Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
> >
> > If you wish to conduct an ad hominem argument, you might need to
> > know that I am disabled and am proud to be able to contribute
> > something to society in this way.
>
> You've mentioned more than once that you're disabled, although you've
> not made clear what relevance this has to your ideas about copyright.

It has no more relevance than your claim that I should be selling my work and trying to make a lot of money. Because I receive disability payments, any money I would make would just be subtracted from my weekly checks, and I would also have to pay taxes on it. But because I collect disability I can do a limited amount of public service work without having to collect a salary from it. Not everyone is in the same economic state as you are.

> On the issue of moral rights, I believe the disabled have a moral
> claim against society at large to accommodate to their disability.
> That's why seeing eye dogs for the blind are, and should be, allowed
> in places that other dogs cannot go. But the disabled have no more
> right than the rest of us to break laws, or to take advantage of
> others in the quest for pecuniary returns.

You are quite correct in that. But I think we can discuss our views on copyright without these personal charges of breaking laws and taking advantage of others for whatever reason.

> So I don't understand your introducing that you're disabled, that
> you were a conscientious objector, that you worked in a hospital
> (presumably for a salary), etc.

Yes, I collected a salary from my work, probably less than what I deserved. However, I can't remember that I ever turned a sick person away just because they couldn't pay me. In a similar way, copyright is intended to promote a public good that otherwise would not be accomplished. It is not a mechanism for insuring authors enough money to live on, nor a way for authors to hide their works under a barrel because poor people can't pay for their light.

> If you think the world owes you something extra because of
> these circumstances and activities, I'd be interested in knowing
> what it is, or how it relates to your apparent determination to
> deprive authors of the legitimate fruit of their labors.

It may be apparent to you but not to me. If you are saying that my fight to overturn the copyright term extension would deprive authors of the legitimate fruit of their labor please explain how it is going to do that 70 years after their death. But more importantly, please explain how this extension is going to accomplish the real purpose of copyright: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by encouraging authors to publish new works.

> > Not at all. I pay for the books and magazines and newspapers I read.
> > I heartily approve of authors bypassing big publishers and selling
> > their works directly to readers, as for example Stephen King with
> > his new work, "The Plant." See:
>
> Nice idea, but not yet practical at this point. The set-up costs
> are still too high to be practical for most authors.

I read in the paper today that Stephen King is going ahead with the third chapter of "The Plant" because his experiment is a success. In the first 100,000 downloads, 78% have already paid their buck, more than the 75% he requested.

Now, if you want to know my setup costs, they are probably less than $100 and I can do most of the scanning while I am reading another book (or, rarely, watching television--for which I pay as well).

But if you need someone to help with management and distribution you can invest in that for online publication just as easily as with print publication.

If you decide to publish without encryption I will even help you out for free. I have likewise helped several online publishers who are selling such books online. But if you decide you need encryption you are on your own. I am not interested in online books that blind people can't read even if they bought them.  

Anyway, economics are not the critical point. Technology is rapidly changing all that and authors too must adapt. For example, I read that Pizza Hut is considering installing ovens in vans so they can bake during delivery times. It seems that affluent customers now demand instant gratification. Any time more than an hour between order and delivery is considered too long. Music publishers are having to adapt to the trend toward "mass customization," and authors cannot be far behind. No doubt any business that the customer perceives to be adding value and saving precious time can charge a premium. It is becoming more a process than a product.

This is pertinent to trade book publishing of the sort I guess you refer to. The books I can afford to publish are of a different sort, I think, and no competition to you. But if you want to try to sell them, send me a proposal and we'll talk. I think we all face the problem that copyright is not being used to right ends now, and it seems our culture founded on literacy and the book is in danger of vanishing. It makes little sense to fight over a diminishing market--if people won't buy and read your books I wonder if they would read mine for free.

Eric Eldred
<eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> Received on Tue Aug 01 2000 - 16:35:12 GMT