Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Noah Clements
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in A Boon for Copyright’s Biggest Holders? on The Technology Liberation Front
I think the main import is not necessarily what is allowed or disallowed by copyright holders, but what remedies are available for breach.
1 year ago
in Copyright Infringement More Tax Evasion than Speeding on The Technology Liberation Front
enigma has a good point well worth exploring, even (maybe especially?) from the legal standpoint. Malcolm Gladwell had an interesting article about copying and transformation in the New Yorker : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041122fa...
My favorite quote: "The final dishonesty of the plagiarism fundamentalists is to encourage us to pretend that these chains of influence and evolution do not exist, and that a writer’s words have a virgin birth and an eternal life."
My favorite quote: "The final dishonesty of the plagiarism fundamentalists is to encourage us to pretend that these chains of influence and evolution do not exist, and that a writer’s words have a virgin birth and an eternal life."
1 year ago
in The Morality of Unauthorized Copying on The Technology Liberation Front
With regard to Baen books, giving away free copies in order to generate buzz so that they can sell copies of those books is a fine strategy - it also worked well for a lot of tech books (I remember Thinking in Java being freely released on the web, chapter by chapter, and incorporating feedback in the finished work). But I think ultimately this strategy relies on copyright in order to generate income from the work being promoted in this way. How could contract or tort or property law protect the author or publisher from others selling a cheaper edition of the work?
I don't claim to know all the different ways that authors could support their art. I identified a few: day job, inheritance, grants (from patrons or government), academia (I would include employment with groups like the Cato institute in this category, but perhaps it fits more with grants?). Income from selling copies is the only source that would directly correlate with success in the marketplace (i.e., what people will buy). What other sources of income have I overlooked? And what other sources would ensure that we can continue to have a world with plenty of works by Elmore Leonard, Jackie Collins, etc.? (I am assuming that no university would employ this type of author if it were not for their market success, which might present a problem of circularity in the absence of copyright.)
I don't claim to know all the different ways that authors could support their art. I identified a few: day job, inheritance, grants (from patrons or government), academia (I would include employment with groups like the Cato institute in this category, but perhaps it fits more with grants?). Income from selling copies is the only source that would directly correlate with success in the marketplace (i.e., what people will buy). What other sources of income have I overlooked? And what other sources would ensure that we can continue to have a world with plenty of works by Elmore Leonard, Jackie Collins, etc.? (I am assuming that no university would employ this type of author if it were not for their market success, which might present a problem of circularity in the absence of copyright.)
1 year ago
in The Morality of Unauthorized Copying on The Technology Liberation Front
Authors have a problem that painters and musicians do not face: absent copyright protection, there may be no remuneration at all. In such a world, authors would have to have day jobs (a la James Joyce) or be independently wealthy (a la Leo Tolstoy). Certainly one can argue that these examples show that nothing would be lost, but then what about the merely good pleasant reads, the ones not born of such hunger, the ones we like to read on the beach?
As you mentioned, painters still have the original that they can sell. But with paintings, it is the original that has the greatest market value. And most musicians have always (since before and including Mozart) made most of their money from performance and giving lessons. But with authors, it is the copy and the copy only that provides money for the work (unless they are to replace copy income with grants and professorships).
Not that copyright doesn't have problems, but I do believe that authors should have a "natural right" to be able to earn a living from creating a successful work.
As you mentioned, painters still have the original that they can sell. But with paintings, it is the original that has the greatest market value. And most musicians have always (since before and including Mozart) made most of their money from performance and giving lessons. But with authors, it is the copy and the copy only that provides money for the work (unless they are to replace copy income with grants and professorships).
Not that copyright doesn't have problems, but I do believe that authors should have a "natural right" to be able to earn a living from creating a successful work.
