Google's Print Project

[Entsuropi]

And how do you plan to enforce that rule? You could say TWG is registered on the website, but someone could hack it and remove that notice, thus making your work Public Domain.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that, y'know, the USA doesn't make laws for everyone. The net isn't your private backyard to administrate as you will.

[Parker]

General question.  I don't see why just because something used to be a certain way implies that it's better that way.  Both sides of this argument seem to be appealing to this concept, and it doesn't hold much water for me.

Against current copyrights:  The argument is that copyrights were less stringent 100 years ago, and so that is obviously the way that they were supposed to be.

For current copyrights:  The argument is that copyrights are the way they are now and have been for the last X years, so they shouldn't be changed in the future.

Is it just me, or does this seem to be the same argument, separated by about 100 years?  I'm not saying this to be snippety--just to point out an area of dispute that really should be laid to rest on both sides.  100 years ago was 100 years ago, not now.  The last ten years is ten years ago--not now.  Both situations require changes.  If copyrights should be changed now, that's a separate issue--one I don't see relating to how they used to be 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 years ago.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

And how do you plan to enforce that rule? You could say TWG is registered on the website, but someone could hack it and remove that notice, thus making your work Public Domain.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that, y'know, the USA doesn't make laws for everyone. The net isn't your private backyard to administrate as you will.

as for the first, there's an OFFICE you register with. You don't just pop it in the code. Sure they can hack it and take off the notice, but that doesn't remove the registry.

As for the second, no, they don't. But most countries play ball with US copyright, if only for trade reasons.

[The Jade Knight]

Against current copyrights:  The argument is that copyrights were less stringent 100 years ago, and so that is obviously the way that they were supposed to be.

No.  My argument is that the way copyrights were 100 years ago worked better than the system we have now.  I am not saying we should revert to exactly the same laws, nor do I think that mere antiquity made them better.  They were better becuase they were more free.  And so long as certain basic protections are met (encouraging artistic work), the more free, the better.

[Entsuropi]

They play ball within their own copyright systems SE. What Skar is proposing is modifying the USA copyright system, and it's unlikely the whole of civilisation is just gonna tag along with you.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

yes, I understood what he was saying. The whole world doesn't play ball that way right now. Yet those we're friendly with and do a lot of trade with try to protect US copyrights.

I don't see why they would do any different if we changed the laws.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

My argument is that the way copyrights were 100 years ago worked better than the system we have now.

I don't think you've said it that concretely before. You've just said "we didn't have this 100 years ago" but neither did we have clean hospitals or radios or such. I had just interpreted those remarks as "this is not a sacred tradition handed down to us from our forefathers."

So... HOW was it better than it is today?

[The Jade Knight]

It was more free.  Less restrictive of our culture.

Have you looked at that presentation by Lessig yet?  If not, this would be a good time.  He illustrates how it was more free.  In his book Free Culture he gives more details, references, better explanations, etc.  But the presentation is shorter than the book.

[Skar]

They play ball within their own copyright systems SE. What Skar is proposing is modifying the USA copyright system, and it's unlikely the whole of civilisation is just gonna tag along with you.

They will if the new system makes sense.  

[Skar]

...Your proposal would kill the internet as a place to sell or advertise goods. Goodbye every company on the internet!

How the heck would it do that?  Do you seriously think that I was proposing that if a car were advertised on the net that the car itself would be public domain?

Give a little more credit please.

[House of Mustard]

I only got around to reading this thread (well, I started yesterday -- it just took a while to get through it all.)

For what it's worth, I think it'd be awesome if my books were part of this Google project.  It's just another free-to-me method of getting people to look at my work.  I could care less that there's a full ecopy of it somewhere on Google's database -- in my mind, this would only boost sales, not hurt them.  Google isn't offering a free online copy -- just excerpts.  (Also, it doesn't bother me a bit that they didn't ask permission -- I just don't see it as harmful to me.  Other people certainly have a right to their opinion, though.)

However, I really dislike the idea that we're freeing information for the destitute masses.  If people want to teach third world countries about irrigation, or show the Nepalese how to build roads, or instruct the French on the proper use of deodorant, then good for them -- more power to 'em.  They can write all they want to on the subject and distribute it freely.  But we shouldn't be taking works from authors who don't want their works used.  That smacks of socialism and the-government-knows-best.

[Legion]

OK, I just started reading this thread again and I have a few thoughts.  If Google does do this they should (with any copyrighted information) only take a certain amount of it....lets say a scattered 50% of the information.  This way it eliminates the free distribution of the copyrighted information.  Now with information that is not copyrighted it could take all of it.  In addition to this they could also have an area on the website where people who have copyrighted information on this can have there stuff omitted.  Therefore anyone who wants there stuff on it, like Mustard, could have it posted, and others who do not like it could have it removed.  How does this sound to people?

[The Jade Knight]

That smacks of socialism and the-government-knows-best.

Actually, I take the opposite approach.  Oppressive and invasive copyright laws smack of socialism and government-knows-best to me.  Free Culture and Socialism are uncompatable.

Certainly, Steve Jackson Games being raided was more a mark of Socialism than it was of an uninvolved government.

Again, I like copyright.  It's a good thing.  It's just way too strong right now.

You know, I wouldn't mind it so much if we went back 300 years to universal monopolies on copyright which did not extend past copying.  Granted, there are a few problems with this system, such as the fact that it essentially abolishes IP in the copyright world (doesn't prevent people from translating or using your characters or world to write their own - which would certainly bother me), but it does give you an eternal copyright on your work.

My deal is that I want less restrictive copyright and to preserve the Public Domain (and keep it expanding, even if it's slow expansion.

[Skar]

Actually, I take the opposite approach.  Oppressive and invasive copyright laws smack of socialism and government-knows-best to me.  Free Culture and Socialism are uncompatable.

Well, on the one hand you've got a camp advocating keeping private property more under the control of its owners/creators.  On the other you've got a camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses.  The second looks an awful lot like "re-distribution of wealth" to me.  

Invasive is not always bad.  I'm all for an invasive government when the referenced invasiveness is protecting rights I hold dear.  Raiding a serial killers home, even with a search warrant, is bloody invasive and I'm glad for it.

Saying a government is invasive is like saying it exists.  No kidding.  There are situations where any government you care to postulate would be justifiably invasive.  As long as it's acting within laws that its citizens had a hand in creating and which they support, it's a good thing.

It sounds like you're lumping the people benefitting from copyright in with big brother government.  You forget that the people who would lose income, even the big corporate folks, are citizens as much as you are and deserve protection as much as you do.  Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're somehow different from you under the law.

[The Jade Knight]

Well, on the one hand you've got a camp advocating keeping private property more under the control of its owners/creators.

"Private Property"?  You have a strange concept of private property, and Lockean notions of private property had nothing to do with copyright as it's observed today.

The government isn't taking anything away from you.  It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc.  That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism).  If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all.  Keep that in mind.

Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're somehow different from you under the law.

Actually, they are.  In practice in America, copyright protects those with money (ie, who can afford Copyright/IP lawyers), and does not protect those without it (the rest of us).  They lobby congress to change and enact laws that the general populace wouldn't want (or benefit from), but we don't have money to throw to politicial candidates to try to counteract that.

Once again, I am pro-copyright.  Please remember this!  I am not arguing against copyright entirely.  I think it's important that we have copyright.  But I don't think it should be at the expense of personal freedoms, fair use rights, and the Public Domain (remember: without some copyright protection, people wont create works to go into the Public Domain)!