There should be a moratorium placed on making new laws until all the old, stupid, and obsolete laws have been repealed.

For example, when my wife and I tried to buy a sail boat, we discovered that there was a more than two hundred year old law which forbid a "non-citizen" to buy and own a sail boat in the United States. (My wife was Canadian.) So the boat had to be in my name only -- although she was required to "co-sign" for the making of payments.

The loast I heard -- back in the early Seventies -- there were aroung fifteen MILLION Federal laws in this country.

It's long past time to start eliminating the useless and destructive ones.

Ken V.

Such a law might have made sense 2 centuries ago, but indeed it needs to be revamped or downright repelled. I imagine that of course motor boats are not concerned

I have many complaints about our judicial and legal systems, but at least laws that are obsolete or in obvious contradiction with more recent laws (against discrimination in consideration of nationality for that one) are repelled.

I think (and it's only a 'think' - I'm not 100% sure) that libraries have to pay an annual fee that compensates an author when their book is lent out. Obviously those that put up torrents of books won't have the same constraints.

That might be like the licences radio stations have to buy from perfroming rights organizations to play songs on the radio. I have never heard of this before, I wonder who'd they have to pay the fee to...? :confused:

For what it's worth, in France, books that are loaned by libraries are the "regular" books (they can be bought by, or given to, the library). CDs and DVDs that are loaned against a fee are "special" and cost more than the regular ones.

I also remember a funny law (and I just said we had no obsolete ones :p!) pursuant to which it is totally legal to copy a book, even the newest under the strictest of copyrights, as long as it is a hand-written copy.

For what it's worth, in France, books that are loaned by libraries are the "regular" books (they can be bought by, or given to, the library). CDs and DVDs that are loaned against a fee are "special" and cost more than the regular ones.

I also remember a funny law (and I just said we had no obsolete ones :p!) pursuant to which it is totally legal to copy a book, even the newest under the strictest of copyrights, as long as it is a hand-written copy.

Libraries in Canada have to pay royalties to an organization called CANCopy annually but ONLY if they own photocopiers and then, only on a certain amount of traffic to those copiers. There is no buy-then-pay-royalties equation for libraries in Canada.

The CANCopy charges are only a minuscule fraction of what libraries spend on books.

I never cared enough to find out how they are distributed back to the artist/author.

-Wapitikev

Wappy, read my post caaaaaarefully.....

It's not that I somehow misunderstand what you and Webby are saying, it's that I disagree with you.

My point is: THE BOOK is not FPW's Intellectual Property. THE BOOK once an individual has bought it is their Physical Property. But even once THE BOOK has been bought and is owned by a customer, FPW still owns the Intellectual Property which is the STORY he created and is contained within.

Yes.

As I said before, FPW is a storyteller, not a book binder.

Yes. Book binding is how FPW has chosen to distribute and sell his intellectual property.

So if I borrow a copy from a library and read it and give it back, obviously I don't retain a copy of THE BOOK, I've given it back. But in my head I retain a copy of FPW's Intellectual Property, and becasue I now have that I no longer need to buy a copy myself to read it; FPW has lost my sale. I got FPW's Intellectual Property without paying for it.... and yet this isnt considered stealing?

No.

It is not stealing because FPW who, by deciding to publish books and let them be used by public libraries, has given his permission for the intellectual property therein to be used by public libraries. This is only different by degrees from your video presenter who has given away all rights to the distribution of his words after the publication and distribution of the 1st edition printed copies. FPW has simply not chosen to given away as many of his rights as your video presenter has.

It seems to be splitting the hair mighty fine, in my opinion.

No.

You may view it as semantic, but consider an analogy:

When arrested in the US and Canada you are (supposedly) entitled to a certain list of rights: remain silent, an attorney, etc.

If you give up your right to remain silent, you do not automatically forfeit the rest of your rights. You may damage your ability to exercise your remaining rights, but you still have them.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If scanned in eCopys are verboten, then by the same principle so should copies you get from the library, buy second hand from the charity shop, borrow from a friend... and the mental contortions that your argument requires to elude this fact is what I'm challenging.

The principle does not transfer. FPW chooses to condone public libraries' use of his int. property but also chooses to be compensated for every copy that exists, even the ones that libraries buy. This requires no mental gymnastics to understand.

So as you point out, if you borrow it from the library then one party has it whilst the other does not. But everyone ends up with a copy of the Intellectual Property. If 100 people borrow the book from the library, sure it's the same copy, but now 100 people have their own personal copy of the Intelectual Property in their heads and don't need to buy a copy of the book from FPW. How is this any different from someone buying one copy of the book and then having 100 people download it from a torrent? There is still one copy that FPW has been compensated for, and 100 people who have read the story, one copy of the book still in circulation.

So you're objecting to FPW using the library as free publicity for his intellectual property but it is OK for Madonna to use free Internet access to promote popularity for her concerts? Both allow people to view intellectual property without cost, somehow, in order to stimulate popularity.

The difference you are missing is: you are supporting Madonna's decision on how she will offer free access to her intellectual property but are dismissing FPW's.

FPW has decided that he will not ask for royalties for copies that exist, however perfectly or imperfectly, inside people's heads. Since the copies in a person's brain is not the target of his royalties, FPW accepts that libraries are a use he is willing to condone, perhaps even support, for the very concepts of "property" and "ownership" that you decry as irrelevant.

He has also decided that he wishes to be paid only for physical copies that can be owned and disposed of by an individual, whether they be in print, an audio book or in electronic format. He has even been so gracious to accept that, after buying a copy of his book, I can then make a copy for my own personal use until such time as I sell, give away, or destroy on purpose, the original.

By those same decisions, 100 e-copies that 100 different people can all own and read simultaneously, without royalties, are not satisfactory to him, for the very concepts of "property" and "ownership" that you decry as irrelevant.

These are the decisions FPW has made regarding his intellectual property, good or ill.

We both agree that, right or wrong, the nature of the Internet makes copyright virtually un-enforceable. So, in the end, it comes down to each individual making their own decision about how we will use FPW's intellectual property.

I can either respect an author's or artist's decisions regarding their intellectual property or I can disregard them.

The question is not whether I can own an unauthorized/illegal copy of all FPW's works. I can. Easily.

The real question is: should I?

-Wapitikev

I can either respect an author's or artist's decisions regarding their intellectual property or I can disregard them.

The question is not whether I can own an unauthorized/illegal copy of all FPW's works. I can. Easily.

The real question is: should I?

It all boils down to respect. Respect for the author that we all are here for. The Man doesn't mind used books, nor books in a library. These books just might stimulate a larger reader base. The goal? To sell more of his books. And rightly so, an excellent goal it is.

Whether the book is manually copied on a machine, or downloaded without FPW's expressed permission, I see it as theft. I have no respect for thieves.

From what I recall of French intellectual property laws, when you buy a book (DVD, CD...), you actually buy and own the physical support. You can do what you want with the physical support : giving it or re-selling it. The intellectual property remains the creator's. If you give the book, you give your property, if you reproduce the book for other persons to read, you give away another person's intellectual property which is not yours to give.

Reproductions allowed are:

- small quotations, in a goal of illustration (in dictionaries to explain a word, or in an article on the book for example)

- totally handwritten copies of the book, which is a bit time-consumming

That might be like the licences radio stations have to buy from perfroming rights organizations to play songs on the radio. I have never heard of this before, I wonder who'd they have to pay the fee to...? :confused:

The publisher, I would imagine.

Ken V.

But doesn't the author deserve to be compensated for the work he has done?

Of course the author deserves to be compensated for his work. And he was compensated by the publisher who agreed to buy certain rights to that work and to print physical copies of it.

Why should they only get paid once for hundreds of people to enjoy their work?

That is the "contract" they implicitly make with the reading public when they accept payment from a publisher to make physical copies of their work.

It may not be the fairest contract ever devised, but it is what it is and good luck to any author who thinks he/she can get out of it.

The principle does not transfer. FPW chooses to condone public libraries' use of his int. property but also chooses to be compensated for every copy that exists, even the ones that libraries buy. This requires no mental gymnastics to understand.
-Wapitikev

Gotta agree with my cuz here for the reasons I stated above.

It all boils down to respect. Respect for the author that we all are here for. The Man doesn't mind used books, nor books in a library. These books just might stimulate a larger reader base. The goal? To sell more of his books. And rightly so, an excellent goal it is.

Whether the book is manually copied on a machine, or downloaded without FPW's expressed permission, I see it as theft. I have no respect for thieves.

This too.