Why do people buy 2nd hand Sky boxes?

On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:

If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

The trouble with that comparison is that a book has to be typeset,
printed on paper and then bound and shipped to the retail point so that
you can buy it.

That will make a substantial amount of manpower, materials, maintenance
provision on the printing and binding machinery, and transport
overheads, additional to the effort the writer put into creating the
text that you read.

Jim

On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:
Robin wrote:
On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:

How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
compromising "negatives" of people in power?


I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
about your views on copyright.

Yes, but.... How much do those authors, musicians, actors and film
makers get when I buy a book, recording, go to a play etc.

In general, more than they get when someone acquires a book etc from
someone who doesn't have the copyright holder's permission to produce it.

The
problem is that the 'intermediate' organisations tend to take most of
the money I pay. If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

Do you make a point of buying your clothes direct from the manufacturers
rather than from retailers? Your food from a farm shop/ farmers' market?

The internet has changed publishing somewhat. Witness eg Andy Weir's
success self-publishing "The Martian". But he only made serious money
from it because copyright laws meant he was paid when it was picked up
by Random House and then paid again when the film rights were sold.

Note there that copyright is not just about payment-per-copy to authors
etc, it's also about the upfront payment an author etc may get - often
when a book is commissioned. Without copyright that business model
doesn't work. So it'd be nice to know what would replace it if
copyright laws were abolished.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article , Chris Green
wrote:
Yes, but.... How much do those authors, musicians, actors and film
makers get when I buy a book, recording, go to a play etc. The problem
is that the 'intermediate' organisations tend to take most of the money
I pay. If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of the money I
pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

You can do this with author-published books.

I have no objection to the idea that an author or performer should get paid
via some suitable copyright arrangement. Nor with the principle that a
publisher/faciltator/retailer may take a cut for making a contribution to
the process of the dissemination of work, aiding the income of the author.

What I do object to is the way copyrights/IPR have been extended to suit
large corporations *not* authors or performers - and often works *against*
the advantage of the author or performer.

For example, works that are 'out of print' and the publisher refuses to
republish. Hence no-one can buy a fresh copy and the author gets no income
from such fresh sales. Made worse when, over the years, publishers vanish
and we end up with no-one knowing *who* owns the rights. So a work can't be
republished even if there are people eager to buy and even an author (or
family) who would then get income and reputation from such republication.

Similarly, musicians who see their recordings left 'in the vault', and come
to be forgotten. Or were got to sell all rights for a flat fee which turned
out not to reflect the sales because that was all the recording company
would offer and the musician was mislead.

So for me the questions are wrt scope and detail. Not the basic principle
of IPR.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:
On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:

How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
compromising "negatives" of people in power?


I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
about your views on copyright.

In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)

Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
beyond reasonable limits.

In the meantime, I know of some people who believe that all property is
theft who I am confident would be happy to know the address of someone
with property who shares their views and wouldn't dream of running to
the capitalist lackey police

False dichotomy assumption detected. :-) To argue against the
over-applications or extensions of copyrights isn't the same as saying no
form of copyrights or IPR or ownership should exist. The questions are wrt
the scope and details of what copyrights/ownerships society finds sensible
and proportionate.


I do apologise if I went over the top. It may have been a reaction to
your again holding out Private Eye as an impeccable source

And if you argue mine was a false dichotomy it would be nice to have
something rather more concrete by way of proposals for a different
regime than the one you accuse of being in the sway of "vampires" and
imposing "unreasonable limits". Different that is from the one devised
over many years not just nationally but internationally. (Copyright in
the EU is governed by a number of Directives, so I assume your views on
politicians being in the pockets of commercial interests applies to the
Commission and MEPs too. And then there's the Berne Convention...)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:
On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:

How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
compromising "negatives" of people in power?

I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
about your views on copyright.

In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)

Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
beyond reasonable limits.

Most of the copyright dosh goes to people who are already doing nicely,
thank you. Already successful musicians and authors who get (public)
money every time a book is borrowed from a library (7.82p currently).

Also, I'm not clear why copyright should extend after the death of a
book author. (I think it's 70 years in the UK). If you are employed,
your salary stops when you die unless your employer provides a widow's
pension &c. It's up to authors to arrange pensions an/or life insurance
to provide for their dependents after the die (or lose their marbles).

--
Max Demian

Martin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:23:41 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

Robin wrote:
On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:

How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
compromising "negatives" of people in power?


I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
about your views on copyright.

Yes, but.... How much do those authors, musicians, actors and film
makers get when I buy a book, recording, go to a play etc. The
problem is that the 'intermediate' organisations tend to take most of
the money I pay. If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

On that basis you shouldn't have any qualms about robbing a bank :-)

Ay? I really don't follow.

Though I suppose you might just be telling me that banks are quite
good at diddling us out of our money by various close to immoral
means.

--
Chris Green
·

Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:

If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

The trouble with that comparison is that a book has to be typeset,
printed on paper and then bound and shipped to the retail point so that
you can buy it.

Rarely nowadays, for me anyway, most of the books I read are
electronic and I read on a tablet or similar. No printing,
typesetting (though there is some formatting needed I agree), no
paper, no shipping.

.... and they often have the cheek to charge *more* for an electronic
copy of a book.

--
Chris Green
·

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:45:44 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:

If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

The trouble with that comparison is that a book has to be typeset,
printed on paper and then bound and shipped to the retail point so that
you can buy it.

Rarely nowadays, for me anyway, most of the books I read are
electronic and I read on a tablet or similar. No printing,
typesetting (though there is some formatting needed I agree), no
paper, no shipping.

... and they often have the cheek to charge *more* for an electronic
copy of a book.


0% VAT on printed books, 20% VAT on electronic copy. That's one reason
why.

--
brightside S9

On 12/01/2018 14:41, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:
On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:

How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
compromising "negatives" of people in power?

I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
about your views on copyright.

In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)

Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
beyond reasonable limits.

Most of the copyright dosh goes to people who are already doing nicely,
thank you.

That seems to me much like saying that most of the money spent on
footballers goes to the ones who are already "doing nicely". Perfectly
true. And no surprise given they are only in the Premiership etc
because they are already considered to be good at what they do.


Already successful musicians and authors who get (public)
money every time a book is borrowed from a library (7.82p currently).

An interesting example given payments from the Public Lending Right are
capped: the maximum anyone may receive in a year is £6,600. ISTR seeing
an estimate once for the amount Catherine Cookson's estate "lost" as a
result of that cap. It was not a small amount!

Also, I'm not clear why copyright should extend after the death of a
book author. (I think it's 70 years in the UK). If you are employed,
your salary stops when you die unless your employer provides a widow's
pension &c. It's up to authors to arrange pensions an/or life insurance
to provide for their dependents after the die (or lose their marbles).


Both employees and self-employed people are selling services and (unless
their contracts are exceptional) have no expectation of ownership of
what they (help to) produce. They are paid as they go along. Authors
etc are creating new products and (subject of course to contracts etc)
get nothing as they go along. Their reward is the final product which
they expect will be their property. I see little logic in saying that
it ceases to be their property on their death - so eg the length of time
which it would yield a return would be unpredictable: anywhere from a
day to in some cases 80 or more years later.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article , Robin
wrote:
On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:

[snip]

I do apologise if I went over the top. It may have been a reaction to
your again holding out Private Eye as an impeccable source

Well, I'd rate them well above most of the media. But that may tell you
more about the other media than it does PE! :-)

And if you argue mine was a false dichotomy it would be nice to have
something rather more concrete by way of proposals for a different
regime than the one you accuse of being in the sway of "vampires" and
imposing "unreasonable limits".


OK, here is a simple set of ideas as examples.

1) All forms of IPR could be harmonised to the same, short (by current
standards) term - e.g. 20 years for books, music, patents, etc. Note that
this is wrt the 'copy' rights rather than the full range of copyrights.
e.g. The write of the author or performer to be indentified as such (if
known) should remain indefiniately. And there can be no material changes
that alter the meaning without permission of said author/performer.

if you can't make a decent income that way after a few decades, then up to
you to get on with producing something which will make you a return. Ditto
for the publisher, hence...

2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left unpublished
for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the right to terminate
any publication agreement and find another publisher *if* their existing
one is incapable or refuses to reprint on terms equivalent to previously.

This would sweep away crazy differences like written material being
copyright for well over a century in some cases, long after the author and
his initial publisher may have gone, whereas something like a patent lapses
in a shorter time. Or the way an author's work may become unobtainium and
they can't earn any more money. This can be particularly important for
technical info which people can't get. That impedes progress and
development.

3) Actually *enforce* the basic requirement that a patent, to be legal, has
to specify *all* that is needed to replicate the 'invention'. (This
requirement exists in law, but it routinely flouted by keeping key details
as 'trade secrets'. Thus defeating the purpose of patents so far as society
is concerned.)

Patents were meant to offer a *short term* monopoly in exchange for a *full
disclosure* that *everyone could then use after that term. Way to feed
further development, etc rather than having it impeded with 'trade
secrets'. And when an author/performer produces something, it needs to
remain available for them to benefit.

Different that is from the one devised over many years not just
nationally but internationally.

Actually copyrights vary from country to country, sometimes in
contradictory ways. The EU and IPO are trying to 'harmonise' this... but
what they mean by that is 'screw upwards what companies can control'. Not
'make sense of the system for citizens or authors'.

(Copyright in the EU is governed by a number of Directives, so I assume
your views on politicians being in the pockets of commercial interests
applies to the Commission and MEPs too. And then there's the Berne
Convention...)

See also IPO and various other bodies with irons in the fire.

Yes, politicians are like lawers, as defined by Ambrose Bierce. 8-]

One of the uses of PE is to see who is paying who. :-)

I'm quite happy with the idea of copyright and IPR. But I want it to serve
those who create/produce and people in general. Not to become a weapon,
control system, bargaining chip, or capital for big business.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html