NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been involved in a fight for a while with a friend who seems to vehemently support the idea of copyright to the extreme. I, on the other hand, am against copyright, even to the point of releasing all of my music into the public domain. (I'm an amature musician/composer).

I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks of the issue? Are you for free media? Or are you a stern supporter of the DMCPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)? Or are you somewhere inbetween? (I think most everyone is ^.^).

How do I feel about copyright? Ambivelent...in some cases copyright is abused by the copyright holders, in other cases people are not adequately protected. In the former case I would offer the example of an author who wrote a satire book which made reference to 'Tarzan', but which was on the whole well within the limits of 'acceptable usage' but whose author and publisher could not afford to take on the financial might of the copyright owner (of Tarzan). For the latter case 'Turn it in.com' who appropriate the intellectual property of students without their permission and without paying them a cent, and turn it into capital for their own (turn it in.com's) benefit.

copyrights and intellectual property rights in general were a plausible idea when people didn't have a way to know just how much of culture and our collective knowledge would be locked up essentially indefinitely as the private property of the elite. not any more.

I think that music and others arts especially should be protected from copyrights. It would not harm the artform as all truly talented people do it for the love of the art more than the money they make from selling it. Also with software it can be vastly improved if left open source. This is refelcted in most if not all open source software being superior to copyrighted software (i.e. linux and unix > windows)

Whether you agree with them or not is the issue, the facts of the matter is that the concept of copyright coems down to ownership. A person has the right to own something they created.

Whether you agree with them or not is the issue, the facts of the matter is that the concept of copyright coems down to ownership. A person has the right to own something they created.

but even assuming that there aren't conceptual problems with property ownership in general, intellectual property rights claim ownership over non-material things. this makes them a different sort of thing altogether.

I feel its pretty stupid to be opposed to the concept of copyright. It gives you the author the option of profiting from your intellectial work or not. Importantly, if you do choose the public domain, it prevents others claiming ownership and profiting from your work.

Now the application of the concept, thats another issue.

but even assuming that there aren't conceptual problems with property ownership in general...
I think it’s safe to assume something accepted by the vast majority of people on Earth.

Anyway, I support copyrights. To not be able to own something you created just seems wrong.

I feel its pretty stupid to be opposed to the concept of copyright. It gives you the author the option of profiting from your intellectial work or not. Importantly, if you do choose the public domain, it prevents others claiming ownership and profiting from your work.

Now the application of the concept, thats another issue.
Agreed. The concept is great but....

Examples of Finnish copyright laws
-You have pay copyright fee of e.g. empty cassettes, CDs, DVDs. It doesn't matter that you only burn your own material, you still have to pay.
-If you have listed (licenced -what ever) your own songs/material, you can not allowe anyone to use it without a fee. Not for charity, not to be played by your friends... You can't control your own products anymore and that's insane.
-People who have nothing to do with the material still decide what anyone can do with it (the relatives of the former artist)

Another stupidity which tangents on this is the region codes on DVDs, as they are a tool to help controlling copyrights. I am not allowed to buy a original DVD from Hong Kong, even if the money does get to the owner of the copyrights. Instead i have to wait for the DVD to be published in Europe. Being an avid fan of eastern flicks that means i have to go illegal in order to see most of the films, since they never get published here.
Some CDs published are not playable by digital CD-players, as a copy-protection. Nice idea, but that does mean that a legally bought CD will not work on most car-audio systems and computers, thus making me spend money for a "defective" product.
They go too far nowadays, if you ask me.

Copyrights are important. Without copyrights, people whose work is of an intellectual nature would find it difficult to make money. Why would anyone pay you anything to publish your book if they can choose not to pay you and publish it anyway, thereby keeping all the profits? It would become impossible for authors to make money. Musicians can survive on the proceeds of live performances, but professional authors would cease to exist. Every an author wrote a new book, all of the publishing companies would sell it and pay them nothing. If you create something, even if it not tangible, you should be entitled to reap the monetary rewards of your creation and to maintain full control over it.

On the other hand, the copyright laws of the US are ridiculous. The basic copyright in the US lasts until 70 years after the death of the author (or artist or whatever the case may be). This is a ridiculous amount of time and far exceeds the intentions of copyright laws. I would like to see the length of copyright protection lowered, but I would not want to see copyright laws eliminated completely.

Another stupidity which tangents on this is the region codes on DVDs, as they are a tool to help controlling copyrights.
Yeah, what’s the deal with regional coding? An unnecessary barrier to free trade, if you ask me.

Another stupidity which tangents on this is the region codes on DVDs, as they are a tool to help controlling copyrights. I am not allowed to buy a original DVD from Hong Kong, even if the money does get to the owner of the copyrights. Instead i have to wait for the DVD to be published in Europe. Being an avid fan of eastern flicks that means i have to go illegal in order to see most of the films, since they never get published here.
Some CDs published are not playable by digital CD-players, as a copy-protection. Nice idea, but that does mean that a legally bought CD will not work on most car-audio systems and computers, thus making me spend money for a "defective" product.
They go too far nowadays, if you ask me.
You really should have bought a multiregional player...but I understand your frustration.
You may know that but just wanted to add it. "CDs" whit copy-protection aren't really CDs. "Philips has stated that such discs are not permitted to bear the trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo because they violate the Red Book specification."

You really should have bought a multiregional player...but I understand your frustration.
I have a region-free player, the problem is that i am a criminal for watching movies with the incorrect region code. While i dont feel like the cops are breaking my door every moment now i find it unsettling to be criminalised for my fandom. I pay money to the copyright owner, even if the channels by which it ends there are shady, but i do not buy blackmarket pirated copies. The film companies sure wouldnt mind making some extra bucks outside their regional market but the, by comparison, small market here doesnt justify investing in distribution channels, regionalisation, etc. But they arent allowed to present their original product here, while i am not allowed to buy it, by a technicality of the law. Would the product be, say, earthenware no one would give a damn.

I have a region-free player, the problem is that i am a criminal for watching movies with the incorrect region code. While i dont feel like the cops are breaking my door every moment now i find it unsettling to be criminalised for my fandom. I pay money to the copyright owner, even if the channels by which it ends there are shady, but i do not buy blackmarket pirated copies. The film companies sure wouldnt mind making some extra bucks outside their regional market but the, by comparison, small market here doesnt justify investing in distribution channels, regionalisation, etc. But they arent allowed to present their original product here, while i am not allowed to buy it, by a technicality of the law. Would the product be, say, earthenware no one would give a damn.

It is actually illegal to buy or watch DVDs with a different region code in your country? Wow, how did the movie companies manage to get that law into the books? In the US there are no laws against it.

It is actually illegal to buy or watch DVDs with a different region code in your country? Wow, how did the movie companies manage to get that law into the books? In the US there are no laws against it.
Indeed? Now I understand your (I mean Jester of course) first post a lot better. I just couldn't believe it.

I dunno how they made that stick, but DVDs with the wrong code may be seized, hefty fines levied and, in the case of shops, business licenses revoked. It isnt a felony, but still pretty harsh for my taste.

Copyright should certainly exist, to provide a monopoly to the creator of a work for a limited time. Of course, in the United States, thanks to hypocritical* scum like Disney, that limited time has become '+20 years anytime one of Disney's copyrights might expire'.

Also, everyone should be doing their damnedest to stamp out the pernicious term 'Intellectual Property'. It has no legal definition, and dangerously tries to lump copyright, trademark, and patent law together as the 'same thing'.

*Hypocritical in the sense that practically everything Disney produces is just a re-hash of material that they've simply scooped up from the public domain. So, they can profit from the public domain, but heaven forbid they have to ever contribute to it...

Funny thing. I bought an ex-rental Star Wars - The Phantom Menace DVD from my local video store in Australia. It's supposed to be Region 4 - it was Region 2 (US).

I think that music and others arts especially should be protected from copyrights. It would not harm the artform as all truly talented people do it for the love of the art more than the money they make from selling it. Also with software it can be vastly improved if left open source. This is refelcted in most if not all open source software being superior to copyrighted software (i.e. linux and unix > windows)
You sir are not a true computer geek are you

Cause if you were blind dubing of superiority like that is hardly as easy as you make it sound

The two operating systems have different philosophies , methods , target audiences

Sure I can build my kernal to my liking on FreeBSD and run one of the safest most secure machines

BUT I am spending tens if not hundreds of hours geting things configured right on initial setup and keeping it up to date is a challange even with cvsup, dependancies change and such.

I love my *nix but I wont blindly dub it superior to OSX or Winodws xp

I've been involved in a fight for a while with a friend who seems to vehemently support the idea of copyright to the extreme. I, on the other hand, am against copyright, even to the point of releasing all of my music into the public domain. (I'm an amature musician/composer).

I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks of the issue? Are you for free media? Or are you a stern supporter of the DMCPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)? Or are you somewhere inbetween? (I think most everyone is ^.^).

Your intellectual creation, and the products which it produces is your own property to do with as you wish.... If you so choose to release such to the general public; without requiring any compensation; you are free to do so, as to it being the choice persuant to your own work and labor.

That being said, however; I support the rights of each to do as they will with their own intellectual creation, and it's resultant product as they deem fit; either in release freely to the public at large; or requiring just compensation in exchange for that product of their creation.

In this, I support the principle of Copywrite, as a protection upon the intellectual creation of a person, and the "property" which results from that creative work. Should one choose to release under a "free" license to the public; or restricted privately by contract/copywrite.

If you create something, even if it not tangible, you should be entitled to reap the monetary rewards of your creation and to maintain full control over it.

so in other words, you completely oppose the copyright system as it makes sure that this doesn't happen. copyright allows the rich and powerful to own an even greater percentage of everything. due to their near monopoly on production and distribution, they are the ones that wind up dictating the terms to artists and authors, and those terms invariable involve transferring control over your creation to them.

I think it’s safe to assume something accepted by the vast majority of people on Earth.

nah, that's fallacious

so in other words, you completely oppose the copyright system as it makes sure that this doesn't happen. copyright allows the rich and powerful to own an even greater percentage of everything. due to their near monopoly on production and distribution, they are the ones that wind up dictating the terms to artists and authors, and those terms invariable involve transferring control over your creation to them.

Which is why people like Prince, and other artists, who combat the same companies, using the same copywrite laws; have never suceeded in initiating more ballance tothe system while maintaining their ownership...

Oh wait... they did....

Your argument is moot, because you propose to STEAL the same people's work for "community" benefit... That being said, those opposed to copywrite are just as guilty as those coporation who have abused it.

so in other words, you completely oppose the copyright system as it makes sure that this doesn't happen. copyright allows the rich and powerful to own an even greater percentage of everything. due to their near monopoly on production and distribution, they are the ones that wind up dictating the terms to artists and authors, and those terms invariable involve transferring control over your creation to them.
No one forces you to sell your copyrights to them.

Copyrights are necessary as a general matter. However, I do think they should die with the individual who created the work and not live forever in the hands of a corporation, as they are constantly threatening to do.

Copyrights apply to things like software too. Why would a company that produces software (or anything) spend the research and development money to come up with something that others can freely duplicate, cut the price on, and put them out of business?

What you're really saying is that you don't like paying for other people's work. News flash: nobody does. That's why we need copyright protection.

If you want to give your crappy music away for free, be my guest :) ;) That's your business.

If you don't like paying someone a profit for their creation, then don't buy their stuff. That's also your business.

Copyrights apply to things like software too...
Thank god (krhm, some of the members of European Parliament) that the legalization of software patents was defeated.

Without copyright, those same "evil corporations" that people complain about, ones that abuse the concept of copyright for purely monetary gain, would be able to do even more unethical things with people's creative putput. Because they have so much more money than your average unpublished musician, they would be able to take a musicians songs, put them on CD and sell it, using their distribution and marketing assets to make a killing off of those songs. Meanwhile, the musician who originally made it wouldn't see a single red cent, while the corporation would make huge amounts of money.

Some form of copyright is neccessary to protect the creative output of individuals. But to the extent we have it now, copyright laws are more about protecting business interests, rather than an individuals ownership of their own creations.

so in other words, you completely oppose the copyright system as it makes sure that this doesn't happen. copyright allows the rich and powerful to own an even greater percentage of everything. due to their near monopoly on production and distribution, they are the ones that wind up dictating the terms to artists and authors, and those terms invariable involve transferring control over your creation to them.


Production companies and distributors make money???? Those pigs! How dare they!?! We all know that there's no risk or expenses involved in signing on an artist! And we all know that artists have guns held to their heads to sign on with them!

What would clearly be best is if government was abolished, everyone worked when they wanted to and shared everything, and the world held hands and sang in perfect harmony. :D

Thank god (krhm, some of the members of European Parliament) that the legalization of software patents was defeated.

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. I think that you're on crack :D

I think it’s safe to assume something accepted by the vast majority of people on Earth.How-Would-You-Know? ©OD

I use that reply so often that I decided to Trade-mark it :D

I also trade-marked

Sue-me!©
Dont-Cry-For-Me-Arrgentina©
How-Would-You-Know?©
All-Your-ass-are-belongs-to-me©

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. I think that you're on crack :D
Just Codein... :)
Oh nothing. It just came to my mind. The next step (too far) after copyrights.

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. I think that you're on crack :D

the eu doesn't allow patents on software and voted against implementing them fairly recently

How-Would-You-Know? ©OD

I use that reply so often that I decided to Trade-mark it :D

I also trade-marked

Sue-me!©
Dont-Cry-For-Me-Arrgentina©
How-Would-You-Know?©
All-Your-ass-are-belongs-to-me©
Phrases can only be copyrighted if you provide evidence that you invented said phrase. Trademarks are different than copyrights.

I am adamant about supporting copyrights. As a writer, I absolutely detest copyright infringement and those who perpetrate the infringement.

Phrases can only be copyrighted if you provide evidence that you invented said phrase. Trademarks are different than copyrights.Sue me! :D

...and the world held hands and sang in perfect harmony. :D

Communists can't do that... It requires buying the world a Coke...

Right, the point of Intellectual Property is pretty much to encourage innovation, the point being that if you get a monopoly to exploit your idea then you have more of an incentive to develop it in the first place. So, depending on the field, you need stronger or weaker property rights. Pharmaceuticals, for example, need to be developed with lots of researchers and it costs a lot of money, so you could make a case for having strong patents attached to drugs. You'd be ignoring the massive amount of public money that went into developing a lot of the more useful drugs (anti-retrovirals, malaria treatments etc.), but you could do it.

I've got to say that with music I just don't see the point of strong copyrights. No-one is going to tell me that the advent of strong musical copyrights has improved the music scene, or that if you made it so that you couldn't copyright music tomorrow there'd be a general collpase of musical creativity and Britney would turn round and say: "Sod it, I'm going to be a waitress."

In fact, scale back copyright and quite the reverse would probably be true. Strong copyrights (and branding) means the music industry can build up big single acts and make the money off CD sales, to the point where I've heard of labels signing bands that sound a bit like whatever their latest hot offering is on a retainer for a three album deal so that they can stop them releasing at the same time and eliminate some competition. The weaker copyright is, the more money is likely to be made off live performance relative to CD sales and, since even Britney can only play in front of so many people at a time, that means labels have an incentive to diversify their portfolios a little. If, like me, you find a prolonged spell in front of MTV has you running down to the doctors the next day for a Prozac prescription, that sort of change could only be a good thing.

From the writing point of view, I do see the point of copyrights for novels for similar reasons to my dislike of music copyrights: I think novels (when not published in flourescent colours with titles like "Girls on the Town" or other "Sex and the City" derivatives) are basically good things, and I'd like to see more of them about.

Before you say that's having may cake and eating it, I'd like to point out that the devil of intellectual property law is in the detail. For example, if you legislate that file sharing and downloading for non-commercial use isn't copyright infringement, you solving that particular problem. Lots of people share files, but it's less liely to hurt novelists because no-one likes reading on computers and it's a little cumbersome carrying Anna Karenina round on printer paper.

Copyrights apply to things like software too. Why would a company that produces software (or anything) spend the research and development money to come up with something that others can freely duplicate, cut the price on, and put them out of business?
While I agree that some form of copyright may be beneficial, the idea that nothing new would be created if copyright did not exist is bull.

Music, art and litterature and stories has existed for as long as the modern human race, probably millions of years before copyright was even thought of. And when there's a need for a product there will be money there to ensure that it's created, whether it's corporations that need an application and pays for its creation or donations from regular people. Now, I'm not saying that the amount of money you can earn in alternative ways are as great as if you can have a monopoly on your product and sell it at whatever price you want. But saying that there would be no chance to make money without copyright is wrong.

About computer software, Linux is a multi billion dollar industry without copyright being used to earn money. Despite having a very small market share it's easily on par or better than anything Microsoft has to offer. To the one that complained about BSD earlier in the thread, you just need to find the right distro for your desktop. BSD simply isn't made for the desktop. Perhaps Ubuntu or Mepis would be a better fit?

Rubber Piggy, you sound very sensible.

As the Linux crowd never tires of telling people, most software costs are based around services, keeping the stuff updated, debugging, customising to a system etc. It's perfectly possible to make money off software code without owning it, in the same way that it's perfectly possible for an electrician to make money without having a monopoly on pipe fittings.

Also, if your main competitor is a giant, predatory monopoly it helps if your product spreads around pretty quickly because people have been copying it.

Copywright is essential for humans to innovate. Otherwise, they have no incentive. Why write a novel or make music when there is no chance of rewards of days, months, even years, of work?

Copywright is essential for humans to innovate. Otherwise, they have no incentive. Why write a novel or make music when there is no chance of rewards of days, months, even years, of work?

Oh yeah. Didn't think of that.

Copywright is essential for humans to innovate. Otherwise, they have no incentive. Why write a novel or make music when there is no chance of rewards of days, months, even years, of work?

same reason humans have always created art, told stories, and made music. it's who we are, and it has nothing to do with such modern creations as state-backed monopolies on the use of ideas.

do you really think that nobody wrote or sang anything until after 1710?

No one forces you to sell your copyrights to them.

copyright was invented to serve a purpose, it wasn't handed down by god. therefore we must judge it by its real results in the world. when we look at the real world outcomes of the system of intellectual property rights, we see that the only ones who have benefited to any appreciable extent are the rich elite. since this was not supposed to be the purpose served by them, perhaps its time to try something different.

copyright was invented to serve a purpose, it wasn't handed down by god. therefore we must judge it by its real results in the world. when we look at the real world outcomes of the system of intellectual property rights, we see that the only ones who have benefited to any appreciable extent are the rich elite. since this was not supposed to be the purpose served by them, perhaps its time to try something different.

they're rich because of the copyrights. i suppose it would be better that they be poor and we not have our music or software or whatever, than if they create a good product that we benefit from and everyone reaps the rewards.

same reason humans have always created art, told stories, and made music. it's who we are, and it has nothing to do with such modern creations as state-backed monopolies on the use of ideas.

do you really think that nobody wrote or sang anything until after 1710?

If not for copyrights, the world wouldn't have changed much since 1710 either.

I don't know... maybe you like to "git down" to the sounds of a church organ...

they're rich because of the copyrights.

partially. but, of course, they aren't the ones who were actually doing the creative work.

If not for copyrights, the world wouldn't have changed much since 1710 either.

bullshit

copyright was invented to serve a purpose, it wasn't handed down by god. therefore we must judge it by its real results in the world. when we look at the real world outcomes of the system of intellectual property rights, we see that the only ones who have benefited to any appreciable extent are the rich elite. since this was not supposed to be the purpose served by them, perhaps its time to try something different.
As I already stated, no one forces the artist to sell his copyrights. If he doesn't sell them he will get all the money. I doubt he would sell as many records/books/software without a big company helping him with printing, publishing and advertising but... Do you have any idea how expensive it is to e.g. publish a record? Very few artist can afford to do that without the help of the "rich elite".

I've been involved in a fight for a while with a friend who seems to vehemently support the idea of copyright to the extreme. I, on the other hand, am against copyright, even to the point of releasing all of my music into the public domain. (I'm an amature musician/composer).

I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks of the issue? Are you for free media? Or are you a stern supporter of the DMCPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)? Or are you somewhere inbetween? (I think most everyone is ^.^).
First, have your friend read "Meloncholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson (Short story, in "By any other Name" compilation)? Here's a couple of quotes:"There are eighty-eight notes. One hundred and seventy-six, if your ear is good enough to pick out quarter tones. Add in rests and so forth, different time signatures. Pick a figure for maximum number of notes a melody can contain. I do not know the figure for the maximum possible number of melodies—too many variables—but I am sure it is quite high.
For one thing, a great many of those possible arrays of eighty-eight notes will not be perceived as music, as melody, by the human ear. Perhaps more than half. They will not be hummable, whistleable, listenable—some will be actively unpleasant to hear. Another large fraction will be so similar to each other as to be effectively identical: if you change three notes of the Moonlight Sonata, you have not created something new."...Now go back to the 1970s again. Remember the Roots plagiarism case? And the dozens like it that followed? Around the same time a writer named van Vogt sued the makers of a successful film called Alien, for plagiarism of a story forty years later. Two other writers named Bova and Ellison sued a television studio for stealing a series idea. All three collected.

"That ended the legal principle that one does not copyright ideas but arrangements of words. The number of word-arrangements is finite, but the number of ideas is much smaller. Certainly, they can be retold in endless ways—West Side Story is a brilliant reworking of Romeo and Juliet. But it was only possible because Romeo and Juliet was in the public domain. Remember too that of the finite number of stories that can be told, a certain number will be bad stories."..."Artists have been deluding themselves for centuries with the notion that they create. In fact they do nothing of the sort. They discover. Inherent in the nature of reality are a number of combinations of musical tones that will be perceived as pleasing by a human central nervous system. For millennia we have been discovering them, implicit in the universe—and telling ourselves that we `created' them. To create implies infinite possibility, to discover implies finite possibility. As a species I think we will react poorly to having our noses rubbed in the fact that we are discoverers and not creators."..." `Ars longa, vita brevis est,' " she said at last. "There's been comfort of a kind in that for thousands of years. But art is long, not infinite. `The Magic goes away.' One day we will use it up—unless we can learn to recycle it like any other finite resource." Her voice gained strength. "Senator, that bill has to fail, if I have to take you on to do it. Perhaps I can't win—but I'm going to fight you! A copyright must not be allowed to last more than fifty years—after which it should be flushed from the memory banks of the Copyright Office. We need selective voluntary amnesia if Discoverers of Art are to continue to work without psychic damage. Fact should be remembered—but dreams?" She shivered. ". . . Dreams should be forgotten when we wake. Or one day we will find ourselves unable to sleep. Given eight billion artists with effective working lifetimes in excess of a century, we can no longer allow individuals to own their discoveries in perpetuity. We must do it the way the human race did it for a million years—by forgetting, and rediscovering. Because one day the infinite number of monkeys will have nothing else to write except the complete works of Shakespeare. And they would probably rather not know that when it happens."
Here's what Jim Baen believes about Copyright. (http://www.baen.com/library/) <---- linky... quoty--->
Introducing the Baen Free Library
by Eric Flint
Baen Books is now making available — for free — a number of its titles in electronic format. We're calling it the Baen Free Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online — no conditions, no strings attached. (Later we may ask for an extremely simple, name & email only, registration. ) Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one of several formats. Again, with no conditions or strings attached. (URLs to sites which offer the readers for these format are also listed. )

Why are we doing this? Well, for two reasons.

The first is what you might call a "matter of principle." This all started as a byproduct of an online "virtual brawl" I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.

There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!

Alles in ordnung!


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

I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:

1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.

2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.

3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.

In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors — how about you, Eric? — were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.

The minute he made the proposal, I realized he was right. After all, Dave Weber's On Basilisk Station has been available for free as a "loss leader" for Baen's for-pay experiment "Webscriptions" for months now. And — hey, whaddaya know? — over that time it's become Baen's most popular backlist title in paper!

And so I volunteered my first novel, Mother of Demons, to prove the case. And the next day Mother of Demons went up online, offered to the public for free.

Sure enough, within a day, I received at least half a dozen messages (some posted in public forums, others by private email) from people who told me that, based on hearing about the episode and checking out Mother of Demons, they either had or intended to buy the book. In one or two cases, this was a "gesture of solidarity. "But in most instances, it was because people preferred to read something they liked in a print version and weren't worried about the small cost — once they saw, through sampling it online, that it was a novel they enjoyed. (Mother of Demons is a $5.99 paperback, available in most bookstores. Yes, that a plug. )


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

Then, after thinking the whole issue through a bit more, I realized that by posting Mother of Demons I was just making a gesture. Gestures are fine, but policies are better.

So, the next day, I discussed the matter with Jim again and it turned out he felt exactly the same way. So I proposed turning the Mother of Demons tour-de-force into an ongoing project. Immediately, David Drake was brought into the discussion and the three of us refined the idea and modified it here and there. And then Dave Weber heard about it, and Dave Freer, and. . . voila.

The Baen Free Library was born.

This will be a place where any author can, at their own personal discretion, put up online for free any book published by Baen that they so desire. There is absolutely no "pressure" involved. The choice is entirely up to the authors, and that is true on all levels:

— participate, or not, as they choose;

— put up whatever book they choose;

— for as long as they choose.


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

The only "restrictions" we'll be placing is simply that we will encourage authors to put up the first novel or novels in an ongoing popular series, where possible. And we will ask authors who are interested not to volunteer more than, at most, five or six novels or collections at any one time.

The reason for the first provision is obvious — to generate more public interest in an ongoing series. I'll have more to say about that in a moment. The reason for the second provision is that one of the things we hope the Baen Free Library will do is make it easier for a broader audience to become familiar with less well known authors. Burying the one or two novels which a new or midlist author might have under a mountain of Big Name backlist titles would work against that. And there's no reason to do so, anyway, because anyone can get a pretty good idea of whether they like a given author after reading a few of his or her books.

Jim has asked me to co-ordinate the project and I have agreed. After a humorous exchange on my appropriate title — I tried to hold out for. . . never mind — we settled on "Eric Flint, First Librarian. "That will allow me to give the periodic "newsletter and remarks" which I will toss into the hopper the splendid title of "Prime Palaver," a pun which is just too good to pass up. (I'd apologize to the ghost of Isaac Asimov, except I think he'd get a chuckle out of it. )

Earlier, I mentioned "two reasons" we were doing this, and stated that the first was what you might call a demonstration of principle. What's the second?

Common sense, applied to the practical reality of commercial publishing. Or, if you prefer, the care and feeding of authors and publishers. Or, if you insist on a single word, profit.

I will make no bones about it (and Jim, were he writing this, would be gleefully sucking out the marrow). We expect this Baen Free Library to make us money by selling books.

How? As I said above, for the same reason that any kind of book distribution which provides free copies to people has always, throughout the history of publishing, eventually rebounded to the benefit of the author.

Take, for instance, the phenomenon of people lending books to their friends — a phenomenon which absolutely dwarfs, by several orders of magnitude, online piracy of copyrighted books.

What's happened here? Has the author "lost a sale?"

Well. . . yeah, in the short run — assuming, of course, that said person would have bought the book if he couldn't borrow it. Sure. Instead of buying a copy of the author's book, the Wretched Scoundrel Borrower (with the Lender as his Accomplice) has "cheated" the author. Read his work for free! Without paying for it!

The same thing happens when someone checks a book out of a public library — a "transaction" which, again, dwarfs by several orders of magnitude all forms of online piracy. The author only collects royalties once, when the library purchases a copy. Thereafter. . .

Robbed again! And again, and again!

Yet. . . yet. . .

I don't know any author, other than a few who are — to speak bluntly — cretins, who hears about people lending his or her books to their friends, or checking them out of a library, with anything other than pleasure. Because they understand full well that, in the long run, what maintains and (especially) expands a writer's audience base is that mysterious magic we call: word of mouth.

Word of mouth, unlike paid advertising, comes free to the author — and it's ten times more effective than any kind of paid advertising, because it's the one form of promotion which people usually trust.

That being so, an author can hardly complain — since the author paid nothing for it either. And it is that word of mouth, percolating through the reading public down a million little channels, which is what really puts the food on an author's table. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

Think about it. How many people lend a book to a friend with the words: "You ought a read this! It's really terrible!"

How many people who read a book they like which they obtained from a public library never mention it to anyone? As a rule, in my experience, people who frequently borrow books from libraries are bibliophiles. And bibliophiles, in my experience, usually can't refrain from talking about books they like.

And, just as important — perhaps most important of all — free books are the way an audience is built in the first place. How many people who are low on cash and for that reason depend on libraries or personal loans later rise on the economic ladder and then buy books by the very authors they came to love when they were borrowing books?

Practically every reader, that's who. Most readers of science fiction and fantasy develop that interest as teenagers, mainly from libraries. That was certainly true of me. As a teenager, I couldn't afford to buy the dozen or so Robert Heinlein novels I read in libraries. Nor could I afford the six-volume Lensmen series by "Doc" Smith. Nor could I afford any of the authors I became familiar with in those days: Arthur Clarke, James H. Schmitz, you name it.

Did they "lose sales?" In the long run, not hardly. Because in the decades which followed, I bought all of their books — and usually, in fact, bought them over and over again to replace old copies which had gotten too worn and frayed. I just bought another copy of Robert Heinlein's The Puppet Masters, in fact, because the one I had was getting too long in the tooth. I think that's the third copy of that novel I've purchased, over the course of my life. I'm not sure. Might be the fourth. I first read that book when I was fourteen years old — forty years ago, now — checked out from my high school library.


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

In short, rather than worrying about online piracy — much less tying ourselves and society into knots trying to shackle everything — it just makes more sense, from a commercial as well as principled point of view — to "steal from the stealers. "

Don't bother robbing me, twit. I will cheerfully put up the stuff for free myself. Because I am quite confident that any "losses" I sustain will be more than made up for by the expansion in the size of my audience.

For me to worry about piracy would be like a singer in a piano bar worrying that someone might be taping the performance in order to produce a pirate recording. Just like they did to Maria Callas!

Sheesh. Best thing that could happen to me. . .

That assumes, of course, that the writer in question is producing good books. "Good," at least, in the opinion of enough readers. That is not always true, of course. But, frankly, a mediocre writer really doesn't have to worry about piracy anyway.


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

What about the future? people ask. Even if reading off a screen is not today as competitive as reading paper, what about the future when it will be? By which time advances in technology might make piracy so easy and ubiquitous that the income of authors really gets jeopardized?

My answer is:

Who knows?

I'm not worried about it, however, basically for two reasons.

The first is a simple truth which Jim Baen is fond of pointing out: most people would rather be honest than dishonest.

He's absolutely right about that. One of the things about the online debate over e-piracy that particularly galled me was the blithe assumption by some of my opponents that the human race is a pack of slavering would-be thieves held (barely) in check by the fear of prison sentences.

Oh, hogwash.

Sure, sure — if presented with a real "Devil's bargain," most people will at least be tempted. Eternal life. . . a million dollars found lying in the woods. . .

Heh. Many fine stories have been written on the subject!But how many people, in the real world, are going to be tempted to steal a few bucks?

Some, yes — precious few of whom, I suspect, read much of anything. But the truth is that most people are no more tempted to steal a few dollars than they are to spend their lunch hour panhandling for money on the streets. Partly because they don't need to, but mostly because it's beneath their dignity and self-respect.

The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the "gap" between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product.

Jim Baen is quite confident that, as technology changes the way books are produced and sold, he can figure out ways to keep that "gap" reasonable — and thus make money for himself and his authors in the process, by using the new technology rather than screaming about it. Certainly Baen's Webscriptions, where you can buy a month's offerings "bundled" at a price per title of around two bucks has demonstrated his sincerity in this.

(But he's just a publisher, of course, so what does he know?On the other hand. . . I'm generally inclined to have confidence in someone who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. Instead of demanding that the taxpayers' money be put into building more prisons. )


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

The reason I'm not worried about the future is because of another simple truth. One which is even simpler, in fact — and yet seems to get constantly overlooked in the ruckus over online piracy and what (if anything) to do about it. To wit:

Nobody has yet come up with any technology — nor is it on the horizon — which could possibly replace authors as the producers of fiction. Nor has anyone suggested that there is any likelihood of the market for that product drying up.

The only issue, therefore, is simply the means by which authors get paid for their work.

That's a different kettle of fish entirely from a "threat" to the livelihood of authors. Some writers out there, imitating Chicken Little, seem to think they are on the verge of suffering the fate of buggy whip makers. But that analogy is ridiculous. Buggy whip makers went out of business because someone else invented something which eliminated the demand for buggy whips — not because Henry Ford figured out a way to steal the payroll of the buggy whip factory.

Is anyone eliminating the demand for fiction?Nope.

Has anyone invented a gadget which can write fiction?Nope.

All that is happening, as the technological conditions under which commercial fiction writing takes place continue to change, is that everyone is wrestling with the impact that might have on the way in which writers get paid. That's it. So why all the panic? Especially, why the hysterical calls for draconian regulation of new technology — which, leaving aside the damage to society itself, is far more likely to hurt writers than to help them?

The future can't be foretold. But, whatever happens, so long as writers are essential to the process of producing fiction — along with editors, publishers, proofreaders (if you think a computer can proofread, you're nuts) and all the other people whose work is needed for it — they will get paid. Because they have, as a class if not as individuals, a monopoly on the product. Far easier to figure out new ways of generating income — as we hope to do with the Baen Free Library — than to tie ourselves and society as a whole into knots. Which are likely to be Gordian Knots, to boot.


Okay. I will climb down from the soapbox. Herewith, the Baen Free Library. Enjoy yourselves!


Eric Flint
First Librarian
October 11, 2000

PS. One final note. Users of the Library are welcome — encouraged, in fact — to send in their comments and questions, on any subject which is relevant to the Library and its contents. Write to me at: Librarian@baen. com

At periodic intervals (don't ask me how often, 'cause I don't know yet) these will be e-published in the Library under "Prime Palaver. "Along with my answers and my own remarks. Um. Also, probably, along with my own shameless promotional pitches. . .

(Oh, stop grousing. You know how to fast forward through commercials, don't you? If you don't, it's past time you learned. )

Nice guys there, with good opinions. Would that more people understood the premise that sharing=short-term loss, long term profits.

copyright was invented to serve a purpose, it wasn't handed down by god. therefore we must judge it by its real results in the world. when we look at the real world outcomes of the system of intellectual property rights, we see that the only ones who have benefited to any appreciable extent are the rich elite. since this was not supposed to be the purpose served by them, perhaps its time to try something different.
Yup, let's take away all copyrights. Let's screw the innovator.

Say I compose a symphony and there're no copyright laws, everyone opens his or her Napster and downloads it for free, orchestras put the symphony in concerts unauthorized by me (ie. not paying me), and people steal the sheet music for as much as it takes to buy printer paper, other composers steal parts or all of the symphony and claim it as their own--Where does this leave me? I've put six months or more of work into the symphony and in return I get pennies from the few souls who feel it a duty to their conscience to pay me--that is those guilty-feeling few among the few even know I was the original composer.

Compare that to a world with copyright laws: I get protected from theft of my creation, receiving monetary compensations from those who steal the work, getting all the credit for my work, otherwise. I might actually be able to scrape together a living from my work, pay the bills and provide food for my family.

Consider the incentives. If there is no copyright, and therefore little to no ability to make money off of an idea, is there really a driving force to think of such an idea? Not nearly as much as otherwise. If theft of ideas is protected against, then there's a possibility for achievement. The possibility for achievement means the investment of resources. Brians Test isn't too far off by saying that not much would have changed from 1710 if there weren't copyrights. I mean, some things would have, but if the most intelligent and genius creators of ideas were just giving away their ideas for free, how would they survive? Why would anyone innovate? Without reward there is no action.

Need I rehearse Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin? He was a sparkling mind, who came up with a revolutionary method of harvesting cotton (or, at least, getting the seeds out of cotton plants). However, he did not get any intellectual protection for his creation. Competitors came by, took his ideas, built their own machines, got copyright protection for those machines, and gave Eli the screw. Eli was neither recognized nor given patronage for his innovation. He later died, I believe, about as poor as you can get.

Why screw the innovator?

Nice guys there, with good opinions. Would that more people understood the premise that sharing=short-term loss, long term profits.
Now, see, this is much more the sort of argument/solution pair I feel I could understand (rather then other posters' "kill the capitalist pigs who are taking our money for a product!" mantra). Mainly because it explains how a system without copyrights could protect artists. Even though it leaves some things unanswered.

Now, see, this is much more the sort of argument/solution pair I feel I could understand (rather then other posters' "kill the capitalist pigs who are taking our money for a product!" mantra). Mainly because it explains how a system without copyrights could protect artists. Even though it leaves some things unanswered.
There should certainly be copyrights to protect the work/labor of the Living, but there is this unfortunate tendancy for people to want copyrights to last indefinately... and that is a very bad thing.

Copyright is a useful tool to punish abuse, but when these whiners refuse to recognize any legitimate forms of "uncompensated" duplication they are really hurting themselves - and thier industry.

If not for copyrights, the world wouldn't have changed much since 1710 either.

I don't know... maybe you like to "git down" to the sounds of a church organ...

Actually Switzerland and Holland abolished their entire Intellectual property systems in the second half of the nineteenth century because they thought they were anti-free-trade. Most of Europe scaled theirs back as well. America developed a lot of its technology because it didn't recognise the intellectual property rights of other countries, and so could import them without having to pay heavy dues. Charles Dickens was particularly upset, but recouped a lot of the money from the pirated books by getting paid to do public appearances in the USA.

See also Thomas Jefferson, who worked at the patent office and really should have known what he was talking about:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813

same reason humans have always created art, told stories, and made music. it's who we are, and it has nothing to do with such modern creations as state-backed monopolies on the use of ideas.

do you really think that nobody wrote or sang anything until after 1710?
Of course not. But while some humans could care less, and fewer humans are that self-sacrificing, some (actually, many) humans do. Of course, 1710 is an arbitrary date. No one followed copywrights until long after, and nobody does to this day. Same goes with patents. There's an underground industry in China right now where they scan patented products and resell them before the patents expire. Is there any wonder why China isn't that big of a consumer market yet?

Yup, let's take away all copyrights. Let's screw the innovator.

Say I compose a symphony and there're no copyright laws, everyone opens his or her Napster and downloads it for free, orchestras put the symphony in concerts unauthorized by me (ie. not paying me), and people steal the sheet music for as much as it takes to buy printer paper, other composers steal parts or all of the symphony and claim it as their own--Where does this leave me? I've put six months or more of work into the symphony and in return I get pennies from the few souls who feel it a duty to their conscience to pay me--that is those guilty-feeling few among the few even know I was the original composer.

funny that you should mention symphonies and composers. considering that there weren't any copyright laws for music at all when most of the famous classical composers did their stuff. clearly they lacked incentives enough to refuse to produce anything at all and music was essentially dead.


Consider the incentives. If there is no copyright, and therefore little to no ability to make money off of an idea, is there really a driving force to think of such an idea? Not nearly as much as otherwise. If theft of ideas is protected against, then there's a possibility for achievement. The possibility for achievement means the investment of resources. Brians Test isn't too far off by saying that not much would have changed from 1710 if there weren't copyrights. I mean, some things would have, but if the most intelligent and genius creators of ideas were just giving away their ideas for free, how would they survive? Why would anyone innovate? Without reward there is no action.

firstly, creative people create because they are driven to do so, not because of money. you can throw all the money in the world at somebody, but if they don't have the creative drive already you aren't going to get much out of them. but a creative person will fill notebooks with stories and poems and song lyrics and musical scores and drawings without making a dime.

secondly, i completely fail to see how a lack of a government granted monopoly rules out making a living off of your ideas. as long as there is some physical thing to be sold, some one is going to make money doing it. since multiple people are able to make their livings off of bits of intellectual property whose monopoly rights have run out already, i don't think that will be coming to a crashing halt. and you will get a head start on everybody anyways, as you will have time to develop and perfect the marketable aspect of your idea before anybody else even knows of its existence. after the idea is out in the world, you'll have to play the game the same as everybody else - making it better and cheaper and cooler, etc. - but that's just the breaks of a market economy.

Need I rehearse Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin? He was a sparkling mind, who came up with a revolutionary method of harvesting cotton (or, at least, getting the seeds out of cotton plants). However, he did not get any intellectual protection for his creation. Competitors came by, took his ideas, built their own machines, got copyright protection for those machines, and gave Eli the screw. Eli was neither recognized nor given patronage for his innovation. He later died, I believe, about as poor as you can get.

one problem. whitney did have a patent. he lost money on the cotton gin due to some bad business practices. though he did make quite a bit of money by coming up with a way to manufacture interchangeable rifle parts and then founding a company to make them. and he did that even after the patent system had failed to really grant him a monoploy on making money off the cotton gin. i guess his innovative drive wasn't hampered by that too badly.

Copyright is a useful tool to punish abuse, but when these whiners refuse to recognize any legitimate forms of "uncompensated" duplication they are really hurting themselves - and thier industry.
I agree. I'm reminded of early VCR debates. A lot of the US networks were concerned that the taping of television shows would put them out of business, infringe on their copyrights. Of course, the opposite occured (at least, I think that's what happened) and more and more peole became interested in an increasingly option-filled/customizable medium.

I mean, I like open source browsers and OS and I really liked Naxos when it allowed free streaming of their music online (which, I should note, increased my interest in the music they sold). But, as you mentioned, someone needs to protect the artist, somehow--at least for a period of time long enough, and with enforcement extensive enough for the artist to make a living wage from his or her work.

I have no particularly strong feelings on copyright, because I know that for all practical purposes, it is a joke.

But, as you mentioned, someone needs to protect the artist, somehow--at least for a period of time long enough, and with enforcement extensive enough for the artist to make a living wage from his or her work.

perhaps. but copyright doesn't do this very well at all, and is often at odds with them doing so.

I have no particularly strong feelings on copyright, because I know that for all practical purposes, it is a joke.
It's best to make the effort. Many are afraid to create something unless they know it to be protected.

funny that you should mention symphonies and composers. considering that there weren't any copyright laws for music at all when most of the famous classical composers did their stuff. clearly they lacked incentives enough to refuse to produce anything at all and music was essentially dead.

For one, the situation was a lot different. Haydn's and Mozart's music weren't circulated much beyond Vienna until late into their life (and after any travels abroad). Enlightenment audiences (even Romantic era audiences) couldn't just pick up their iPods and listen to the greatest hits.

Second, and I'm grieved that you're misrepresenting history so wholly, 99.9% of composers before Beethoven relied entirely on patronage from the aristocracy (i.e. semi-slavery to rich people who wanted the status of having a composer on their side) to support themselves. Again, Haydn served, almost his whole career, the Esterhauzy family because they were his benefactors. Other composers were employed by the church. I'm sorry, but just hoping a rich person will pays your bills and puts food on your table doesn't work for artists nowadays. And churches don't employ that many composers anymore. Something similar occurs today, grants. But those are based on the idea that the composer has a unique ability which the orchestra or publishing company or such can get if they support the composer's living while he or she is developing the work. If the orchestra or company could just pluck the idea away from the artist without any legal recourse, there'd be no grants.

Beethoven really, was the first composer anything comparable to the composers of today. He subsisted entirely on the salaries from his public performances, performances of his works, publications, music students, etc. But he did not have the difficulty of mass media and electronic communication. Vienna, where he lived, was really one of the few places in which his works were performed while he was alive, and all concerts in the town were initiated by him. He didn't need protection from copyright because potential thieves did not have the opportunities to shrift him that they would today. Also, Beethoven had to rely on the charity of the aristocracy in the end anyway, and much of his free-lance money came from comissioned works and personal piano performances rather than freely thought up compositions.


firstly, creative people create because they are driven to do so, not because of money. you can throw all the money in the world at somebody, but if they don't have the creative drive already you aren't going to get much out of them. but a creative person will fill notebooks with stories and poems and song lyrics and musical scores and drawings without making a dime.
Yeah, but one cannot eat or drink musical scores, poems, stories, or song lyrics. Somehow an artist must support his or herself. The fact is that I'll starve if I don't somehow sell my work, were I the artist. If I can't sell my work, and thus am doomed to death, I'm dissuaded from working.


and you will get a head start on everybody anyways, as you will have time to develop and perfect the marketable aspect of your idea before anybody else even knows of its existence. after the idea is out in the world, you'll have to play the game the same as everybody else - making it better and cheaper and cooler, etc. - but that's just the breaks of a market economy.
I'm sorry, but if I'm creating a work from my own sweat, blood, and tears I don't want my livelihood to be dependant on me competing in a free market against a giant recording company. No way. It's my work. It's my right. If I hadn't created it, it wouldn't exist. If others want to sell a work and make money off of it, they should come up with their own ideas rather than stealing mine.

You want to talk about corporate monopolies? Do you really think I can make a "better and cheaper and cooler, etc." product than Sony, which can allocate tens of millions of dollars to the project? Of course not. If I don't have rights to my work, I lose almost all profit from it beyond the premiere. I'm sorry, but I don’t think artists shouldn't have to be a whole industry unto themselves.

I would want the widest possible exposure to my music, were I to finally release anything. I'd prefer to have many people listen to it, like it, and come to concerts than lock it all up and make it obscure. Most artists don't make a living off their recorded music anyway...they make the money from live gigs. (to be very clear, I'm talking about the majority of musicians who are not world-famous) And people STILL tend to buy CDs at live gigs, even if they KNOW they can download it for free...because the sound is generally better, and the levels are even. And why do you make music? To make money? Come on...there are better ways of making money. You make music (or write books, or whatever) to share your gift with others. You do it because you absolutely frickin' love it.

Yes, you should be entitled to own that which you create, but only for a limited time. (And not your whole life).
Copyright should last for a period of time that will guarantee a return on the investment for the original creator (assuming it wasn't rubbish that nobody wanted.) Ten years would do that.
However, I don't think it should be possible to transfer copyright (except to the public domain.) You can't behave as the creator just because you gave them some money once. They own their copyrights and if you want to do business with them you have to meet their terms.
Even if you did not shorten copyright durations, making it illegal for an effectively immortal entity to own a copyright or for a copyright to be passed to descendants would be very helpful.

As regards patents, long patents on products prevent innovation and progress. Why invent anything new when you can just sue anyone who tries to compete with an existing product? Short patents and (for things like pharmaceuticals) only allowing the patenting of a process, not the product will drive innovation.
And they have no business in software (must...not...rant...)