“What could be less controversial than copyright?”

"When I read the papers these days, I go crazy not just because of the content—I certainly go crazy because of that—but because of the way that they’re written. People don’t know how to write anymore. They are so imprecise. They make so many mistakes."

- It's pretty tough to argue with this statement, or indeed any of his arguments. Today's cut and paste world really offers very little that is new, well reasoned, and worthwhile. [SDA excepted of course.]

Oddly, I agree with Mark Helprin. Copyright -is- an important thing. Its just that current copyright laws are not really there to protect writers anymore, they are there to protect Walt Disney Corporation.

If I write it I own it, same as a house or a car or whatever. I can bequeath ownership to a blood relative upon my demise, for some reasonable length of time. Like 20 years, or 50 years, or whatever seems appropriate. Maybe a generation would be nice.

But some conglomerate media company 100 years after my death? They can shift for themselves, I think.

OTOH, the guy making the Avatar movie spent 500 million bucks. He should retain iron control over that. Stealing is stealing. Of course, if they were smart the movie would never -ever- go to digital until they squeezed every drop of dime juice out of it. Once it hits dvd, your copyright isn't worth the paper its printed on. Thieves exist. Fact of life.

This is why we have locks on our doors and why money resides in bank vaults instead of in pots on the window sill. Duh.

I own what I write, Mark Helprin owns what he writes.

I also can, so far anyways, control whether I buy what Mark Helprin sells or not. Actually not in Canada. I am forced to pay for the work of musicians I never listen to and would never pay to see or hear when I buy DVD blanks, for example.

It isn't anything except a business. If I own property in some suburbs of Detroit, I can bequeath it all I want to my children. But it is worthless.

Same with much of the stuff written and recorded over the last century. It is worthless. Especially if it is tightly controlled so that no one can afford the high cost of distributing something so entangle and encumbered.

So he is absolutely right. And absolutely wrong.

Derek

Meh. I still buy books that I want to read. Yeah electronic books are out there, but I can't stand reading them in any of the various formats that are available. Plus it's kinda hard to take the computer into the john...

Also I believe that different types of media should have differing copyright lengths...books being the longest. For a movie, once it's being shown on network TV at to cost to the consumer (other than cable TV subscription rates) what difference does it make, really? The same goes for songs. I've had a device for most of my life that enabled me to listen to songs for free: It's called a radio. I'm still only too happy to pay to hear a performer play live, but support the cadre of leeches who contribute nothing and yet set themselves up so the can leech off the artist in perpetuity? I'm not interested in supporting that. I'm also not interested in supporting a system that makes talentless skanks like Britney-slut into millionaires.

What a putz.

Edward Teach, you could take a 15" laptop into the john.

Just like "free" health care, the "free" internet will eventually run out of breath.

Couple questions: Do you own what I read? Does an author have property rights to a book that I bought?

Here is a book on opposite side of the argument:

http://www.amazon.ca/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258332315&sr=1-1

Xiat, you own the book you bought. You can read it, quote from it, and sell it. But you can't reproduce it and sell the reproductions, and you can't pretend you wrote it.

Problem being, digital technology has taken all the labor out of reproducing and distributing text, video and audio, so the -only- reason not to do it is a moral reason. Music particularly is a moral dilemna. I want a copy of Mike Oldfield's Hergest Ridge, but its out of production so a copy cost like $100, none of which goes to Mike Oldfield. Or I can download it off Lime Wire for free, and again Mike Oldfield gets nothing.

The question now becomes, how much trouble and expense shall I incur to keep RIAA happy?

IMHO, its a productive discussion to have anyway, because it can clarify and elucidate the moral principles at work.

There's a difference between real property and intellectual property. If I own a home, only I and my family can live in it at one time; five other families can't. But, anyone can read what I write here - possibly at least a dozen of you pay attention :} My enjoyment of say, ET's pieces, doesn't diminish anyone else's. In fact, society benefits if more people are exposed to new ideas and thoughts.

That's why the US Constitution originally wrote in a term of 17 years for patents and copyright. They knew that inventors and writers needed to make a living off their works, else they wouldn't create them. But they also knew that society as a whole benefited mightily when these inventions and works were in the public domain.

All Helprin has done is put a genteel face on the same sort of "gimme, gimme, gimme, mine, mine, mine" ethos that characterizes modern day Wall St. (where, one might note, Goldman Sachs which just over a year ago needed billions of federal money to survive, was able to pay it all off by March, and this year is set to pay even higher bonuses than in 2007).

Oh please, KevinB.! Now Helprin is like a greedy investment banker? Ad hominem anyone?

I've read Mark Halperin's book, unlike some of the commenters here, and his is a serious work.

The Phantom .. wouldn't it be moral if I share with you a book or cd that I own?

Happy Birthday to You
* * * *
* * dear _____
* * * *

We also see this discussion when it comes to actors, directors, producers, etc, who demand 'residuals' (is that the right word?) when their TV shows go into syndication. Their work is being resold, and they want a piece of the profits. Perhaps they deserve it, but 30 years or more after they were in the studio?

Let's take this a step further. It can be argued that actors and so forth practice a 'craft'. So what about the craftsmen who build a house or an office building. Couldn't the arguement be made that if a house is resold, then the eleectricians, plumbers and carpenters who were involved in the construction should receive a share of the sale, even if it is 20 years later? I've done my own renovations, and there is certainly an 'art' to running electrical wire and pipes!

What about the construction workers who build a toll road?

Regardless of the craft, whether it be 'art' or 'technical', I think there has to be a time limit set for how long the craftsman can collect fees. (Perhaps the end of the natural life of the artist - nothing to the estate)

Question:
Why is a copyright good for the life of the author plus xxxx years but a patent valid for only 20? Surely the inventor of the stent, the MRI machine and the dialysis machine created things more valuable to the world than Mr. Halprin's book. Shouldn't these inventors get better protection for themselves, their children and their grandchildren than Mr. Halprin.

Answer:
99.99% of lawmakers (politicians) know they will never invent a useful (and so patentable) device but they can all write or have ghost written a book, article or speech that they can copyright.

Lawmakers first protect themselves and second enhance their positions. The copyright laws will continue to evolve into greater and greater (undeserved) protection for authors compared to the inventor who toils away in his corporate lab or basment workshop.

Mike Mc:

Read my comment carefully. I said that Helprin is putting a genteel face on "the same sort of ethos" as Goldman Sachs. Helprin's attitude is "I wrote it, it's mine", while GS's attitude is "We made the profits, they're ours". Please parse the difference for me.

xiat asks: "The Phantom .. wouldn't it be moral if I share with you a book or cd that I own?"

xiat, obviously yes. Lending libraries are the moral model. One copy of the book/cd/video, many users. No problem.

The problem comes when the internet becomes the "lending library" and the author only ends up selling one copy, thereafter -everybody- uses it for free and the author gets nothing for his work. Just wait until on-demand book printing gets up to speed, book stores and publishers will be just as screwed as record companies are.

Its the technology that has disrupted the traditional arrangement between reader and author. Presently some new arrangement will be hammered out I'm sure. Probably an en mass return to analog media. All they really need to do is make it a pain to copy it, and the internet doesn't enter the picture.

I'm also dead sure any new arrangement won't include DRM. Blueray was broken pretty quick and the industry spent a boatload on it. You can rip Blueray with DVDFab 6, no muss no fuss. Lot of egg on some important faces there.

"All they really need to do is make it a pain to copy it"

No longer possible, Phantom. If it's visual I can use a hi-def camera or camcorder. If it's audio I can use microphones. If it's printed I can scan it, OCR it, or just plain type it. That's a one-time effort by one man, and that "unlocks" the content - forever.

I don't disagree with the idea of copyright, but I strenuously disagree with the current length of copyright. I believe anything longer than about a generation - approx 25 years - is simply excessive. That is more than a fair length of time to compensate the original creator for his/her investment in the production of the original work, and it allows a steady flow of older work into the public domain for society (and creators!) to use as the basis for new works.

The bargain struck between society & creators is this: society grants creators exclusive rights - copyrights - to their work for a limited time, and after that time, the work enters the public domain. Creators don't want to live up to their end of the bargain, though, instead wanting the limited time to get longer & longer. It's at the point now where nothing created in my lifetime is likely to enter the public domain in my lifetime. That's a fundamental breaking of the bargain by creators, if you ask me, and the general disrespect for copyright by society is the result.

It seems to me (and I say seems to me) that many of the artists complaining about music copyrights are dinosaurs from the 60s-80s. Many rap artists, country stars and authors are making bundles because of the internet. More importantly, local bands and artist have free exposure to their fans and use networking to earn a modest living. Bands no longer require the coveted “contract” to be successful. They are opening their own labels and keeping their publishing rights and making more money than any of their predecessors who traditionally took it up the a$$ from record companies. I suspect the true advocates of stronger copyright laws are likely “big business” and the artists are simply the retards being used to market the case of “big business”.

The bottom line is, being a good artist or musician isn't enough; you also must have the drive and business savvy market yourself/band as a commodity. This is no different than it is for a doctor, lawyer or any other profession. Now, this might not be the way it was, and it might not be fair, but many more artists benefit across the board from the current set-up.

Actually, I take that back. It's fair, fair as it could possibly be.

And Edward, you are an a$$hole for your comments. I don't listen to Brittney, but I at least know that she worked her whole life in the entertainment industry and it's paid-off for her. She supports her family and a deadbeat baby-daddy while you call her names from afar. Your comment says allot more about you views on women than it says about Brittney and pop music.

Indiana Homez wtote: "And Edward, you are an a$$hole for your comments. I don't listen to Brittney, but I at least know that she worked her whole life in the entertainment industry and it's paid-off for her. She supports her family and a deadbeat baby-daddy while you call her names from afar. Your comment says allot more about you views on women than it says about Brittney and pop music."

Yeah whatever.