just *I think* copyright does more to
stifle innovation, reward and dissemination than it creates. It's just
my view, and I think you disagree, and that's fine.


That is really a matter of how people choose to use it.


OK, sorry - the way copyright is used does more to stiffle (etc.)


The above is fine with me. It means the author decides if they want to
give work away, or charge for it, etc. Their work, their choice.
Otherwise, why should they bother in the first place?



That's a fettered choice.


In what way? The author decides how their work may be deployed or used.

it is only 'fettered' so far as someone else is concerned. e.g. if they
want the work for free, but the author expects payment. However in such
cases I'm afraid my sympathy tends to be with the author.


The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as the
best example - but it's not *necessary*.



I regard it as a moral right of the author, and hence expect the law
to accord with that.


I think when you use the words 'moral right' it's necessary to look at
the intent of the perpetrator (for want of a better label) - if someone
is using something that isn't theirs, and attributes that use explicitly
(names the author) or implicitly (downloads a song), and no harm comes
from it (beyond perhaps a dented author's ego) I see no moral problem.


I do, since the work is not theirs to treat in such a way. There may be
'harm'. The author may be denied payment. They may find the way that the
work is being distributed affects their reputation. e.g. They may find it
harder to sell other work as anyone who might have bought may think, "Why
bother to pay him for it when if I wait someone else will let me have a
pirate copy for nothing?" There may also be 'harm' to people who pay for a
pirated version when they might have got a cheaper or better one by paying
the author.

I can appreciate that theft is attractive to the thief, and that people
like to think they are "causing no harm". But the point is that this is
not a decision they are entitiled to make.


Your opinion on morals is all well and dandy. It's quite unlike you to
say what people can and can't do - is that what you meant?!


fair enough, but in a capatalist/market system the author has to sell
his work, just as do others.



They don't have to.


Indeed. It is the author's choice, and then a matter for others if they
wish to pay or go without.


OK



However I am also concerned about publishers and organisations who
make copies and distribute them *to make money* without consulting the
author or getting permission. This goes on, and is piracy or theft. It
steals from the author who might otherwise get payment for their work.
It steals from the purchasers who are being tricked into paying for
what they might have got at lesser (or zero) cost.



Well, that's a rather different argument and is simply exploitation -
although I would imagine from your comments above (**) legal redress
exists, absence of legal aid notwithstanding.


It does in principle. However trying to sue someone (civil matter) in a
distant country with different laws may be somewhat problematic.

Until recently, countries like Russia and China (and some others) simply
declined to recognise copyright, and freely pirated textbooks, etc. Indeed,
at one time India did a lot of this, and so did the USA! By denying the
author and assigned publisher the trade, the price for those who *did* pay
was higher. Thus both the author and those who bought the 'legitimate'
version were 'harmed'. This still goes on a great deal in various parts of
the world. In some cases the texts were hastily copied and hence had
serious errors or omissions, thus misleading the readers. Also potentially
quite harmful.

I'm afraid the main harm I see is those without money being unable to
access stuff. I accept your point on poor copies - but then I'd argue
that is an outcome of the way copyright is used.

And you must concede that your argument (piracy pushes up prices) is not
cut and dried. It certainly doesn't apply in my case.




The problem is that once you start to try and excuse such piracy on the
basis that "I want a copy and I don't want to pay what the copyright
holders are asking" then you may do 'harm' regardless of believing
otherwise...


It's just that I think copyright does more harm than good. You think it
does more good than harm. Etc. ...

In article , Rob
wrote:


That's a fettered choice.


In what way? The author decides how their work may be deployed or used.

it is only 'fettered' so far as someone else is concerned. e.g. if
they want the work for free, but the author expects payment. However
in such cases I'm afraid my sympathy tends to be with the author.


The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as
the best example - but it's not *necessary*.


Afraid I don't know what you mean by "the decision to copyright".

Copyright by default resides with the author/creator of the work. No-one
else has the 'right' to make/sell/etc copies *unless* the author gives them
permission in the form of a specific agreement. If someone publishes on
the author's behalf, the author may give the 'copyright permissions'
relevant to the form of publication. Normal practice is you sign a
copyright agreement. If you don't read the agreement, then that is your
choice. Don't sign what you haven't read, and don't understand. If you
don't agree with what it says, don't sign.

[snip]


I can appreciate that theft is attractive to the thief, and that
people like to think they are "causing no harm". But the point is that
this is not a decision they are entitiled to make.


Your opinion on morals is all well and dandy. It's quite unlike you to
say what people can and can't do - is that what you meant?!

I am simply pointing out the law, and the moral expectations in our
society, which is mainly bases on free enterprise, buying and selling of
work, etc. I am also pointing out that in such a society 'harm' may well be
done to various people (not just the author) when someone pirates a work.
Since it does harm, it seems reasonable to me to treat is as illegal and
immoral. I am therefore saying that people should obey the law, and regard
as immoral the doing of harm to others. But I can't personally force you to
do as I propose.

[snip]

I'm afraid the main harm I see is those without money being unable to
access stuff.

Or the 'harm' resulting from textbooks never written as the possible author
decided it wasn't worth the effort, and had to do something else to make
a living. Piracy has to have original material to steal.

I accept your point on poor copies - but then I'd argue
that is an outcome of the way copyright is used.

And you must concede that your argument (piracy pushes up prices) is not
cut and dried. It certainly doesn't apply in my case.

Up to you to decide what you want to do with your own work. But not up to
you to decide what to do with the work of others without their
permission.


The problem is that once you start to try and excuse such piracy on
the basis that "I want a copy and I don't want to pay what the
copyright holders are asking" then you may do 'harm' regardless of
believing otherwise...


It's just that I think copyright does more harm than good. You think it
does more good than harm. Etc. ...

No. That isn't actually what I have been saying. :-)

My point is that copyright starts with the author. Their work, and hence
their decision.

However the uses of copyright can be a real pest.

An example:

I just bought a George Harrison CD. Bought by post.

When it arrives, it turns out to be a 'copy controlled' disc. *Not* a Red
Book Audio CD. When I play it on one Audio player, audible defects can be
heard. A different player masks them, but still noticable.

I have returned the disc. I want to be able to listen to the music. I want
it on an Audio CD. That isn't what I got.

My choice is not to accept what was on offer.

Now I really *would* like a copy of the music to enjoy. I'd be quite happy
to pay for it. But due to a mindless obsession with finding a phantom
technofix for pirating, what is on offer isn't of much use to me.

Thus here the 'harm' that piracy has done is that it has caused the music
company to act in a brainless manner *and prevent me buying the copy I'd
like to listen to - thus also denying the payment to the copyright owners.*

I'd agree that the music company are stupid. But they have reacted like
this due to their fear and resentment of a situation where many people feel
they are entitled to make pirate copies...

The problem with breaking the law when it suits you is that it may become a
general habit, and cause unexpected problems for others. "Nothing to do
with me, guv..."

I am very dissapointed by the disc not being acceptable. I was planning to
buy some more discs, but now am deterred as I don't want the same pest
again. (Yes, I have asked the retailer to, in future, warn before sale when
a disc isn't a Red Book Audio CD. However they may often not notice.)

Another example of this is the annoying "nag screens" you have to get
through before you can watch many films on DVD. These also treat all buyers
as pirates. Thus we all end up being inconvenienced and irritated, and
being regarded as potential thieves. The companies should not do this as it
is irrational and stupid. But given piracy and the general attitude to it,
I can see why they do it, even whilst I resent being treated this way.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Rob" wrote in message
...

The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as the
best example - but it's not *necessary*.

There is no "decision to copyright".

The act of creating an original work (literary, or music, or photograph,
etc.) simultaneously creates a copyright. The creator has no choice!
(Though he can choose not to exert his copyright.)

Tim

Tim Martin wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...


The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as the
best example - but it's not *necessary*.


There is no "decision to copyright".

The act of creating an original work (literary, or music, or photograph,
etc.) simultaneously creates a copyright. The creator has no choice!
(Though he can choose not to exert his copyright.)

Tim



But if I release something under the GPL, I have explicitly given
everyone the right to copy,and I have no "right" to prevent that
copying. I don't see how a copyright is created if I chose to publish
under different terms?

--
Nick

On 2005-10-10, Nick Gorham wrote:
Tim Martin wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...


The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as the
best example - but it's not *necessary*.

There is no "decision to copyright".

The act of creating an original work (literary, or music, or photograph,
etc.) simultaneously creates a copyright. The creator has no choice!
(Though he can choose not to exert his copyright.)

But if I release something under the GPL, I have explicitly given
everyone the right to copy,and I have no "right" to prevent that
copying. I don't see how a copyright is created if I chose to publish
under different terms?

The GPL is a license (i.e. permission) to copy with specified conditions.
You retain the copyright which is neither voided nor transferred by
releasing a work under the GPL.

If the licensees remain within these conditions you cannot stop them
copying the work but you can stop them from copying under other conditions
(e.g. imposing more onerous copying restrictions on others for derived
works) precisely because you retain the copyright.

--
John Phillips

John Phillips wrote:

But if I release something under the GPL, I have explicitly given
everyone the right to copy,and I have no "right" to prevent that
copying. I don't see how a copyright is created if I chose to publish
under different terms?


The GPL is a license (i.e. permission) to copy with specified conditions.
You retain the copyright which is neither voided nor transferred by
releasing a work under the GPL.

If the licensees remain within these conditions you cannot stop them
copying the work but you can stop them from copying under other conditions
(e.g. imposing more onerous copying restrictions on others for derived
works) precisely because you retain the copyright.


Ok, that makes sense.

--
Nick

In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:


But if I release something under the GPL, I have explicitly given
everyone the right to copy,and I have no "right" to prevent that
copying. I don't see how a copyright is created if I chose to publish
under different terms?


The copyrights are yours , automatically, as soon as you create the work.

If you then assign or use them in various ways - e.g. GPL - that is a
decison *based on your initial 'ownership' of the copyright*. You could
not GPL some work whose relevant copyrights were not yours to decide how to
use.

As Tim has pointed out, the author does not "decide to copyright". Those
writes are theirs, by law, as soon as they produce the work. You can decide
to assign some of the rights to others on that basis.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


That's a fettered choice.


In what way? The author decides how their work may be deployed or used.

it is only 'fettered' so far as someone else is concerned. e.g. if
they want the work for free, but the author expects payment. However
in such cases I'm afraid my sympathy tends to be with the author.



The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as
the best example - but it's not *necessary*.



Afraid I don't know what you mean by "the decision to copyright".


Sorry, meant 'enforce copyright'.

Copyright by default resides with the author/creator of the work. No-one
else has the 'right' to make/sell/etc copies *unless* the author gives them
permission in the form of a specific agreement. If someone publishes on
the author's behalf, the author may give the 'copyright permissions'
relevant to the form of publication. Normal practice is you sign a
copyright agreement. If you don't read the agreement, then that is your
choice. Don't sign what you haven't read, and don't understand. If you
don't agree with what it says, don't sign.


Copyright protection only applies to 'literary work' and UK nationals in
this context (just looked it up; obviously nothing better to do!). But
fine, thanks for that, i didn't know - I thought it was something an
author had to apply for.


I can appreciate that theft is attractive to the thief, and that
people like to think they are "causing no harm". But the point is that
this is not a decision they are entitiled to make.



Your opinion on morals is all well and dandy. It's quite unlike you to
say what people can and can't do - is that what you meant?!


I am simply pointing out the law, and the moral expectations in our
society, which is mainly bases on free enterprise, buying and selling of
work, etc. I am also pointing out that in such a society 'harm' may well be
done to various people (not just the author) when someone pirates a work.
Since it does harm, it seems reasonable to me to treat is as illegal and
immoral. I am therefore saying that people should obey the law, and regard
as immoral the doing of harm to others. But I can't personally force you to
do as I propose.


Yes, OK - but we simply have to differ. I don't think people should
necessarily obey the law, and doing harm to others isn't necessarily
immoral. It all depends on intent, as I said earlier. But many disagree,
and I can accommodate that (officer etc :-)


I'm afraid the main harm I see is those without money being unable to
access stuff.


Or the 'harm' resulting from textbooks never written as the possible author
decided it wasn't worth the effort, and had to do something else to make
a living. Piracy has to have original material to steal.


If you consider that to be the greater harm then yes, of course.


I accept your point on poor copies - but then I'd argue
that is an outcome of the way copyright is used.


And you must concede that your argument (piracy pushes up prices) is not
cut and dried. It certainly doesn't apply in my case.


Up to you to decide what you want to do with your own work. But not up to
you to decide what to do with the work of others without their
permission.


It is my decision, within practical limits. My point here was I have
been known to 'acquire' to music I haven't bought. If I like it likely
as not I buy it. If I hadn't had the opportunity to listen, I wouldn't
have bought. I decided what to do with the work of others. A lot of
people wouldn't do this because of copyright - they may well be morally
intact, but they've lost the opportunity to listen to musci that might
otherwise have passed them by.



The problem is that once you start to try and excuse such piracy on
the basis that "I want a copy and I don't want to pay what the
copyright holders are asking" then you may do 'harm' regardless of
believing otherwise...



It's just that I think copyright does more harm than good. You think it
does more good than harm. Etc. ...


No. That isn't actually what I have been saying. :-)

My point is that copyright starts with the author. Their work, and hence
their decision.


Okeydokey :-)


However the uses of copyright can be a real pest.

An example:

I just bought a George Harrison CD. Bought by post.

When it arrives, it turns out to be a 'copy controlled' disc. *Not* a Red
Book Audio CD. When I play it on one Audio player, audible defects can be
heard. A different player masks them, but still noticable.

I have returned the disc. I want to be able to listen to the music. I want
it on an Audio CD. That isn't what I got.

My choice is not to accept what was on offer.

Now I really *would* like a copy of the music to enjoy. I'd be quite happy
to pay for it. But due to a mindless obsession with finding a phantom
technofix for pirating, what is on offer isn't of much use to me.

Thus here the 'harm' that piracy has done is that it has caused the music
company to act in a brainless manner *and prevent me buying the copy I'd
like to listen to - thus also denying the payment to the copyright owners.*


To say 'piracy is the cause' of substandard media is really missing the
point. Have you thought of overpriced products? Poverty?

I'd agree that the music company are stupid. But they have reacted like
this due to their fear and resentment of a situation where many people feel
they are entitled to make pirate copies...


Greed I'd say. And the music industry is hardly stupid. The big players'
aim is to make money, not nurture creativity, and at that I'd say
they're highly intelligent (if we can define intelligent as 'ability to
thrive and survive' for the moment)

The problem with breaking the law when it suits you is that it may become a
general habit, and cause unexpected problems for others. "Nothing to do
with me, guv..."

I am very dissapointed by the disc not being acceptable. I was planning to
buy some more discs, but now am deterred as I don't want the same pest
again. (Yes, I have asked the retailer to, in future, warn before sale when
a disc isn't a Red Book Audio CD. However they may often not notice.)


This is fairly well covered elsewhere on the net. I was bitten once -
Norah Jones CD. Ended up buying the LP :-;

Another example of this is the annoying "nag screens" you have to get
through before you can watch many films on DVD. These also treat all buyers
as pirates. Thus we all end up being inconvenienced and irritated, and
being regarded as potential thieves. The companies should not do this as it
is irrational and stupid. But given piracy and the general attitude to it,
I can see why they do it, even whilst I resent being treated this way.


Jim - think what would happen if everyone obeyed copyright and music
copying without permission became a thing of the past (either through
technology, a new moral order, and/or certain pain of prosecution). Who
would be in control of music dissemination? Would that be a good thing?
I think not.

Rob

Tim Martin wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...


The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or
not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as the
best example - but it's not *necessary*.


There is no "decision to copyright".

The act of creating an original work (literary, or music, or photograph,
etc.) simultaneously creates a copyright. The creator has no choice!
(Though he can choose not to exert his copyright.)

Tim


Yes, my poor writing; I meant 'enforce copyright'