Re: Re: will everyone concerned about copyright please read this

Chris,

I think we have far less to dispute than you are seeing.

On 22/09/2011 03:35, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 10:02 PM, joseph harris wrote:
>    
>> The real goal of writers is to receive decent payment for their
>> efforts, without having to bow to any form of patronage.
>>      
> You keep making curious assertions about others’ motivations.  What is
> your basis for this one?
>    

Sentences out of context do offer wrong interpretations. This one was 
within the context of copyright, and was tempered by a number of things, 
including the fact that many writers are not rewarded for their efforts. 
For very many this is nonetheless a major, rather than minor, 
motivation. As to curious assertions - well, after a decade of - at 
times - fairly intense online discussions and of following many threads 
on many lists, and that after a lifetime of minor involvements in 
publishing, I think it just possible I am capable of moderately accurate 
judgements.

> While I am not a writer of any substantial output, I am a musician.  I
> make music primarily because I enjoy doing so, and secondarily because
> others seem to enjoy it.  Once in a while, I get paid, and that makes me
> happy, but it is not a goal.
>    

That reminds me of slim volume I came across many years ago 'How to 
Avoid Work'; its thesis was do what you enjoy. I do not want to go into 
deep philosophy on this now, since it needs  so much room, But music, 
great as it is, is not writing, and there are many differences between 
the businesses, including end user usage. And, since 'making' music may 
mean playing it, composing it, or contributing to its production in 
other ways I'll not comment further on that.

Perhaps, though, you call attention to the need to define 'writers' and 
'authors' in the context of the discussions.  I would have thought the 
context does suggest those aware of and using copyright for its 
protections. There are many who want to put out their ideas, or who 
reject copyright, and may even do so at their own cost. There are too 
those who, like you with music, are happy to be read and as happy if 
they receive occasional payment.

Even so I stand by my generalistion as applying to an overwhelming 
proportion of writers and authors.
> Most of the writers I have known who are professional or who have
> professional aspirations primarily seek to get paid so that they don’t
> have to do anything else that will distract them from writing.  In other
> words, *writing* is the goal; *payment* for writing is a means to enable
> them to keep writing.  I do know a couple of professionals for whom
> writing is a job, mostly writers of technical reference books, but I
> know more motivated the other way around.
>    

Anecdotal evidence is great fun, but logically fallacious in 
generalisation. If you re-read my sentence that you extract above you 
will see it fully covers the issue as I have phrased it, with its sub 
clause. Let me remind you of that sub clause: 'without having to bow to 
any form of patronage'. Publishing with printing technology is a little 
over half a millennium old. Copyright is just over 300 years old. But a 
full application of copyright rests on the Berne Convention, which is a 
century and a quarter old. America was the last major country to sign up 
to it, a couple of decades ago. Sorting out the wrinkles takes time.
> Any successful conceptualization of compensation for intellectual work
> needs to take into account the diverse motivations of producers and
> consumers of that work.  Any conceptualization that assumes monolithic
> motivations on either side is as doomed to failure as copy-protected
> software.
>
> ~Chris
>    

With that paragraph you could almost be my speechwriter. Certainly with 
the second sentence; though, monolithic assumptions or not, a principle 
and its policies and laws endeavour to encompass all variations. WIPO, 
the UN successor to and protector of Berne, is doing a pretty good job 
on this, whatever details one may disagree with.

Your first sentence of the last paragraph is a pretty good defence of 
the Berne Convention and that view of copyright protection.

Joseph


------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/