Lines: 14 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: antjlit@aol.com (AntJLit) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 03 Jan 2003 05:38:30 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Message-ID: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106621 Hey all, Does anyone know where I can get these in Etext or Ebook. I will be traveling out of country and would like to continue my reading of these books while traveling.. Any ideas will help... I have been to barnes and nobles and amazon.com no luck. thanks..Tony ###### From: "GandalfSC" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Lines: 29 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:16:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.59.144.175 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1041603404 24.59.144.175 (Fri, 03 Jan 2003 09:16:44 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 09:16:44 EST Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.nyroc.rr.com!cyclone-out.nyroc.rr.com!twister.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106787 "AntJLit" wrote in message news:20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com... > > Hey all, > > Does anyone know where I can get these in Etext or Ebook. I will be > traveling out of country and would like to continue my reading of these books > while > traveling.. > > Any ideas will help... > > I have been to barnes and nobles and amazon.com no luck. > > thanks..Tony > Why not just carry paper-back versions? Small and portable, they are -- -- GandalfSC -- Motorola V60i 50069 0154 VZW< Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Message-ID: <20030103105555.06372.00000325@mb-dh.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106622 Hey, That's a good idea, but you know us Techno junkies. Plus it becomes easier to read during the long night train ride. I am placing all my Books in Ebook so it will be easier to travel with them. Thanks Tony ###### From: "Gregg Cattanach" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Lines: 23 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.82.26.100 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com 1041610452 ST000 65.82.26.100 (Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:14:12 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:14:12 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: T[O]R_CEABSQBQLYMBIPJEPE@CTZB\XIDY^LLRMIWIWZEPYAFNS[QCW[RL\DXUGIANEYZEFNNFZ^_KSC[NVMOSDGKFWEXR@KO@ZJSWWBB\TTPLL_OSG\H][CODFOKCJL@DXG[ORM\Q^GVLSRED^K_OW_MCZFGR_HZY_I@A_B\K@BP\PE_TAZ]VDGWVWCP]JM Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:14:12 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!9c9da953!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106823 "AntJLit" wrote in message news:20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com... > > Hey all, > > Does anyone know where I can get these in Etext or Ebook. I will be > traveling out of country and would like to continue my reading of these books > while > traveling.. > > Any ideas will help... > > I have been to barnes and nobles and amazon.com no luck. > > thanks..Tony > Check the newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book They are posted there periodically in various formats. Gregg C. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 24 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1041614769 128.135.12.7 (Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:26:09 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:26:09 CST Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: RIjR9-37169-K4-13323@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 7a9f009a 48f3b782 1890a881 ffb40f90 7f5d3c1b Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:26:09 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106633 Quoth "Gregg Cattanach" in article : > "AntJLit" wrote: > > Does anyone know where I can get these in Etext or Ebook. > Check the newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book They are posted there > periodically in various formats. And all for the low, low price of your sense of personal honor as you steal from the family of our most beloved author! You'll never find a better deal than that! Seriously, though, while it's frustrating that the Tolkien Estate hasn't chosen to release an electronic text (which would be _very_ useful for research), that's their right. Tolkien left the rights to his work to his family through the Estate, and we as fans own Christopher Tolkien (who I believe largely controls the Estate) such a debt of gratitude that it would be quite rude to reject his decision, all questions of the ethics of copyright violation aside. You're welcome to read our parody E-text, though. :) It's on the web at http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/book/. :) Steuard Jensen ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: 04 Jan 2003 00:09:44 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 119 Message-ID: <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1041635384 975 10.0.3.2 (3 Jan 2003 23:09:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jan 2003 23:09:44 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106841 sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > Quoth "Gregg Cattanach" in article > > > Check the newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book They are posted there > > periodically in various formats. > > And all for the low, low price of your sense of personal honor as you > steal As this false claim ("copy = steal") has now passed again 2 times unchallenged in the last _one_ month, it looks like I have got to post the reminder again: Stealing is the action of taking something away. Copying is the action of making an additional copy (so the original is not taken away, so no stealing) and of disregarding an monopoly. Not quite the same thing. Can we at least here in a group dedicated to the works of an *philologist* have a bit of respect towards language and the meanings of words? Would you please either use "commit crime" or "victimise" or "cheat" (as in cheating on a bus fare which has a similar effect), instead of "steal"? The word "steal" is being missused by propagandists, who want to transfer the justified bad reputation of "taking away" to "disregarding monopoly", instead of growing the later its own deserved reputation, according to what measure people regard it being. This is about respecting that society has an right to value or condemn every action at its own, the other is an attempt to force (or rather trick) ones desired values onto others. This is an near equivalent of the applicability vs allegory issue, on which same philologist has had a lot to say ("freedom of the reader vs purposed domination of the author"). > from the family of our most beloved author! And while I am writing on this issue, the other obligatory reminder: Paying authors for their work is something most people regard as right and proper. Giving their publishers (and as side effect their families) an continued monopoly after the author is beyond rewarding by it (because the dead do not have use for money), is something many people object to, also rightly. No one would expect the family of farmers, workers, doctors, etc to be payed at cost to the continued users of their works. So why should the families of artists be given such privileges? Titles such as an doctorate (and the benefits from them) die with the person who earned them, copyright monopolies (and their benefits) need the exact same treatment when their earner dies. Just because a bunch of people reknown for their crookedness (politicians), and also known as "the only class of criminals native to the US", but unfortunately in control of the law enforcement machinery, gave out such "rights", without any justification by thier non-usefullness to society, does not make such "rights" into real rights worthy of respect. > Tolkien left the rights to > his work to his family through the Estate, Rights beyound death that he never should have been granted, and so should not be able to give away. > and we as fans own > Christopher Tolkien (who I believe largely controls the Estate) such a > debt of gratitude that it would be quite rude to reject his decision, We owe CT, like everyone else, gratitude for one thing: his own service to society. That is his publishing of Silmarillion, UT and the 12 HoMEs. The proper way to show that gratitude is to buy ones copies of these (as I have, all 14 of them), until the day he dies and is beyond rewarding in this way. > all questions of the ethics of copyright violation aside. Ethics of what part of copyright denial? The justified or the unjustified parts? Cheating an author out of his just reward for work is one thing. Denying his family an undeserved and so unjust monopoly is annother thing. The later is not regarded as unethical nor as unmoral by many people. Politicians (and so the laws they write) neither define ethicallity nor morality. They only define illegality. The later, in the best case fitting public ideas of the former two, in the worst case letting minorities harm society with the help of law enforcement, which was actually created to protect same society from being harmed. Now _that_ is like stealing (taking away of freedoms), and as even committed with use of force, making it like robbery. Add in abuse of the law enforcers to boot. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Blacksmith - hardware runs the world, software controls the hardware code generates the software, have you coded today? ###### From: "GandalfSC" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20030103105555.06372.00000325@mb-dh.aol.com> Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 22:16:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.59.144.175 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.nyroc.rr.com 1041632162 24.59.144.175 (Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:16:02 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:16:02 EST Organization: Road Runner Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.nyroc.rr.com!cyclone-out.nyroc.rr.com!twister.nyroc.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106872 "AntJLit" wrote in message news:20030103105555.06372.00000325@mb-dh.aol.com... > Hey, > > That's a good idea, but you know us Techno junkies. Plus it becomes easier to > read during the long night train ride. > I am placing all my Books in Ebook so it will be easier to travel with them. > > Thanks Tony I, as a fellow Techno-junkie would like an e-book version as well. As Steuard points out later in this thread, it won't happen. I am glad for that. Carry the paper back and buy an Itty-Bitty book light. -- -- GandalfSC -- ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1041648610 128.135.12.7 (Fri, 03 Jan 2003 20:50:10 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 20:50:10 CST Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: CZrR9-41272-K4-14511@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: b2b4ee78 34a38daf 59383cf7 eb7fd40a cf2449d0 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 02:50:10 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:106930 Quoth Neil Franklin in article <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > Quoth "Gregg Cattanach" : > > > Check the newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book They are posted there > > > periodically in various formats. > > And all for the low, low price of your sense of personal honor as you > > steal > Stealing is the action of taking something away. > > Copying is the action of making an additional copy (so the original > is not taken away, so no stealing) and of disregarding an monopoly. ... > Would you please either use "commit crime" or "victimise" or "cheat" > (as in cheating on a bus fare which has a similar effect), instead of > "steal"? We already know each other's positions pretty well, so I'll just state a few counterarguments for the record. :) Hmm. In my mind, "stealing" can be reasonably applied to both active theft (I knock you down and take your wallet) and passive "theft" (I sleep with the boss and get your raise). They're distinct concepts, I'll agree, but I think this is reasonably common usage. If someone has an expectation of payment and you deny them that payment, your act has left them with less money than they should have had, and I think of that as "stealing". (As another example of "stealing" without taking something away, if I walked out of the barbershop without paying for my haircut, that would be stealing, wouldn't it?) > > from the family of our most beloved author! > And while I am writing on this issue, the other obligatory reminder: > > Paying authors for their work is something most people regard as right > and proper. > > Giving their publishers (and as side effect their families) an continued > monopoly after the author is beyond rewarding by it (because the dead > do not have use for money), is something many people object to, also > rightly. A living author's family can reasonably expect income from a successful book, income which they might depend on for their livelihood. That income comes from sales of the book, not from the process of writing the book: for creators, payment generally comes only _after_ they've done all the work. Under your suggestion, the moment that author died, all that income would instantly vanish, despite the fact that the author did all the work that "earned" him that income while he was alive. The corresponding situation just doesn't arise very often in other professions. You could imagine the following parallel (if somewhat contrived) situation: a carpenter is comissioned to build furnature for a mansion that is expected to be built next year, to be paid when the furnature is delivered to the completed mansion. He works (without pay) for that year and finishes the job, and when the time comes he starts sending the pieces to the mansion one at a time and receives a check for each. If he dies before all the furnature has been sent, his family can still send the rest and collect payment for it. As I understand it, if I were to apply the logic of your argument to this situation, the family should not have the right to collect payment when they send the rest of the furnature. Yes, I know that example misses some of the subtleties of the differencce between physical property and "intellectual property". But the fact is that the two _families_ are interchangeable: both fully expected a source of income (for a limited time) based on work that the dead provided had already done, and both would be equally hurt if that income were suddenly denied to them. If you eliminated copyright after an author died, I want to know what structures you would put in place to protect that dead author's family from unjust situations like this. And on a related note, the purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive for creative people to create. Many people choose a career not only for their own benefit but for that of their family. If copyright did not give at least limited short-term rights to the heirs of creators, doesn't that substantially reduce the incentive? > No one would expect the family of farmers, workers, doctors, etc to > be payed at cost to the continued users of their works. They wouldn't? Should a drug should lose its patent and go generic the moment its creator dies? It's the same situation, isn't it? Suppose Dr. Doe singlehandedly develops and patents the wonder drug "Placebin". If he sells the rights to a drug company for $10 million and then dies, his family gets the $10 million. If he instead starts to produce Placebin in his basement to sell it himself (expecting to make $10 million profit before the patent expires) but then dies, his family gets the debts he incurred to retrofit the basement for mass production. That just isn't fair: Dr. Doe did a lot of work and made a valuable contribution to society. (I also find it troubling that the drug company lost its investment in the first case, but the parallel comparison most clearly shows the reason for my concern.) I don't see how your no-copyright-after-death is any different. Steuard Jensen ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: 05 Jan 2003 00:37:49 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 254 Message-ID: <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1041723469 659 10.0.3.2 (4 Jan 2003 23:37:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2003 23:37:49 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107100 sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > > And all for the low, low price of your sense of personal honor as you > > > steal > > > Stealing is the action of taking something away. > > > > Copying is the action of making an additional copy (so the original > > is not taken away, so no stealing) and of disregarding an monopoly. > ... > > Would you please either use "commit crime" or "victimise" or "cheat" > > (as in cheating on a bus fare which has a similar effect), instead of > > "steal"? > > We already know each other's positions pretty well, so I'll just state > a few counterarguments for the record. :) OK with me. Of course I will counter them also. > Hmm. In my mind, "stealing" can be reasonably applied to both active > theft (I knock you down and take your wallet) and passive "theft" (I > sleep with the boss and get your raise). They're distinct concepts, > I'll agree, but I think this is reasonably common usage. I regard it as shoddy common usage. One can only work up to the precision of ones tools. Language is a tool, and shoddy language is like an tool that has become wobbly. And far more important: Your target is to get readers their pay their authors. Those wanting to evade this are crafty. They have built up a large "defensive wall" against arguments. Shoddy language plays onto their attempts to ignore voices like yours as "he can't even think clearly, so how can his arguments be worth anything" And yes, I _have_ seen such reasoning used by copiers, multiple times. Compare it to theft and they will quickly notice the difference (yes, the "not theft" argument is know far and wide). Compare it to cheating on ones share towards the bus, and they are going to find it a lot more difficult. And yes, I know more people cheat on busses than steal, the answer to that problem is to raise awareness of it, like I did with an ex-office mate. > (As another example of "stealing" without > taking something away, if I walked out of the barbershop without > paying for my haircut, that would be stealing, wouldn't it?) Problem here being that an author is not worktime per customer. So the case compares badly. With barbers a "One job = one thing" formula works well. So the "theft of service" term can fit. Authors are one job vs many part sales. With anything from lent book copies to libraries breaking any "per reader payment" formula, and so any "read without pay is theft" formula. That is why I compare them with an bus driver. Gets payed in parts by each passenger. So that is why "cheat" as in cheating on an fare fits a lot better. > > Paying authors for their work is something most people regard as right > > and proper. > > > > Giving their publishers (and as side effect their families) an continued > > monopoly after the author is beyond rewarding by it (because the dead > > do not have use for money), is something many people object to, also > > rightly. > > A living author's family can reasonably expect income from a > successful book, income which they might depend on for their > livelihood. Dito an living farmers/workers/doctors family. Anyone with an successfull business. > Under your suggestion, the > moment that author died, all that income would instantly vanish, Dito for an died farmers/workers/doctors family, or any other businessman. Society has invented various institutions, such as life insurance and pension schemes and social security, for exactly this purpose. We don't need an special contraption only for one specific group of people, which violates the normal "money for work" rule valid everywhere else. > despite the fact that the author did all the work that "earned" him > that income while he was alive. Dito for an farmers/workers/doctors. One could also argue that they all went through an non-paying education phase while in life, and then payment only came after when "copies" of their work (actual sales) were given out. Die just after leaving education and see the same effect. > The corresponding situation just doesn't arise very often in other > professions. Actually they do, in every single one. Most authors-for-pay work less long on one work as an professionals education lasts. JRRT with his decades on one work is fairly exeptional, and there exist similar exeptional professionals (see professors, which JRRT was also). > receives a check for each. If he dies before all the furnature has > been sent, his family can still send the rest and collect payment for > it. As I understand it, if I were to apply the logic of your argument > to this situation, the family should not have the right to collect > payment when they send the rest of the furnature. Of course an unfinished work does not get published by itsself. And if someone finished it off for publication, he becomes co-author[1] and so can profit from it as long as he lives (see CT and Silmarillion for example). [1] The "death of author" becomes "death of all authors" in multi author works. Exeption: each authors part can be individually separated out (as in a collection of essays/articles). > If you eliminated > copyright after an author died, I want to know what structures you > would put in place to protect that dead author's family from unjust > situations like this. So long they deliver nothing (the unfinished work stays in drawer): nothing appart from normal insurence/pension/security. If they deliver something: thread them as coauthors of an multi-author work. > Many people choose a career > not only for their own benefit but for that of their family. If > copyright did not give at least limited short-term rights to the heirs > of creators, doesn't that substantially reduce the incentive? No more than heirs of farmers/workers/doctors not getting anything does not reduce the farmers/workers/doctors incentive to do something. Work gives the person doing it rights to payment. Families can co-profit from this. No more. It is so for all other people. > > No one would expect the family of farmers, workers, doctors, etc to > > be payed at cost to the continued users of their works. > > They wouldn't? Shall I demand payment on air tickets of all people flying on continued operation of planes powered by jet engines my father worked on? Sounds unfair. Sounds like stealing their money actually. Of course I want/need money. So I work for it like any decent person. As programmer, a form of author. > Should a drug should lose its patent and go generic > the moment its creator dies? It's the same situation, isn't it? Nope. Because drug companies employ workers on salary base. So in this case the drug company would be "copyright" holder, just like my employer is copyright holder of the programs I write there. And yes, the death of the company (bancrupcy?) losing any "copyright" on its drugs is acceptable to me. Is after all just an loss of the share holders investment, like any other bancrupcy. Of course there actually exists no copyright on drugs, so that is what the "" are for. > Suppose Dr. Doe singlehandedly develops and patents the wonder drug > "Placebin". If he sells the rights to a drug company for $10 million > and then dies, his family gets the $10 million. Offer an author to sell his book to an publisher[2]? Also gets rid of the family problem. Lump sum or in installments of unknown amount. Make your bets (author and publisher). That is what business (which authoring for pay is) is about. I doubt though JRRT would have got much for LotR in such an lump sum deal. [2] This throws up the problem of firms being potentially immortal. So perhaps in this case have an "lasts average human life expectancy after writing" clause (about (80-10)/2=35 years? assuming average death at 80 and no writers under 10, so average age of publishing at 45, 35 to go). > If he instead starts > to produce Placebin in his basement to sell it himself (expecting to > make $10 million profit before the patent expires) but then dies, his > family gets the debts he incurred to retrofit the basement for mass > production. Would also happen in the case of anyone else setting up an home business. Of course he should have made his firm as Placebin,Inc so his death would be the firms bancrupcy due to 100% loss of crucial employees, not his families debt. And its inventory would go towards paying of creditors. No different from an farmer/worker/doctor Joedoe setting up his own farm/workshop/practise, and then dying. Here again: society has created institutions, such as incorporating, to solve such problems. Once again we don't need an special privilege for one single group. And yes, I resent "special privileges", because they all are also "some profit unjustly at costs of all others". > parallel comparison most clearly shows the reason for my concern.) I > don't see how your no-copyright-after-death is any different. It is the same, just the problems you see have already got solutions. Which any other professions use. Explained in any Economics 101 course. And anyone saying that authors should have more rights, at the rest of societies cost, is on a very week position when facing copyists who argue that they should have less rights, at rest of societies profit. Yet annother case where you are weaking your position. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Blacksmith - hardware runs the world, software controls the hardware code generates the software, have you coded today? ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 190 Message-ID: <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1041740474 128.135.12.7 (Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:21:14 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 22:21:14 CST Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: _oOR9-48470-K4-16790@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 1bdbf7ac ba9441b3 43eaf197 cf937846 6ba121c5 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 04:21:14 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107126 Quoth Neil Franklin in article <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > Quoth Neil Franklin : > > > Would you please either use "commit crime" or "victimise" or > > > "cheat" (as in cheating on a bus fare which has a similar > > > effect), instead of "steal"? > > Hmm. In my mind, "stealing" can be reasonably applied to both > > active theft (I knock you down and take your wallet) and passive > > "theft" (I sleep with the boss and get your raise). > One can only work up to the precision of ones tools. Language is a > tool, and shoddy language is like an tool that has become wobbly. I understand that you regard it as shoddy language, but I don't agree. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the second non-obsolete definition of "steal (v.)" is "To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial)." That seems right in line with my usage. If you want a second opinion, in my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "steal" is defined as "to take the property of another wrongfully", and "property" is defined as "something to which a person or business has a legal title". Whether you agree with it or not, we live in a society that believes in intellectual property, which means that copyrighted works _are_ things to which a person or business can have a legal title. > And far more important: Your target is to get readers their pay > their authors. Those wanting to evade this are crafty. They have > built up a large "defensive wall" against arguments. Shoddy language > plays onto their attempts to ignore voices like yours as "he can't > even think clearly, so how can his arguments be worth anything" Hmm. Even coming at it from another direction, I find that I reach the same conclusion: "steal" is a highly charged word, and it's probably somewhat insulting to an ethical person to be accused of stealing however indirectly. Using a word like "cheat" would still be troubling, but probably wouldn't put people on the defensive nearly as quickly. So I think you've convinced me, even if not in quite the way you intended. :) > > (As another example of "stealing" without taking something away, > > if I walked out of the barbershop without paying for my haircut, > > that would be stealing, wouldn't it?) > Problem here being that an author is not worktime per customer. So > the case compares badly. Sure; I was just pointing out that "steal" didn't necessarily mean taking away a physical thing, which I had thought was part of your objection to the term. I may have misunderstood, but as I said earlier, I've already come up with a different reason to change terminology. :) [An example of a carpenter who finishes a large order but dies before it has all been sent "cash on delivery":] > > If he dies before all the furniture has been sent, his family can > > still send the rest and collect payment for it. As I understand > > it, if I were to apply the logic of your argument to this > > situation, the family should not have the right to collect payment > > when they send the rest of the furniture. > Of course an unfinished work does not get published by itsself. And > if someone finished it off for publication, he becomes co-author[1] > and so can profit from it as long as he lives I don't think you've quite understood what I was getting at in my example. The family of the carpenter doesn't have to do any work to finish the furniture: they just need to keep sending it on schedule. I intended for that to be comparable to the family of an author who had just published a popular book, but had only received her first royalty check before she died. The book was already finished and could continue "being shipped", but under your suggested policy all payment for that finished work should immediately cease. > > If you eliminated copyright after an author died, I want to know > > what structures you would put in place to protect that dead > > author's family from unjust situations like this. > So long they deliver nothing (the unfinished work stays in drawer): > nothing appart from normal insurence/pension/security. > > If they deliver something: thread them as coauthors of an multi-author > work. As I said above, I clearly failed to make my idea clear: the work was supposed to be finished and already in the "publication" process, but the expected royalties had just barely started to arrive. There would be no basis for treating the family as co-authors. > > Many people choose a career not only for their own benefit but for > > that of their family. If copyright did not give at least limited > > short-term rights to the heirs of creators, doesn't that > > substantially reduce the incentive? > No more than heirs of farmers/workers/doctors not getting anything > does not reduce the farmers/workers/doctors incentive to do > something. But they _would_ get something. If the doctor died after performing surgery but before being paid, his heirs would get the money. If the farmer died after harvesting the crop but before selling it, her heirs could sell it and get the money. We seem to be miscommunicating here somehow. > > Should a drug should lose its patent and go generic the moment its > > creator dies? It's the same situation, isn't it? > Nope. Because drug companies employ workers on salary base. I was careful to say "creator" there, and to use the example of a single independent researcher below, explicitly to avoid this counterargument. :) > > Suppose Dr. Doe singlehandedly develops and patents the wonder > > drug "Placebin". If he sells the rights to a drug company for $10 > > million and then dies, his family gets the $10 million. > Offer an author to sell his book to an publisher[2]? Also gets rid > of the family problem. Lump sum or in installments of unknown > amount. Make your bets (author and publisher). That is what business > (which authoring for pay is) is about. Authors and publishers seem to have come to agreement over the years that that's not the best way to conduct their business. > [2] This throws up the problem of firms being potentially > immortal. So perhaps in this case have an "lasts average human life > expectancy after writing" clause (about (80-10)/2=35 years? You mean a fairly limited-term copyright? I'm quite open to that idea: I think that copyright durations have gotten pretty out of hand in current law. > > If he instead starts to produce Placebin in his basement to sell > > it himself (expecting to make $10 million profit before the patent > > expires) but then dies, his family gets the debts he incurred to > > retrofit the basement for mass production. > Would also happen in the case of anyone else setting up an home > business. > > Of course he should have made his firm as Placebin,Inc so his death > would be the firms bancrupcy due to 100% loss of crucial employees, > not his families debt. Ok, but the mention of debt was very much a side point; I probably should have left it out altogether. The crucial point is that the doctor did lots of work and developed a product worth $10 million, but nobody ever sees any of that money because his death somehow makes his completed work valueless. Business thrives on predictability; that's part of what makes high inflation bad. The less confidence people have in the future value of an investment, the less likely they are to invest. Drug research (like publishing) already has enough trouble dealing with the inherent uncertainty of developing a successful product. Adding a substantial additional uncertainty that even a successful product will suddenly lose all its value would make such projects even riskier, and would discourage future investment. Wouldn't business work a lot better if the work itself were considered to have value, at least for a limited time? That's the point of patents and copyrights, as I understand it. > And anyone saying that authors should have more rights, at the rest > of societies cost, is on a very week position when facing copyists > who argue that they should have less rights, at rest of societies > profit. I still think we're somehow miscommunicating here. The whole basis of my position on this issue is an attempt to get authors the _same_ rights as other people, so that authorship will not be discouraged and society as a whole profits. At least as I understand what you are suggesting (I welcome your corrections), you would leave authors with fewer rights than other people in society: every cent of the value of their finished work would depend on the length of their life. I agree that unlimited copyright (or repeatedly-extended-to-infinity copyright, as seems currently to be the case) is not in society's best interest. I just think that copyright should last for at least some minimum time after it is granted (whether the author is alive or dead), in order to make writing and publishing reasonable businesses. For better or worse, market economies only know how to deal with goods and services, and copyrighted work fits better as a "good" than as a "service". And if it's a "good", then it seems reasonable that at least some of its value should be intrinsic to the "good" rather than dependent on the health of the "good's" creator. Steuard Jensen ###### first reply went out as mail, and dumb program did not even Cc: it ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: 06 Jan 2003 01:11:37 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 253 Message-ID: <6ud6nbuog6.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1041811897 879 10.0.3.2 (6 Jan 2003 00:11:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jan 2003 00:11:37 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107237 sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > > > And far more important: Your target is to get readers their pay > > their authors. Those wanting to evade this are crafty. They have > > built up a large "defensive wall" against arguments. Shoddy language > > plays onto their attempts to ignore voices like yours as "he can't > > even think clearly, so how can his arguments be worth anything" > > Hmm. Even coming at it from another direction, I find that I reach > the same conclusion: "steal" is a highly charged word, and it's > probably somewhat insulting to an ethical person to be accused of > stealing however indirectly. I did not even notice that angle to it. Also a good reason. > Using a word like "cheat" would still be > troubling, but probably wouldn't put people on the defensive nearly as > quickly. So I think you've convinced me, even if not in quite the way > you intended. :) Actually both of these arguments are fairly near to each other. > objection to the term. I may have misunderstood, but as I said > earlier, I've already come up with a different reason to change > terminology. :) You understood me right. I object to using an word that people associate with something that hurts (as in causing pain) a lot, such as losing something, not being able to use it, having to replace it, for an far lesser damage of simply missing predicted income. Take someone who finds their $20'000 car gone, and who was just going to use it for something important, and ask them it they regard this as the same as an author doing an (readers-sales)*royalties=20'000 calculation (did those readers borrow legally or copy illegally, or not even exist?). Just not the same thing. The hurt is not the same. As using the same word for two things carries an implicite valuing of them as the equivalent, I object to this usage. It belittles the first groups far larger suffering. So copying instead of paying should get its own word and establish its own (I assume lesser) reputation. Or at least borrow an word for something that is equivalent, such as not paying an bus fare. > > Of course an unfinished work does not get published by itsself. And > > if someone finished it off for publication, he becomes co-author[1] > > and so can profit from it as long as he lives > > I don't think you've quite understood what I was getting at in my > example. The family of the carpenter doesn't have to do any work to > finish the furniture: they just need to keep sending it on schedule. So that would be an book ready for publishing? > > If they deliver something: thread them as coauthors of an multi-author > > work. > > As I said above, I clearly failed to make my idea clear: the work was > supposed to be finished and already in the "publication" process, but > the expected royalties had just barely started to arrive. There would > be no basis for treating the family as co-authors. OK, so that eliminates that possibility. > > No more than heirs of farmers/workers/doctors not getting anything > > does not reduce the farmers/workers/doctors incentive to do > > something. > > But they _would_ get something. If the doctor died after performing > surgery but before being paid, his heirs would get the money. For the one (or few) surgeries where payment is still outstanding. That is a few months (if even), not for decades. That would be more comparable with the authors familiy still getting payments for the copies already ordered before the authors death (or perhaps still for the rest of the current print run). > > Offer an author to sell his book to an publisher[2]? Also gets rid > > of the family problem. Lump sum or in installments of unknown > > amount. Make your bets (author and publisher). That is what business > > (which authoring for pay is) is about. > > Authors and publishers seem to have come to agreement over the years > that that's not the best way to conduct their business. Publishers do not want the risk of paying for something they do not know how it will sell. Authors suffer an supply>demand situation making it impossible for them to change this. > > [2] This throws up the problem of firms being potentially > > immortal. So perhaps in this case have an "lasts average human life > > expectancy after writing" clause (about (80-10)/2=35 years? > > You mean a fairly limited-term copyright? That is an entire other kettle of fish. Maximal duration, even if death does not arrive. I was above limiting corporate ownership to an "natural life length", to avoid an loophole of everyone incorporating and transferring ownership, for infinite duration. (Programmers are very concious of making loopholes, which are the prime cause of crashed programs, so block them as soon as noticed.) > I'm quite open to that > idea: I think that copyright durations have gotten pretty out of hand > in current law. That is presently the average 35 plus 70 = 105 years. And reducing that back to the original 17 years from publication (or perhaps 20 because of increased life length) would be good. Or some logarithmic 1/2/4/8/16/32/64 depending on the type of work, and the usual sales time that type has, would be good. From 1 years for "chart" pop music to 64 for expensive to research encyclopedias. That would also, as side effect, solve the inheritance problem, by most works running out before death, having less than the average 35 years. Problem here is to get people to agree on an duration or set of durations, in absense of an law that gives an standard. That makes the "dead author, can not be harmed" method an simple but usable formula. Even if it has its small problems. Of course above would even with 32 (for large slow selling literature) give LotR (for book 5+6) an end in 1956+32=1988, so 15 years ago. TH even earlier. So the OPs request for an electronic copy would still be acceptable, unless you argue for over 2003-1956=47 as limit, which is over the 35 years average life expectation. > > Of course he should have made his firm as Placebin,Inc so his death > > would be the firms bancrupcy due to 100% loss of crucial employees, > > not his families debt. > > Ok, but the mention of debt was very much a side point; I probably > should have left it out altogether. OK, dropping it. > The crucial point is that the > doctor did lots of work and developed a product worth $10 million, but > nobody ever sees any of that money because his death somehow makes his > completed work valueless. And that happens in any business investment when something goes badly wrong. Anyone can die, resulting in end of income. Just usually does not happen. Life is hard sometimes. > discourage future investment. Wouldn't business work a lot better if > the work itself were considered to have value, at least for a limited > time? That's the point of patents and copyrights, as I understand it. Copyright yes. Patents no. Their purpose was to get knowledge hidden behind trade secrets out into publication. What was forgotten here is that this can also be ferreted out by reverse engineering, if it is valuable enough to someone for them to put up the costs. OTOH patents can actually result in someone losing their work. If someone else patents an idea you also have had and want to use, and you can not prove you already have had it before (and even then it costs $100'000s in court costs to do so) you lose your work. I have even read the statement, that completed (not out of court settlements) patent cases average $500'000 per party. This "useless and harmfull" view is even shared by the manager of patents an the large technology firm Cisco (who make the $x00'000 machines that switch Internet data between the wires), as I found out reading an magazine, 2 days ago. > > And anyone saying that authors should have more rights, at the rest > > of societies cost, is on a very week position when facing copyists > > who argue that they should have less rights, at rest of societies > > profit. > > I still think we're somehow miscommunicating here. The whole basis of > my position on this issue is an attempt to get authors the _same_ > rights as other people, so that authorship will not be discouraged and > society as a whole profits. That is an acceptable goal. Problem is the implementation, and its side effects. > At least as I understand what you are > suggesting (I welcome your corrections), you would leave authors with > fewer rights than other people in society: every cent of the value of > their finished work would depend on the length of their life. That also happens to all other people. Just the difference that in one case death stops working and so income. While for authors the work has all been done, and the income stops by different mechanism. The effect for the dead person, and their family, is the same. > interest. I just think that copyright should last for at least some > minimum time after it is granted (whether the author is alive or > dead), in order to make writing and publishing reasonable businesses. Any investment into any business is done on the assumption (usually valid) that one will live to see the profit. Anyone expecting to die will not go and invest. Some times it fails. Death is just one way for this to happen. Changing market an other. An better or cheaper competitor yet annother. > For better or worse, market economies only know how to deal with goods > and services, Yes. That is why I once suggested an social security scheme where everyone would get an minimal income, so reducing economic pressure, and so increasing authors, offsetting the lossed due to weaker copyright. > and copyrighted work fits better as a "good" than as a > "service". And that is most likely the base for our disagreement. For me authoring is far more like an service. No physical objects being made. Goods is about atoms, services and authoring about bits. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Blacksmith - hardware runs the world, software controls the hardware code generates the software, have you coded today? ###### And after writing an new post, it does come back Cc:, ARGH!!! ###### Mail-from: From neil Mon Jan 6 01:24:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.2) for neil@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:24:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by island.ethz.ch (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id h05NapX2252380 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:36:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (daemon@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h05NanKp006701 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:36:49 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sbjensen@localhost) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) id h05Nam3B016440 for neil@franklin.ch; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:36:48 -0600 (CST) Resent-Message-Id: <200301052336.h05Nam3B016440@harper.uchicago.edu> Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by plaisance.uchicago.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h05Mnq5s014103 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:49:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from franklin.ch (dclient217-162-179-248.hispeed.ch [217.162.179.248]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h05MnoKp012449 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:49:51 -0600 (CST) Received: (from neil@localhost) by franklin.ch (8.9.3/19991231-neil@franklin.ch) id XAA00792; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:49:48 +0100 Sender: neil@chonsp.dynip.lugs.ch To: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> From: Neil Franklin Date: 05 Jan 2003 23:49:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu's message of "Sun, 05 Jan 2003 04:21:14 GMT" Message-ID: <6uk7hjus8j.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20 Resent-From: sbjensen@uchicago.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:36:47 -0600 Resent-To: neil@franklin.ch sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > > And far more important: Your target is to get readers their pay > > their authors. Those wanting to evade this are crafty. They have > > built up a large "defensive wall" against arguments. Shoddy language > > plays onto their attempts to ignore voices like yours as "he can't > > even think clearly, so how can his arguments be worth anything" > > Hmm. Even coming at it from another direction, I find that I reach > the same conclusion: "steal" is a highly charged word, and it's > probably somewhat insulting to an ethical person to be accused of > stealing however indirectly. Good observation. I did not notice that one. > Using a word like "cheat" would still be > troubling, but probably wouldn't put people on the defensive nearly as > quickly. So I think you've convinced me, even if not in quite the way > you intended. :) :-) > Sure; I was just pointing out that "steal" didn't necessarily mean > taking away a physical thing, which I had thought was part of your > objection to the term. Was/is my objection. The entire feeelings people associate with the word "steal" comes from the experience of loss, of not having anymore, of losing ability, or having to replace the lost stuff. So I object to such word, describing an directly harmfull (and felt as such) act, being applied to some other, far weaker, act of "copy with not buying", which the author will never feel directly as "ouch!". It is harmfull, in form of smaller income. But any pain associated with the former is not in the later. There is an implicit "equal" comparison if 2 things are given the same name. Ask the victims of the former (say car driver finding $20'000 of car missing, when wanting to use it for something important), if they regard the victims of later (author noticing (readers-sales)*royalty=$20'000, how many are borrowed vs copied?) as in the same category. So IMHO the later, being lesser, should go and get its own word, with its own associations. > > > If he dies before all the furniture has been sent, his family can > > > still send the rest and collect payment for it. As I understand > > > it, if I were to apply the logic of your argument to this > > > situation, the family should not have the right to collect payment > > > when they send the rest of the furniture. > > > Of course an unfinished work does not get published by itsself. And > > if someone finished it off for publication, he becomes co-author[1] > > and so can profit from it as long as he lives > > I don't think you've quite understood what I was getting at in my > example. The family of the carpenter doesn't have to do any work to > finish the furniture: they just need to keep sending it on schedule. So the familiy of the author could also send the finished work on shedule? > royalty check before she died. The book was already finished and > could continue "being shipped", but under your suggested policy all > payment for that finished work should immediately cease. It would cease. That is what one calls a case of real bad luck. No different to an farmer/worker/doctor setting up, getting first customers, and then dieing the next day. > > If they deliver something: thread them as coauthors of an multi-author > > work. > > As I said above, I clearly failed to make my idea clear: the work was > supposed to be finished and already in the "publication" process, but > the expected royalties had just barely started to arrive. OK, missunderstood. Then that possibility falls. > > > Many people choose a career not only for their own benefit but for > > > that of their family. If copyright did not give at least limited > > > short-term rights to the heirs of creators, doesn't that > > > substantially reduce the incentive? > > > No more than heirs of farmers/workers/doctors not getting anything > > does not reduce the farmers/workers/doctors incentive to do > > something. > > But they _would_ get something. If the doctor died after performing > surgery but before being paid, his heirs would get the money. Payment for one single surgery (or a few), which was (were) already ordered and performed at lifetime. That is a few months (if even), not for n decades of sales. I suppose that would be equivalent to paying out for book orders that were still placed in lifetime. > If the > farmer died after harvesting the crop but before selling it, her heirs > could sell it and get the money. We seem to be miscommunicating here > somehow. And if he dies just before sowing the seeds? Just after buying all the land and machinery? That would be equivalent to an author dieing even before first book order. The farmers family gets nothing. Selling off his investment will only part-cover paying those that delivered the stuff, or the credits taken up to pay them. That is life. Hard in some cases, but it happens. Most people compute their plans on the assumption it will not happen. So get hit by it. > > > Suppose Dr. Doe singlehandedly develops and patents the wonder > > > drug "Placebin". If he sells the rights to a drug company for $10 > > > million and then dies, his family gets the $10 million. > > > Offer an author to sell his book to an publisher[2]? Also gets rid > > of the family problem. Lump sum or in installments of unknown > > amount. Make your bets (author and publisher). That is what business > > (which authoring for pay is) is about. > > Authors and publishers seem to have come to agreement over the years > that that's not the best way to conduct their business. Understandable. Publishers don't want to risk big outlays with unknown income. And authors are in an supply>demand situation, so they have no power to change this. > > [2] This throws up the problem of firms being potentially > > immortal. So perhaps in this case have an "lasts average human life > > expectancy after writing" clause (about (80-10)/2=35 years? > > You mean a fairly limited-term copyright? That is an entirely different kettle of fish (maximal duration from publishing, without death happening first). Above was just limiting anything sold to publishers to an "natural life length" similar to author remaining stuff, to prevent an infinite in one case. > I'm quite open to that > idea: I think that copyright durations have gotten pretty out of hand > in current law. Yes. They presently are the average 35 plus 70 = 105. Reducing back to something along the original 17 from publishing (perhaps extended to 20 for todays longer lives) would also be sensible. Or even an 1/2/4/8/16/64 logarithmic scale, depending on what type of work it is, and what the normal sales time expectation of that type is (1 for "chart" pop music, 64 of reseach-heavy encyclopedias). And I suppose that would, as side effect, make inheritability an non-issue as well, as many works would run out before death, having less than 35 years. Only problem is that, without an decent shorter term (or set of terms) anchored in law, people are going to disagree on lengths. While with todays long duration the "author dead and not losing" is an fairly simple criterium. So it wins on robustness. Of course even with 32 (certainly no 64) for LotR that gives 1956 (book 5+6 published) + 32 = 1988. So it is out anyway since 15 years. TH even earlier. So this particular threads OP would be acceptable searching for electronic copies anyway, unless you get people to take over 2003-1956=47, which is over the average 35, as the right length. > > Of course he should have made his firm as Placebin,Inc so his death > > would be the firms bancrupcy due to 100% loss of crucial employees, > > not his families debt. > > Ok, but the mention of debt was very much a side point; I probably > should have left it out altogether. OK, dropped. > The crucial point is that the > doctor did lots of work and developed a product worth $10 million, but > nobody ever sees any of that money because his death somehow makes his > completed work valueless. Same as any other investment that goes lost. Put time in on the assumption of making money. Then it goes wrong. No money. Death is even only one way for that to happen. Having market tastes change will do you in also. Or an better or cheaper competing product. > Business thrives on predictability; that's part of what makes high > inflation bad. The less confidence people have in the future value of > an investment, the less likely they are to invest. Sure. > Drug research > (like publishing) already has enough trouble dealing with the inherent > uncertainty of developing a successful product. Adding a substantial > additional uncertainty that even a successful product will suddenly > lose all its value would make such projects even riskier, and would > discourage future investment. Death, which really does not strike newly finished products that often, is a risk in anything. And at least the dead do not suffer from the business faillure. > Wouldn't business work a lot better if > the work itself were considered to have value, at least for a limited > time? Of course it has. So long the creator is around. > That's the point of patents and copyrights, as I understand it. Copyright yes. Patents no. They were invented to get knowledge hidden behind trade secrets out into publication. Of course this ignores that such knowledge can be ferreted out by reverse engineering, if it has value to anyone prepared to pay for that. OTOH patents actually increase the risk of losing ones work. Competitor gets an patent and one can not prove to already have found same technique earlier (and even if, that proving costs >$100'000), so one is prohibited from using ones own work! The above "useless and damaging" view is even held by the manager of the patent department of the large technology firm Cisco (they make the $x00'000 machines that switch Internet data from one wire to the next), as I read in an magazine, just 2 days ago. > > And anyone saying that authors should have more rights, at the rest > > of societies cost, is on a very week position when facing copyists > > who argue that they should have less rights, at rest of societies > > profit. > > I still think we're somehow miscommunicating here. The whole basis of > my position on this issue is an attempt to get authors the _same_ > rights as other people, so that authorship will not be discouraged and > society as a whole profits. That is completely acceptable desire. Problem is, as always, in implementation, in particularly its side effects. > At least as I understand what you are > suggesting (I welcome your corrections), you would leave authors with > fewer rights than other people in society: every cent of the value of > their finished work would depend on the length of their life. This is the same as for any other person investing. Die and the income from their investment disappears. Just that it there usually happens due to stopped further service. While in authors the service was done once and not any more. But the stop of income is the same. Effect on died person and family is the same. > interest. I just think that copyright should last for at least some > minimum time after it is granted (whether the author is alive or > dead), in order to make writing and publishing reasonable businesses. IMHO it is already resonable without. After all most people making business descisions don't expect to die immediately. Else they would not be investing, in anything. > For better or worse, market economies only know how to deal with goods > and services, That is a problem. That is why I once suggested an general "minimal imcome for everyone" type of social security, that would simply reduce economic pressure on everyone, and so increase numbers of authors, and so cover losses from weak copyright. But that idea was disliked massively here. > and copyrighted work fits better as a "good" than as a > "service". And that may be the core of our disagreement. I regard it far more "service" like in character. No physical objects being made for one. Goods ate about atoms, services and authoring are about bits. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Programmer, Archer, Blacksmith - hardware runs the world, software controls the hardware code generates the software, have you coded today? ###### Mail-from: From neil Mon Jan 6 01:24:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: from localhost by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.2) for neil@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:24:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by island.ethz.ch (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id h05Nd2Z1952132 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:39:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (daemon@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h05Nd1Kp007419 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:39:01 -0600 (CST) Received: (from sbjensen@localhost) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) id h05Nd1gU016883 for neil@franklin.ch; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:39:01 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:39:00 -0600 From: Steuard Jensen To: Neil Franklin Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Message-ID: <20030105233900.GA16257@harper.uchicago.edu> References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> <6ufzs7us25.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6ufzs7us25.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Neil Franklin wrote: > Oops, that should have gone to the group. > > And this dumb program did not even add a Cc: to myself. > > So I will need to rewrite. So that is why there will be differences. I've just bounced the message back to you, so maybe you won't have quite so much rewriting to do. :) (I haven't read it yet, and I'm afraid it may be a little while before I've got time, actually, but I am looking forward to it.) Steuard Jensen ###### From: the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: 5 Jan 2003 22:49:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 18 Message-ID: <3ac4908.0301052249.72bf43b3@posting.google.com> References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.146.71.194 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1041835754 8736 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2003 06:49:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jan 2003 06:49:14 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107316 antjlit@aol.com (AntJLit) wrote in message news:<20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com>... > Hey all, > > Does anyone know where I can get these in Etext or Ebook. I will be > traveling out of country and would like to continue my reading of these books > while > traveling.. > > Any ideas will help... > > I have been to barnes and nobles and amazon.com no luck. You're in luck! These groups have just finished putting together an e-text version of LotR. You can find it here at: http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/book/book.htm HTH ###### From: the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: 5 Jan 2003 23:05:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 5 Message-ID: <3ac4908.0301052305.452d0aad@posting.google.com> References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.146.71.194 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1041836711 9788 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2003 07:05:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jan 2003 07:05:11 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107318 Neil Franklin wrote in message news:<6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>... [snip] Here we go again.... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ac4908.0301052305.452d0aad@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 10 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1041873106 128.135.12.7 (Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:11:46 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:11:46 CST Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: mNiS9-8237-K4-3809@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 0c38494c 2809c8f1 54c3dd12 7346d0b9 7b60ebb2 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:11:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107389 Quoth the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) in article <3ac4908.0301052305.452d0aad@posting.google.com>: > Neil Franklin wrote: > [snip] > Here we go again.... Actually, I think we're done already. :) We still seem to disagree, but not violently so. :) Steuard Jensen ###### From: Gustav Kruswitz Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 03:59:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 9 NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Jan 2003 03:59:02 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.109.3.11 X-Trace: 1041994742 news.xs4all.nl 49109 194.109.3.11:3603 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.vmunix.org!news2.euro.net!news2.euro.net!transit.news.xs4all.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!xs4all!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107707 On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:26:09 GMT, sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote: >You're welcome to read our parody E-text, though. :) >It's on the web at http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/book/. :) Lord of the Rings e-books can also be found at http://lotr.iiivx.net/ --gustav ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 02:14:41 +0200 Organization: National Technical University of Athens, Greece Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-q010.otenet.gr X-Trace: ulysses.noc.ntua.gr 1042071688 42966 212.205.254.10 (9 Jan 2003 00:21:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 00:21:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.grnet.gr!news.ntua.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107864 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu... > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > > > And far more important: Your target is to get readers their pay > > their authors. Those wanting to evade this are crafty. They have > > built up a large "defensive wall" against arguments. Shoddy language > > plays onto their attempts to ignore voices like yours as "he can't > > even think clearly, so how can his arguments be worth anything" > > Hmm. Even coming at it from another direction, I find that I reach > the same conclusion: "steal" is a highly charged word, and it's > probably somewhat insulting to an ethical person to be accused of > stealing however indirectly. Using a word like "cheat" would still be > troubling, but probably wouldn't put people on the defensive nearly as > quickly. Heh... In Greek the word "cheat" would more likely as not be translated with the exact same word as "steal"... "Klevo". "Cheating in poker" for example would be indistinguishable in meaning from "Stealing in poker". So, I'd find the difference between stealing and cheating (in this sense, not in the "cheating on your wife"-sense :-) a distinction without meaning... Aris Katsaris ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:10:48 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <49tp1vke72jflhsfvt76u00rolb4ueub0i@4ax.com> Reply-To: softrat@pobox.com References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <6usmw9vnif.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ubs2wa3le.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 21 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!telocity-west!DIRECTV!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107946 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu... > > Even coming at it from another direction, I find that I reach > the same conclusion: "steal" is a highly charged word, and it's > probably somewhat insulting to an ethical person to be accused of > stealing however indirectly. Using a word like "cheat" would still be > troubling, but probably wouldn't put people on the defensive nearly as > quickly. 'cheat' is a less highly charged word to some and more highly charged to others, like me, who value 'honor'. An impoverished person may steal for their children to eat to live, regrettable, but honorable, but there is *never* an honorable excuse for cheating. the softrat "Wannabe orcodentist" ==>Jar-jaromir Lives!<== mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- Give your child mental blocks for Christmas. ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Hobbit, Lord of the Rings Ebooks Etext References: <20030103003830.02118.00000245@mb-fi.aol.com> <_oOR9.151$K4.16728@news.uchicago.edu> <49tp1vke72jflhsfvt76u00rolb4ueub0i@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 24 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1042087502 128.135.12.7 (Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:45:02 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:45:02 CST Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: i77T9-5560-K4-2234@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 9f66e995 3bdce329 f74777c3 2339510d 525c7e8d Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 04:45:02 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:107851 Quoth softrat@pobox.com in article <49tp1vke72jflhsfvt76u00rolb4ueub0i@4ax.com>: > "Steuard Jensen" wrote: > > "steal" is a highly charged word, and it's probably somewhat > > insulting to an ethical person... Using a word like "cheat" would > > still be troubling, but probably wouldn't put people on the > > defensive nearly as quickly. > 'cheat' is a less highly charged word to some and more highly > charged to others, like me, who value 'honor'. An impoverished > person may steal for their children to eat to live, regrettable, but > honorable, but there is *never* an honorable excuse for cheating. Interesting point, and one that I hadn't considered. I think that in context, my analysis would probably hold even for people with the sense of honor you describe: I can think of no honorable reason to steal a luxury item like an eBook. And in any case, I suspect that those who have strong senses of honor would be seriously bothered by both words (I know I would be), but are probably less likely to violate copyright laws in the first place. (And if they had planned to, they're also the ones who would take note the most when another person suggested that doing so might be immoral.) Steuard Jensen