Recently I posted about Mother Theresa’s long dark night of the soul, in which she wrestled with spiritual dryness and doubt.
But the same thing happens at the other side of the faith spectrum, too.
HERE’S A STORY ABOUT ITALIAN ATHEIST AND INTELLECTUAL ORIANA FALLACI (WHO MET WITH POPE BENEDICT SHORTLY BEFORE HER DEATH) AND HER PERSISTENT TEMPTATIONS TO BELIEVE.
(WARNING: There is a bad word in the story.)
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Jimmy, thank you for posting this. John Allen captures the genuineness and spunkiness of Fallaci who I (always behind the times) recently learned of.
But…even though she and Mother Teresa both expressed doubts, it is not the same thing. Although they appear the same on the surface, they are different stages of the spiritual journey. The dark night can be lifted (and apparently was for Mother Teresa before her death).
hmmm,, just noticed, from now on, I’ll associate penguins with Mother Teresa and polar bears with Oriana Fallaci :^)
I wonder if Pre-16 may have had Fallaci, among others, in mind when he wrote in the prologue of Introduction to Christianity about the atheist’s “temptation to believe” (“But suppose it is true after all”).
We seem as a species haunted by a sort of looming abyss that is either occupied or empty, and even if we believe we may sometimes struggle with the thought that perhaps it is empty after all, and even if we disbelieve we may sometimes struggle with the thought that perhaps it is not.
The very fact that this abyss looms for us seems to me a be a sort of clue.
Well put, Steven.
See, hetr again, this is one of the beatiful things about our Church. We don’t care who you are or what you’ve believed, we will, like Blessed Mother Teresa, take the time to sit with you and hold your hand when you die because we know that God loves you!! We have respect for all people’s belief’s and while we want all to come to know and serve the Lord, we still know that you deserve the respect and dignity that every person does. HE created us all.
(this is why I ought to preview before posting) the second word in my above post is suppose to be “here” . 😉
I won’t say I have respect for all people’s beliefs… some beliefs are not seriously worthy of respect. But I do highly respect all people’s RIGHT to their beliefs. I respect their free will because it is a gift from God, and is not to be messed with.
I admire that people will sometimes make great sacrifices for their beliefs, even if I think those beliefs are wrong. I respect their sincerity, even if I can’t really respect the content of their beliefs.
There are plenty of people who hold the technically correct creed, but don’t make the sacrifices needed for real sanctity. They are neither hot nor cold.
I pray I am less and less like that. Jesus despises such behavior.
YKWYA,
Or switch to Firefox. It has a built-in spell checker. 🙂
Okay, TimJ said this part much better than I did, but pretty much that is what I meant, …
“I won’t say I have respect for all people’s beliefs… some beliefs are not seriously worthy of respect. But I do highly respect all people’s RIGHT to their beliefs. I respect their free will because it is a gift from God, and is not to be messed with.”
However, you could still sit with them and hold their hand at the hour of their death and silently pray, for example, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy: (have mercy on us and on the whole world.)
Oriana died in her native land, a place relatively long on Catholic priests. I don’t know the circs of her death (beyond cancer, private hospital, etc.), and I kind of hope God managed to coax her through the pearly gates before they shut for good.
To quote GKC: “I rather fancy that there are many atheists of that type in heaven, scratching their heads and wondering where they are.”
To develop YouKnowWhoYouAre’s point, Catholics can pray “Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord …”.
But moving to things of this world, in the article, I was struck by,
All of us have been shaped by a Christian culture. Facing a threat from the outside, and we all know where it comes from, we have to rally around our culture, which is the culture of Christianity, even if in the end we can’t bring ourselves to believe in God, except perhaps, every now and then, at night
In the ‘West’ (ie those who accept the best values of the Enlightenment), the mainstream ideology is that of Relativism, whose adherents systematically undermine the objectivism of Christianity particularly Catholicism.
The Islamist challenge seems uncritically self-confident in its divine objectivism, backed up by rage, force and induced guilt (eg Regensburg, Muhammad Cartoons), to suppress any attempt at criticism from outside or within.
Relativism does not give the believer any grounds for courage against threats, nor any intellectual or other basis for withstanding an intolerant and confident objectivism backed by force/rage plus guilt/political correctness.
Only an objective ideology has any hope of withstanding such a threat without the use of force.
The main objective ideologies in the West are derived from (Catholic) Christianity, or Materialism (either Marxist or Scientific). Marxism as a force is now dead. The most popular “scientific” ideology is represented by people like Richard Dawkins – laughably naive to anyone who has studied any philosophy. Many see the Church as lacking integrity (clerical abuse scandals), credibility and relevance.
The house of the “West” is divided and fighting within itself (Evangelicals vs Dawkinites vs Libertarians vs Relativists vs Catholics).
Those who lined up to kick the Pope after Regensburg or who rail against a “Papist Dictatorship” should compare that fantasy against that of being a Dhimmi and understand that Christian culture provides the best basis for a non-violent defense against Islamism as Fallaci realized.
About that bell-ringing: Regardless of what it took for Bishop Fisichella to pull it off, what a fabulous way to repay Oriana for the copyright royalties never paid for her “Letter to a Child Never Born,” when JP II had it published in Poland while he was still a bishop there. The bible teaches that “a worker is worth his wages.” Sounds as though she was aware of that as well as the Church’s teaching on “occult compensation.”
About faith: Some gifts are given in private. At the end of the day. Behind closed doors. By candle light. On deathbeds. With a friend holding your hand.
About doubt: It does come up to reel it’s ugly head, doesn’t it?
Perhaps the Church would regain relevance and credibility if it’s clergy made an effort to step up to the plate. You can’t fight cancer with a cotton ball. Most sermons I hear are cotton balls. Oriana Fallaci would run for the door. That movie from another century with Gregory Peck and Anthony Perkins, “On The Beach,” says it best when you see the deserted streets and makeshift signs: “There’s still time, brother.”
Finally, what bad word? I didn’t see any bad word…just the truth.
The bit about (then) Cardinal Wojtyla and “Letter to a Child Never Born” does raise an interesting question. From the article, I would infer that Wojtyla wasn’t under any legal obligation to pay Fallaci for reprinting the book. But was he under a moral obligation to do so (as she seems to have thought)?
I think not. Copyright laws strike me as being more a matter of positive law than natural right, and in the absence of any laws saying that you must pay for publishing a particular literary work, I don’t see that there would be any moral obligation to do so.
Since I do not know under what circumstances Cardinal Wojtyla saw fit to “publish” the work by Fallaci, I can’t address what he may or may not have been thinking. But I hardly think that she intended it as a “free tract” to be handed out. That’s why authors need to protect their work. At the very least, you have to ask permission to reproduce someone’s work and not pay for the royalties, due to some charitable circumstance. But the charity belongs to the author, not the person who wants to benefit in some way. This “work” was her property. In any case, the only people who can “reprint” something are the original publishers. Common sense tells me that to get her work published in Poland, and I assume into the Polish language, requires it to be typeset by a publishing company there. It takes money to publish a book. It is the intellectual property of the author. Also, she needs to know her words aren’t being mistranslated. It would have been the right thing to do to get in contact with her to explore her generosity. I don’t expect a fellow artist to be looking for a handout in such a manner. In short, he should have contacted her through the proper channels. Not only would it have been nice, it would have been gentlemanly.
Blackadder, I would disagree and agree with Michele’s “The bible teaches that “a worker is worth his wages.”
Royalties are writers’ bread and butter. Would you still go to work if there were no laws requiring your employer to pay you?
Then Cardinal Wojtyla may have had a point about being in a Communist country (perhaps more than one given his having to deal with the Communist authorities), but God makes sure that recompense happens.
Thank you, Mary Kay.
In the words of Donna Summer, “She works hard for the money, so you better treat her right.”
I forgot to mention that Donna Summer is a Catholic. Her album, “Cat’s Without Claws” reflected a lot of the spirtual journey and the vulnerability we have like cat’s without claws.
And the typos we make. Let’s not go there. Long day I guess.
My employer has agreed to pay a certain amount in exchange for my working for him. His obligation to pay me, therefore, arises out of the moral law, and he is still obligated to pay regardless of what the positive law may say on the matter (though I do think the positive law should enforce that obligation). The same does not appear to be true of so-called intellectual property rights. Those rights exist only by the positive law. They are heavily circumscribed, and no one would ever think of treating them the way we treat other property rights. For example, if one had a moral right to payment whenever someone else used his words, then it would be wrong to ever quote someone else without paying them for doing so. Intellectual property rights are also only granted for a fixed term of years, while normal property rights last forever.
The argument is often made that without copyright artists would not be able to make a living, but I don’t think this is true. Copyright laws are of fairly recent vintage, and many of the greatest works of literature and music were created without them. Even today, cookbooks continue to be published despite the fact that you can’t copyright recipes, and stores continue to sells plenty of books by G.K. Chesterton and Shakespeare despite the fact that the copyrights on those works have expired. Certainly Fallaci herself managed to thrive as a writer even though she wasn’t paid for the Polish reprint of “Letter to a Child Never Born.”
Apparently, the Vatican believes there is morality to copyright, at least when it’s the Vaticans.
“The Vatican Publishing House, as an Institution connected with the Holy See, has been entrusted with the exercise and custody, permanently and throughout the world, of every moral copyright and of all the exclusive financial rights – without any exception – over all the deeds and documents through which the Supreme Pontiff exercises his own Magisterium.”
(From the Vatican, 31 May 2005)
The argument is often made that without copyright artists would not be able to make a living, but I don’t think this is true. Copyright laws are of fairly recent vintage, and many of the greatest works of literature and music were created without them.
Because they were explicitly commissioned and paid for. Do you want to read only what some rich man wants to hire?
And when writing for the popular audience — “starving artist” is not hyperbole.
Mary,
I don’t want to read “only what some rich man wants” any more than I want to read only what the masses want. I want to read what’s good. If you want to argue that the quality of works written under the current system are superior to the quality works written due to patronage, I don’t evny you your task.
Further, while many works in the “bad old days” were created via patronage, many were not. Shakespeare, for example, made his living chiefly through a commercial market. Given that publishers can make money off books even when they don’t hold the copyright on them, I don’t see why the same wouldn’t be true today (writers today have tremendous advantages over previous times in that the cost of publishing is comparatively cheap while the demand for books is much greater). Publishers would publish more copies of the really popular books (which would therefore be quite cheap) and less of the less popular ones (which would be more expensive). At the margins, there might be some people who couldn’t make a living at writing under the new system, but that this would lead to less overall quality in books is not at all clear. In fact, there have been plenty of artists who pretty much didn’t get paid for their work at all, as they were not published until after they were dead. If getting rid of copyright means getting rid of people who are in it for the money, then I’m not sure I see the problem.
Some further thoughts:
There’s a certain irony in arguing on a blog that people will only write if they are paid to do it. Very few bloggers make their living through blogging or even make any substantial money at it. Yet there is no shortage of blogs and many are of high quality
If getting rid of copyrights really were going to seriously cut into publishers’ budgets, we can expect them to come up with creative ways of getting around this fact. For example, a publisher might refuse to sell books to a book-seller unless it agrees not to sell any reproductions of that book by other publishers. Since a book-seller gains from being able to sell a book when it first comes out, and makes just as much money off of a book regardless of the publisher, most stores would likely accept such an agreement. We might also see a return to the serialization of novels common in the 19th century. Any who knows what other inventive means people might come up with to meet the market demand for books.
Someone needs to explain the finances of writing for a living, but I’m not up for it tonight.
Without copyright protection, all books would simply be a free download on the Internet. Including serialized novels.
Mary Kay is right though it is not simply the finances of writing for a living, but also of publishing for a living.
Publishers often invest over a hundred thousand dollars in producing a popular book run and in some cases over a million. Copyright is essential to seeing books reach the mass market and allowing the publisher a return on their investment.
A writer’s investment is time. Time they should be compensated for when their work is accepted by a free market. A publisher’s investment is monetary, and quantifiable, and allows books to reach the wide audiences in our country.
Supporting ntellectual property supports natural law. To steal one’s ideas is void of morality. You don’t need to pay someone everytime you quote them, but you have to acknowledge their contribution. Reprinting someone else’s work for your profit without paying royalty to the originator of the work is immoral. To be blunt, it is stealing. Last I checked there was a commandment that addressed this issue.
This story reminds me of talk from Father Groeschel on the parable of Matthew 20: 1-16.
He pointed out that sometimes we who have been faithful, or have tried to be, for many years, can be a little put out by the person that just makes it into the Kingdom of God by the skin of their teeth.
Father said that from some of the spiritual writings of the mystics on Divine Mercy it seems that even as the soul has passed from the body and is sinking fast into the abyss of outer darkness, Jesus is there, hand out-stretched right to the last millisecond, asking them to believe.
I don’t know if that is true, but it seems that some like Fallaci are so close, yet bound by their pride, by their rebellion, by their unwillingness to lay down their arms and surrender, and if there is hope for them it is in the depths of their soul in response to Divine Mercy while their will is still free.
A very touching story, not only of a woman who wanted badly to believe, it appears, but also a Bishop of remarkable patience and love and pastoral care for a passing soul.
Horatio,
G.K. Chesterton’s works are no longer protected by copyright and are available for free online:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html
Yet if you go to your local Barnes and Noble, you will likely find many copies of his books for sale there. Same with Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, and a host of other authors. Clearly, then, the fact that a work is not protected by copyright and is available free online does not mean that a publisher cannot make money by publishing the book.
Think about it this way. It takes just as much time and money for company B to publish a book as it does for company A to do so (unless, that is, B is more efficient). B isn’t going to republish a book unless it thinks it can recoup its investment and turn a profit. So it only makes sense for B to republish a book if a) there is enought demand for the book that both A and B can turn a profit, or b) B can sell the book more cheaply than A, thus gaining a disproportionate share of the profits. In either case at least as many copies of the book will reach the market as would happen if only A published the book, and many customers may be able to get the book cheaper.
It takes time to write a blog. Does this mean that bloggers are owed compensation by those who read them? Writers are compensated not for their time (one person may be able to write a wonderful novel in half the time it takes another to write an awful one), but based on their ability to sell what they write. If a publisher thinks that he can make a profit by publishing a particular book, then he will happily pay that writer in order to be able to do so.
You seem to confuse giving someone credit when you use their ideas with giving them compensation when you use their words. Ideas cannot be copyrighted; only the expresion can be. Saying that you cannot use another person’s ideas without paying them for it is sure way to stiffle discourse, not encourage it.
There are legitimate criticisms of the Catholic (Roman Rite/Latin) that would be prone to certain words you would prefer others not to utilize even though they might be historically accurate.
I preface this with the fact that I am Catholic of the Roman Rite and very happy with my cultural, spiritual, and ecclesiastical heritage.
I prefer the Tridentine (post Trent/pre Vatican II) Mass although certainly believe any liturgy is valid as recognized by the See of Peter and keeping with the specific rubrics of that Liturgical Tradition.
Many Catholics do not know that the Catholic Church is NOT the ROMAN Catholic Church per se but a number of “Churches” (I think 22 but I could be wrong) with certain specific language and definitions used for Rites and Churches.
I am not an expert but am saying this as many of my fellow ROMAN Catholics are ignorant (ignorant not used as a pejorative here but as descriptive) of the aspects of Eastern Rites which are sui juris and thus are not under the jurisdiction of our Bishop and Cardinal system in the US (I realize this is the internet so no disrespect to non US readers here) but have I belive called Eparchys. There is a good link from the EWTN Website by a gentleman (I don’t know him personally) named Anthony Dragani if memory serves me correctly or directly east2west.com or maybe .org. There is also a Byzantine.net or something like that. Wikipedia also has a list of the different Rites and “Churches” in union with Rome that I think most have corresponding either Orthodox or “Oriental” non-union Churches with the notable exception of the Maronites.
The reason I mention the above is that there is some dark history we (as Roman/Latin Catholics) have in terms of forced “Latinization” and other historical problems we caused. Also, many Roman Catholic, even friends of mine, elevate (at least sometimes) culture and outward aesthetics over the internal substance which is certainly present at our Catholic brothers of different Rites no matter how exotic they may seem. Many Catholics (Roman) especially in the US do not know that there are Married (not Anglican converts) Catholic priests who have always had that tradition, or priests with beards, or spiritual devotions that do not include the wonderful Rosary. In terms of Liturgy, they have liturgies just as reverent and sacred as those who promote the Tridentine Rite want usually in accord with the ancient Liturgies as designed (by God but through) St. Basil and/or St. John Chrystostom–but also some different traditions in than Christian Egypt, Ethiopia, and Armenia (although at least with those 3 and some Assyrians, and Syrians in India–they are considered Monosphytes or Miaphytes–although most have considered at this point semantic and political disagreements although they accept the Council of Nicea they did not and some do not accept the Council of Chalcedon–although those in union with Rome certainly accept Chalcedon)
These liturgies have ancient/sacred liturgical languages like Biblical Greek or Old Slavonic or the Geez script/Ahrmaic (not the same as Aramaic spoke by Jesus per se but the Geez Egyptian and Ethiopian spoken language) as well as venacular Arabic etc.
These Christian communities, even those in union with Rome are not always recognized. Many of them are persecuted by both Muslims and others even in the State of Israel (at least as perceived by some). This persecution is considered by some to be heightened more recently by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and families that had wealth and education in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and other places have left or even been killed. The Egyptian Copts actually welcomed the Islamic invaders as better than the heavy handed Byzantines and Melkites not just because of Chalecedon but politics and oppression. Ethiopia (which sent represents to the Lateran Council and were perceived to be followers of Prebsyter John) was an independent Christian Nation that survived the separation from the Christian West and Islamic invaders (sometimes with the help of Portugal) and had an ancient and proud culture that maintained independence for centuries. These Oriental Christians believe that Jesus is True God and True Man (the question lies in the hypostatic union although some claim the Monosphytes only believe Jesus is True God and the Man is incidental although the Copts will tell you this is not true), have apostolic succession according to the teachings of the Catholic Church (as do the Orthodox), thus valid (although perhaps illicit) Sacraments, believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist (although some difference when it becomes It during the Liturgy and a Sacrificial Priesthood. They honor the Blessed Mother Mary as the Theotokos (God bearer) and believe in her Assumption after the Dormition.
3 incidents of Roman/Latin oppression and division by us to the Universal Church are/were:
1. The 4th Crusade called by (I think Innocent the III) in the 13th Century that did not go to the Holy Land but sacked Constantinople and is remembered to this day by the bitter memories of Monks on Athos to common man in streets of Greece. This weakened the Byzantine Christian East and caused serious historical and emotional damage. The Venetians cut a lot of deals with the Turks for trade and weakened Christianity with the merchants and Doge of Venice.
This is still a symbol of division and protest to this day and why there were protests against the current and the last Pope.
The interesting part is that at least some of the Paleogious Emporers, while retaining Greek Liturgy, where in union with Rome, perhaps for political reasons. But there was an attempt to enforce Latin, certain types of dress etc.
2. The Jesuits and other Portuguese in Ethiopia had an opportunity to help Ethiopia (and did in some military battles) but again tried to force Latinization, Latin language, Western Cassocks etc when there was an older tradition in Ethiopia of Christianity and Christianity as the state religion with certain praxis that included styles of art, iconography, church design, monasticism etc that was theologically correct and truly indigeneous. The Italians, supposedly with Blessings from the Papacy tried to invade Ethiopia in the late 1800s and again during WWII.
Violence, war, invasion, forced Latinization, deprivation of Christian (not pagan or uncivilized) culture was tried.
3. In the United States, Archbishop Ireland of Minnesota forced many Eastern Rite Catholics in full union of Rome out of the Catholic Church and is sarcastically called the founder of Modern American Orthodoxy. Even if they were not forced out per se, he did not want them to have their legitimate traditions of married priests, bearded priests, different liturgy etc.
Archbishop Ireland insulted the widower priest Alexis Toth and wanted his flock to learn English and be part of the German or Polish parishes already present. He did not respect the tradition of icons, married priests, beards, the Church as a catethical tool, venacular or sacred languages different than Latin etc. This caused law suits, family fights, Churches and families being split and the growth of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy in America. The American Bishops did not want separate jurisdiction for these Eastern Rite Catholics (Mostly Ruthenian/”Rusyn” from the Carpatho Mountains in the Austro Hungarian mountains basically related to modern day Ukrainians although settled in different countries in the Catholic Empire with full separate liturgical and cultural rites and in full union with Rome.
So when some of these Eastern Catholics or Orthodox Christians speak of Roman or Latinization as a pejorative there is a historical and logical justification.
I realize the impetus for the new rule was more from the Protestant polemics (who cannot understand the nuance of what I just posted) and not because of a historical view and a recognition of forced Latinization and historical errors of the Church.
I want to close to say that I believe the Church is Divine and in a Supernatural way perfect, and we should all be in union with Peter.
Historical flaws of a 2000 year old Church with over a Billion members does not mean that is wrong–but neither should it mean that we think we are perfect in a human/historical/temporal sense nor that even the great times of the Church such as the Medeival (which is historically better than the Protestant or Secular polemics) or the great art and architecture of the Rennaisance (which also produced a lot of decadence and sin besides great art and accomplishment) or the English language Oxform movement or a real (or sometimes mythological) 1950s American Catholicism–that these are historical epochs and cultural issues are not the same as theological issues even if they are important or good. We must respect other cultures and have not always done so from a sense of superiority and imperialism in a negative sense that could use the term “Roman”.
Again, “Roman” has produced much greatness also and there is a need for uniformity and universalism but not to destroy earlier Christian traditions or not even realize they exist or not to also merge with later cultures that may have also been treated badly or at least imperfectly.
The bottom line is that some negative use of Roman/Latin–Latinization and other words may be justified depending on the topic and who is using it, in what context and why.
As in all historical discussions, they are not matters of dogma–I do believe what I wrote is correct and should be listened to but it is prudential and I could be wrong. I think I am well informed but come humbly before you to discuss this issue and if I am wrong in my thesis (which I do strongly believe) or individual historical or theological points (which is possible as I have not annotated this or provided too much aprobation but you can check the facts on the Catholic Encyclopedia, Wikipedia and others as well as websites of the Eastern Rite Churches)–I am willing to admit error when confronted it on these non dogmatic issues as I am writing this as a blog post and not an academic work and it is somewhat late for me and I am typing fast.
I do hope this post is helpful to you and provides some context for certain words that may be used.
Thank you for reading and allowing me to post.
Please pray for me as I pray for this Blog and the readers and for the unity of Christianity.
Horatio, thank you so very much for your explanation.
G.K. Chesterton’s works are no longer protected by copyright and are available for free online:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/index.html
Yet if you go to your local Barnes and Noble, you will likely find many copies of his books for sale there.
Chesterton is not getting a red cent from them.
Well, then, he’s dead, and allowing writers to receive payment for a certain amount of time is certainly a workable solution.
But your proposed solution is that the writer gets NO money for it.
It takes just as much time and money for company B to publish a book as it does for company A to do so (unless, that is, B is more efficient). B isn’t going to republish a book unless it thinks it can recoup its investment and turn a profit.
And one wonderful thing they can do to help bring about a profit is to not pay the writer.
Shakespeare, please note, was a playwright. His works were performed. And he still had problems with people ripping off his works.
Mary,
I realize that Chesterton doesn’t get any money from the sale of his books today. Chesterton is dead. Someone suggested that publishers couldn’t make a profit by bringing out a book if that book was available for free on the internet. That portion of my comment was responding to that objection.
I dealt with the objection that writers would not get paid without copyright in other portions of my comments (I can’t be expected to address every objection with every statement). There are monetary advantages to being the first to publish a particular book. Most sales of most books occur during the first few months after publication, before anyone would have a chance to republish. A publisher can also use the author herself to market the book, to attend book signings, etc. Because of this advantage, publishers would be willing to pay a writer for her manuscript (instead of the current system where the publisher buys the copyright from the writer and then holds it itself).
As I suggested before, there are many things a publisher could do to increase the advantage it has as the “authorized” publisher. It could refuse to sell its books to booksellers unless they agreed not to sell any republications of their books. It could also make agreements with other publishers not to republish each others’ books. Etc. So writers would get paid, largely in the same way they do now.
So, if I had plans on writing a book, which I don’t, but if I did. Would I be better off letting the publisher buy the copywrite outright itself and then they would have to find a way to market it? (See, if I ever did write one, I sure would not want to go around trying to sell it myself nor signing them),except for a few close family members and friends, which by the way, is probably all that would buy my book.
Would I be better off letting the publisher buy the copywrite outright itself
Only if you want to give away income that you’ve earned. In short, no.
Spin, spin, spin. I’m told by someone who has worked in publishing that unless there is documentation of an agreement between publishing houses you can argue this stuff forever. Ethics doesn’t even really enter into it. But for the artist it can become infuriating. Positive law aside, is it a good idea to stiff a waitress even though you don’t have to? I can tell you this from experience, you don’t want to do that. Your coffee is gonna taste funny somewhere down the line. Hey, you reap what you sow. That energy will come back around in some form or another.
Let’s get human. Why would you want to treat another person like that?
If the bible tells us that a worker is worth his wages, it means what it says. It’s a potent statement and can be trusted.
In fact, this whole issue smacks of abuse. It shouldn’t be tolerated in a marriage, and shouldn’t be tolerated here.
Blackadder, people will write when they want to. But when they want money, they are wise to say so. I can’t say that your arguments are compelling. Just a lot of cape waving.
Horatio, right on.
Oriana Fallaci deserved the cathedral ringing of bells. Bishop Fisichella arranged it. Nice move. God does pay people back where men have failed.
Her new book, published this spring is “The Force of Reason.”
Oh, you young’ns! You forget so much!
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries did not acknowledge Western copyright law. In effect, they nationalized everybody else’s stuff. (And frankly, any sovereign nation is within their rights to do this; copyright is artificially imposed by the state for its own benefit, as encouraging creativity, and can be de-imposed.)
However, this turned out to be of little benefit to the USSR et al. By removing copyright, they made it totally legal (for those who could get printing equipment and publication of particular works approved) to reprint the latest Western books and articles as soon as they could be translated. This was one of the many small rebellions which eventually brought the system down.
Oriana Fallaci was not the only Western author to demand royalties from publishers in Communist countries. While they had a moral right to do so, the idea was pretty ludicrous; the exchange rate was such that a “fair royalty” would have been about three cents per million copies. What’s more, contact with the West always brought unwelcome attention upon the contact-ee, and information like addresses wasn’t exactly easy to get. How did people expect Communist country publishers to contact them to make these contracts for these ludicrously small sums? Look up their agents in the New York phonebook that was way above their clearance?
So yeah, I think Bishop Wojtyla was perfectly within his moral right to ignore Oriana Fallaci. Though I would have thrown her three kopecks, myself.
Here comes that funny cup of coffee.
What? We’ve gone from “Jimmy Akin said a bad word!” to “Jimmy Akin linked to a story that had a bad word in it!”
Overkill?
“Oriana Fallaci deserved the cathedral ringing of bells. Bishop Fisichella arranged it. Nice move. God does pay people back where men have failed.”
Michele, don’t you mean a man paid back where another man (allegedly) failed? God didn’t ring those bells, a man did.
Regardless, you really seem to have cheapened the gesture, reducing to repayment of a supposed monetary debt.
I really have no horse in the race, but reading the debate, I’d have to agree with Blackadder (it helps that he’s actually a lawyer). When the only rebuttal to his point about Chesterton’s books still selling even though they’re available for free is to retort that he’s dead, I’d say Blackadder has the win. The point is clear: copyright is not necessary for a person to profit from a work (I’m not saying it isn’t good to have, it’s just not necessary). Realistically, if JP hadn’t had her work published in Poland, it might never have sold a copy there anyway, at least as long as the Communists were in power. So the financial loss to her seems negligible.
Chesterton’s books continue to sell in part because the publisher doesn’t have to pay the author a dime. The continuing sale of Chesteron’s books is not proof that an author can fairly profit from a book without copyright.
Ed, what do you think of Blackadder’s statement that there is no moral obligation to honor a copyright versus the Scripture verse that “the laborer is worth his wages?” (Luke 10:7)
Blackadder’s wording of his initial statement is in his 8/28/07, 1:43 pm post.
Thanks.
Snowman, have you never heard that God is your provider, he only uses your employer to sign your check? Maybe you’re self employed. God uses people as his instruments. Things have a way of working out. I don’t care if Blackadder is a lawyer. There’s plenty of them on the subway.
If those bells ringing after her death held great value for her, then she got her dying wish.
Ed, you’ve got a point there. But the expressive word used in the article is just a word. Who added the bad?
Michele, giggle, Jimmy did!!
YKWYA – Of course he did. Giggle. TV doesn’t like that word either.
I don’t like it either, I added the giggle because she was questioning WHO added it.
“Chesterton’s books continue to sell in part because the publisher doesn’t have to pay the author a dime. The continuing sale of Chesteron’s books is not proof that an author can fairly profit from a book without copyright.”
Algami, you’re still wrong. When I buy a book, I have no idea whether the publisher is paying the author, whether it has copyrights, etc. It is simply not an issue in anyone’s decision to purchase a book. So the fact that Chesterton’s books are still selling do indeed prove that good books can sell without a copyright.
Michele, I’m not surprised you don’t care that Blackadder is a lawyer, you don’t seem to care about logic either, because you’re not making a lot a sense. (There’s a lot of people like that on subways too, but I have no idea why you think the ridership of subways is relevant.) No one denied she got her dying wish with the ringing of the bells, but give credit to the man who actually rang them. And don’t cheapen it to some form of payback; it was a loving gesture done for a woman the bishop cared about and tried to lead to God.
YKWYA – I made the last post and forgot to put my name. So the bottom line is I knew what Jimmy had as a warning before I read the article. I don’t consider it a bad word. Expressive maybe, but not bad. It was just a rhetorical question. I think we humans tend to add to reality. The concept is not the thing.
As I suggested before, there are many things a publisher could do to increase the advantage it has as the “authorized” publisher. It could refuse to sell its books to booksellers unless they agreed not to sell any republications of their books.
So they claim it was someone who bought the book.
Mary, what do you mean “So they claim it was someone who bought the book”? Not sure I understand your post.
I agree that “a laborer is worth his wages.” I don’t see, however, what that statement has to do with copyright. Libraries and book resellers “rob” authors and publishers of profits just as much as republishing would. If I buy a book second hand, neither the publisher nor the author ever sees a dime of that money, and it is certainly true that publishers would make more money off of a book if it could never be resold or lent to another person. This hardly means that libraries and second hand book stores are immoral.
This hardly means that libraries and second hand book stores are immoral.
Perhaps not second hand book stores (it’s probably a gray area), but I firmly believe that libraries are immoral.
Does anyone here understand what “copyright” even is? Else, how account for some of the posts above?
Ok, look:
I write a book. A publisher prints that book, and seels it for $ 10. By my contract, I get $ 1. There, so far, I;ve made $ 1 for writing my book. If the publisher sells 10,000, I make $ 10K for writing the book.
So far, so good?
Now, go back to day one: Some buys my book (I make $ 1), and photocopies it 1000x, and sells them for $ 5. They make $ 5000, I make a total of $ 1.
See the point?
Of course copyright is, per se, a function of natural justice.
Questions?
Does anyone here understand what “copyright” even is? Else, how account for some of the posts above?
It’s certainly different from “copyleft”. Neither is it the same as “copywrong”. It’s similar to “copywrite”, but quite different from “copyread”. Close to it in meaning is “copyrite”, but it’s quite the opposite of “copyunorthdox”. It’s not too disimilar from “copywright”, but people don’t use that word very often, preferring “copywrought”, which is quite distinct from “copyunformed”.
When I buy a book, I have no idea whether the publisher is paying the author, whether it has copyrights, etc. It is simply not an issue in anyone’s decision to purchase a book. So the fact that Chesterton’s books are still selling do indeed prove that good books can sell without a copyright.
Continued sales of Chesterton’s books do not prove that an AUTHOR can fairly profit from book sales without copyright. As a publisher, I can sell quite a number of books at a profit if I can cut out or reduce payments to the author.
Libraries and book resellers “rob” authors and publishers of profits just as much as republishing would.
Book resales are like used car, used furniture and second-hand clothing sales. Some can argue the “robbed” value was built into the original sales price.
Smokey, so if someone copied my book, could I call them a copy cat?
Cheers!
Ed, thank you!
Are you an author, Mary Kay? Something about your responses on this thread suggest to me that this subject *matters* to you.
Ed,
Most authors don’t own the copyrights to their works. They sell them to the publisher before publication.
The amount of royalties in your example is also *way* too high. Royalties are such a small percentage of book sales that the only way someone could live off of them is if their books are really popular, in which case I’d imagine they could live without them, too.
But suppose the numbers in your example are right. Only, instead of buying one copy and photocopying it, I buy 100 and then rent them to people for $1 a month. After a year, I will have made $1200 and you will have made $100. How much money would natural justice say I owed you, in that scenario?
It is you, snowman, who is on the attack. Just because someone is a lawyer doesn’t make their comments any better than anyone elses. So he’s a lawyer. So what? God bless him, too. As far as cheapening goes, you sound as though you are trying to find something wrong with anything I have said. Try to keep up. If you don’t like what I have said, that’s fine. The bells didn’t ring themselves. No one said that. I am simply suggesting that God perhaps honored her in the end by this ringing of the bells. Bishop Fisichella somehow arranged it. Who said he didn’t? You call it payback. Sounds like a backhanded slap in your written delivery. Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s your word. And, yes, like the article said, he was loving to her at the end, and prayed for her and stayed with her. I think that’s great. You seem to be intellectually offended if someone sees the hand of God in it. Maybe you just don’t like Fallaci. Doesn’t matter. You are entitled to your opinion no matter what you think. And you’re equally entitled to ride the subway. It will cost you the same amount of money that it costs everyone else.
Am I the only one who realizes the only reason Fallaci was so Anti Muslim was because she was a secularist who despised ANY religion and even admitted she was an Atheist, and was by no means a flag waver and defender of Christian Europe. Somehow she became the great anti Islam figher and I am so amazed and amused how the Christian/Catholic world, so desperate for hero’s, any hero who would stand up to Islam where you even have the pope in JPII as the article so clearly illustrated bowing down to the Islamic threat, that they wrapped their arms around this woman.
Catholicism has no leader because of Ecumenism and the Catholic church has basically destroyed herself in trying to appease these false faiths and is now paying the price, that a woman, and atheist is actually revered by Italy as an anti Muslim activist where should not the Vicar of Christ as in yesteryear be doing such???
*sigh* John, if you keep riding that hobby horse you’re going to get yourself banned. And then what would you do for entertainment?
“Catholicism has no leader…”
Well, we have YOU, John.
JoAnna
Hobby horse? Talking about secularism and the lack of leadership within the church?
You are so brainwashed are you not?
Daddy-ban John!!! I dont like what he is saying!!
How about refute my statement instead of crying for Daddy?
Are you an author, Mary Kay? Something about your responses on this thread suggest to me that this subject *matters* to you.
Posted by: Smoky Moutain | Aug 29, 2007 1:16:02 PM
I thought Mary Kay was the Cosmetics company chick?
As to the idea that a publisher can make a profit selling Chesterton books only because he doesn’t have to pay an author to put the book out, that would only be true if fewer Chesterton books were being sold than are sold by any midlist author. But that isn’t the case. There are plenty of new books that get outsold by Orthodoxy or Hamlet but which still make money.
JoAnna
Hobby horse? Talking about secularism and the lack of leadership within the church?
You are so brainwashed are you not?
Daddy-ban John!!! I dont like what he is saying!!
How about refute my statement instead of crying for Daddy?
Posted by: John | Aug 29, 2007 1:59:05 PM
JoAnna is a “cry-baby” calling out for daddy?
Ohhhhhh — thems fighting words!
I’m gonna tell! I’m gonna tell!
Blackadder, are you being serious?
Surely you can answer all, but possibly the last, of your own questions, and tell us why your first couple of points are irrelevant to the discussion.
On the chance that your questions ARE sincere, I’ll tell you what to look into first: the difference between owning a book, and owning the copyright on that book.
Really, all of this info is on-line, folks, only the finest points would need legal assistance to understand them.
John, you might be right. But didn’t the pope recently get lambasted for stating his opinion last year at a German university in a strictly scholarly setting delivering a scholarly paper? Thought the rules were a little different there. People took things out of context. Fallaci was a freedom fighter in Italy as a young girl. That is my understanding. Plus a journalist.
So she has a history with the people so to speak. She also was not afraid to speak out.
There are plenty of new books that get outsold by Orthodoxy or Hamlet but which still make money.
Everyone of those new books is protected by copyright.
Ed,
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not arguing about what the law is. I’m arguing about what the law should be, or, more particularly, what would happen if the law were different than it now is. I’m well aware that current law allows you to resell a book but not to republish it. But the law could just as easily allow both or prohibit both.
If, in the context of such a discussion, someone says that copyright is required as a matter not simply of positive law but of natural justice, and produces and argument to that effect which, if valid, would seem to make reselling or lending books immoral, then I do not see the problem in pointing this out. It is no answer to say that current law recognizes such a distinction, since it is exactly the wisdom of the current law that is in dispute.
pssst, Tim, I think you scared him off, nice work! 🙂
I agree that “a laborer is worth his wages.” I don’t see, however, what that statement has to do with copyright. Libraries and book resellers “rob” authors and publishers of profits just as much as republishing would. If I buy a book second hand, neither the publisher nor the author ever sees a dime of that money, and it is certainly true that publishers would make more money off of a book if it could never be resold or lent to another person. This hardly means that libraries and second hand book stores are immoral.
Under our current system of law, the way we recompense writers is by paying them when a copy is made; neither the library nor the second-hand book requires a copy. This is one means of giving them wages.
By the same token, a person who makes — oh, pots — can be paid a hourly wage by the pot factory, or can be paid when he sells the pots. Since both give recompense for labor, both are compatible with natural law.
Anyone who wishes to get rid of copyright needs to suggest another means by which the writers can receive wages.
Algami,
True but irrelevant. If a book without copyright protection has higher total sales than a book with it and both are profitable, then you cannot say that the only reason the book without copyright is profitable is because the publisher didn’t have to pay the author anything. The book still would have been profitable to publish even if the publisher had to pay the author.
The amount of royalties in your example is also *way* too high.
Nonsense. Perfectly typical scenario.
Royalties are such a small percentage of book sales that the only way someone could live off of them is if their books are really popular, in which case I’d imagine they could live without them, too.
This makes no sense at all.
How on earth can a person live off really popular books if they aren’t paid anything for having written them?
If a book without copyright protection has higher total sales than a book with it and both are profitable, then you cannot say that the only reason the book without copyright is profitable is because the publisher didn’t have to pay the author anything.
The one where he had to pay the author had a hit to its profit; it would been more profitable without it.
Therefore, if you allow the publisher to pay nothing by law, he will.
Mary,
I’ve already suggested how writers would get paid for their work. Mainly I think it would work just as it does now – publishers would pay them. If that wasn’t sufficient, there are all sorts of other payment schemes that one could devise (everything from patronage to paypal), but for brevity’s sake I won’t go into them now.
Lurking behind your question, however, seems to be the idea that if someone labors, he is owed wages. I don’t buy that at all. If you were to go home tonight to find that some guy you’d never seen before had painted your house purple, you wouldn’t owe him wages, even if he had labored all day in the hot hot sun. He would only be entitled to wages if you had agreed to pay him for the job.
Mary,
A publisher has two choices. He can pay an author to publish his book, or he can wait until another publishes it, go out and buy a copy, and then begin the publication process. If he chooses the later course, he will be subject to several disadvantages. Since a lot of books sell most of their copies in the first few months after publication, republishing means missing out on all of those sales. He might also find that bookstores are unwilling to take his books, as they have agreed with the publisher not to do so. Further, if republishing a book will be highly profitable, he can count on other publishers doing the same thing, thus eating into any potential profits. Thus, in most cases, its going to be more profitable for a publisher to just pay an author upfront and get the advantages of doing so.
Blackadder, you are clearly a lawyer because you love to argue, but it’s also clear that you don’t know very much about copyright law or its history. To make a very clear analogy: copyright is to literary work as a patent is to inventions.
So, just as the Soviet Union was right to not acknowledge copyright law, so China and other Communist countries are right to make so-called “pirated” copies of software and other so-called “intellectual property”. After all, Bill Gates is already wealthy. He and the workers at Microsoft certainly don’t need the money.
Mainly I think it would work just as it does now – publishers would pay them.
Why?
Lurking behind your question, however, seems to be the idea that if someone labors, he is owed wages. I don’t buy that at all.
You use the fruits of someone else’s labor — such as their writing — and the burden of proof is on you as to why you are allowed to do this.
So, if I ever write a book, I ought to keep them short and in manuscript form, copy them myself on a copier, and hawk them from a web site. How’s that? I could probably keep the price down that way too as I could just charge them the amount of paper and ink that I used, some for my time, and then just keep writing more and more. 😉
a lot of books sell most of their copies in the first few months after publication
And a lot of books don’t. Your theory has some big holes in it.
He might also find that bookstores are unwilling to take his books, as they have agreed with the publisher not to do so.
And he might find many sellers more than happy to sell it, perhaps right down the street from the bookstores which won’t.
Miss Jean,
You’re right to point out the connection between patent and copyright. So far as I can tell, the case for patents is actually weaker than the case for copyright. There’s not much chance that someone is going to take a copyrighted text, change it a little, and come up with something much more valuable (though this does happen sometimes, especially with music). In the case of inventions, though, derivative products can be quite valuable, and having a patent system can and does often stifle that innovation.
In addition, because patents tend to involve technicals matters and because patent law doctrines tend to be fuzzy, a lot of time and money is wasted on litigation, which further stifles innovation.
I don’t find myself agreeing with Andrew Greeley a lot but his article today on Mother Teresa was right on.
It is a scandal that is not a scandal. The media loves to find scandal in the Catholic Church (and sometimes we give it to the media with a bow on) but sometimes there is no scandal.
This is the most misinterpreted story. Mother Teresa never said that she lost her faith per se nor that she was a aetheist, agnostic, or hypocrite (although all may have been possible)
BUT that she had DOUBTS, and fear and anxiety and did not always feel God’s presence and love and she doubted God’s existence and her own mission. We don’t know the context nor her conclusion.
Greeley joked that when asked if he has doubts he responds NO only 20 before breakfast and coffee. He also says, and I think accurately, that fear and anxiety are part (for most) of the human condition. Greeley also qoutes John of the Cross and says the NYT times must have no Catholics on staff nor any fact checkers to discuss Catholic mystical theology or acseticism.
Again, I am not normally a Greeley fan nor agree with him much–but his article was right on.
This is the story that is not a story.
Algami,
Suppose you’re a bookstore and I give you a choice: you can have a book to sell in March, when it first comes out, or you can wait and not get it until June. Oh, and you should know that your competitor down the street will be getting it in March. Which would you pick?
If Blackadder is a lawyer, why doesn’t he know the difference between lawfully owed wages (copyright) and defacement of property (vandalism)?
Blackadder, you started this by claiming no moral obligation and since then, you’ve engaged in legal subterfuges. Ed presented a very clear reason for natural justice.
Smoky Mountain, you’re perceptive. I’m in a transition process to where copyright is vital.
Is this a Protestant cultural misunderstanding? From the Sarabite blog:
The only reason the revelations of Mother Teresa’s interior life may scandalize some American Christians is that they are completely detached from religion as a real way of life, which is to say that they are Protestants, either internally or also in name. Religion, more often than not, is about obligation, sacrifice, and duty, not about good feelings or “self-fufillment”. Yes, it can seem that we are lying to ourselves sometimes, that we aren’t “keeping it real” as we youngsters like to say. But sometimes the best thing to do is to shut-up and get on with God’s business. And that can mean that we don’t get fuzzy feelings inside, that we don’t experience any material or “spiritual” gain in this life, and that we have to “keep up appearances”. That’s just life, in all of its manifestations. That is why our life within the Church is so important: it takes us out of ourselves and puts us into uncomfortable situations where we have to deal with the Other, either on a personal or intellectual level. And we aren’t always right. And we aren’t always “happy”. But we trust in God and we go on. Day in and day out. Until we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, with the help of His grace
Blackadder, do you really mean to say that it’s okay to copy someone else’s ideas? So I invent a hydrogen-powered motorcyle, putting a lot of time and effort into it in hopes of entering into a business partnership with Harley-Davison. One of my neighbours (the engineer and Peeping Tom) spies on me and copies my design, then starts manufacturing it for a profit. Is it only okay because I don’t have a lot of money and a good lawyer on retainer?
Also, is it then okay to plagiarize someone’s doctoral thesis if I change several pages to make it better?
But to draw us back to topic – it really touched me that people are praying for Oriana Fallaci. One of my friends waffles between agnosticism and atheism, and one of my dearest cousins is a self-declared atheist. I pray for them, but sometimes I doubt whether my prayers will be answered. Reading the comments has really heartened me. Thanks.
Mary Kay,
What are you writing?
How she founded the Mary Kay Cosmetics Empire!
In reading the main thread topic, I see nothing about copyright infringement, but somehow 50% of the posts have to deal with this topic!!
Talk about thread hijacking!!!!!:
Or does the topic of Fallaci and her adornment by a secular society who does not what Traditional Catholicism but at the same time realizes it hates Islam even worse, is so starved for a leader that it is willing to accept an atheist who as far as I read still doubted Gods existence up to the end, and I paraphrase her quote (“If you are there why dont you let me live??)who has blasted JPII for his embracement of Islam scare everyone off!!!!
I don’t think it is just Protestantism, nor all bad per se–but also a very American success oriented philosophy and practical approach to life.
I actually like the Norman Vincent Peale (Rev) and his book Power of Positive Thinking (understanding flaws and limitations) and his Guideposts ministry. I had grandmas and aunts on my non Latino side who had the Guideposts magazine as a staple and it was very positive in their lives. There is an assumption that Faith can be willed and that we should trust in God–which is True but can be carried to an extreme. I think on the whole the Guideposts/Norman Vincent Peale message is good and very helpful but can not emphasize the reality of suffering and of the Cross which will come for everyone.
On the non Christian side, there is the famous Napolean Hill kind of success/self help classic THINK AND GROW RICH–which takes the POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING to a new level and focuses on temporal sucess. There are many good parts of the book and certainly nothing wrong (at least not per se) with thinking positive, visualizing results etc.
Some may think (and may think accurately) there are beginning elements of occultic practicies, divination, sorcerory etc–although sometimes these concerns are exagerrated. There is some mention, as humorous as that is in today’s America, of Islam being the best religion. There is also mention of sublimination of sexual energies (not unknown in Catholic mystical theology and ascetic writings) although more occultic as in the quasi New Age Samuel Aun Woer and his prohibitions on masturbation for decreasing mystical energy and not, or at least not exact, prohibitions as an interpretation of the sin of Onan in the Old Testament or a violation of the reproductive nature. The post Temple Talmudic Jews (at least some) in the Kabbalah talk about masturbation as losing the mystical seeds of soul production (not incompatible with the Catholic concept which is more physical and earthy). In the THINK AND GROW RICH it states that young men sometimes don’t find success until they are done “sewing their oats” and have a good woman behind them. It models Carnegie, FDR, Ford, Rockerfeller and others and assumes some esoteric teaching of mind control and positive thinking.
On the Protestant side again you have students of Peale like ROBERT SCHULLER and his Crystal Cathedral and his Possibility Thinking Meditation (PTM) certainly rooted in the Bible and Christ but seemingly very New Age, Gnostic or Occultic–or at least possibly. Again, not much talk of Sin, Redemption, Suffering. But again, this is an American/US/Anglo-Saxon phenomena which is somewhat culturally and historically understood if not justified.
The Norman Vincent Peale/Guideposts positive thinking seems to be heavily rooted in the Gospels and Faith message of Jesus as well as the Psalms. I don’t want to misqoute Peale or his followers but I think when answering the question why he thinks positive that he answers that because Jesus thinks positive and wants him to also.
To have the faith of a mustard seed to move mountains. To have faith to walk on water. That there is a choice and discipline of faith, hope, trust, positive thinking. That Jesus asks us to be positive and even visualize our goal(s).
There is a whole New Age library or even less New Age and just business self help (with some criticisms and agreement by some older books on Psychology by Jesuits and others–there is a Traditional Roman Catholic Books in Texas that has some good stuff on the Occult, Poltergeist phenomena, Psychology, the Will and Discipline–from a Traditional Roman Catholic Perspective) starting from Emile Coue and her “Getting better and better in every way and every day”–these Catholic books do not deny the possibility of energy natural from the human body including to heal (the Aquinas distinctions of supernatural and preternatural play into here)or that positive thinking is helpful or that at least some illness is psychosomatic and that illness can be cured through placebos.
These go on through books on hypnosis, selling, success–including many Christian authors.
Zig Ziglar, Tony Robbins, Real Estate Seminars, even Pat Robertson to a lesser extent on the Christian side. The New Age side from Shakti Gawains Creative Visualization, her mentor “Catholic” Jose Silva and the Silva Method (which he says the Holy Spirit is a dimension), or the current best seller promoted by Oprah the SECRET.
On the more “heretical” Christian side there is Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy and her gnostic or almost gnostic views on matter but some practical advice that can work to help healing.
The Evangelical Christian “Name it Claim it” and Oral Roberts and others on TV and elswhere of claiming wealth and health in the name of Jesus. Again, this may work as a placebo but the reality is health and wealth can fade and the book of Job can come into play.
There is an American Calivnistic thought (even among Catholics on a practical level) that one sign of salvation is human success. That Salvation cannot be lost and that we are guaranteed heaven and should not doubt. That doubting Salvation is bad and even a sign that you are not saved. The Catholic view that Salvation is not constant and can be lost is not the same doctrine as Luther or Calvin. While there are different views in Protestantism (Armeniansism v Predistenination) etc–there is an underlying cultural and even subconscious force that God Blesses his elect and that money or health problems could be or are a sign of spiritual misalignment (something taught in Eastern Religions also)
So the doubting of faith from a Protestant perspective of Mother Teresa is a sign she was not or is not saved. That she should of become a born again Christian and she would have CERTAINTY in salvation. Moreover, the poor she were helping may have been predistined to be poor or even predistined to be damned.
There is a lot of truth, but only partial truth from the Horatio Algiers–rags to riches–American success story. Certainly, a plan, a good clean life, thinking positive, reading the Bible—can lead to success and many times does.
However, success is not a sign of salvation (I am willing to discuss and have heard different from some Catholics discussed below). Salvation is not “ASSURED” or “CERTAIN” in Catholicism.
Religion, including Catholicism, can be comforting and provide security–belief, hope, faith–a comprehensive system, devotional practices, a community. Certainly, joining the Catholic Church you should not necessarily have to have or long for disease and financial disaster as a sign of being Blessed either (but that may come). Martyrdom is a crown but one that is not always chosen.
I find Catholicism very comforting and do not seem to have the same doubts as Mother Teresa (although I am not sure exactly what she had or didn’t have) But she may have had more Blessings and ability to do things through Grace than I. Certainly, she is an incredible role model and inspiration.
Old Testament Judaism, and all “branches” of Christianity have the book of JOB in their canon(s). It is not my favorite book because I certainly don’t want death and destruction to test my faith. But it is important to understand that while I think if most people do what is right, eat their morning cereal, read the Psalms, don’t do drugs, and work hard etc–they live good lives–many people unexpectedly get sick–and some are persecuted mercilessly unfairly and even killed from Sudan to China and probably every country on the planet for various reasons at every historical period in human history.
Besides the Old Testament Book of Job–which is less loss of faith than the loss of temporal sucess–there is also the Gospel and the Passion of Christ (I am a fan of the Gibson movie) where Peter denies him, Judas betrays him, his apostles besides the youngest and the women run away from him–and he is brutally tortured and crucified for no good solid reason. But in the crucifixion there is HOPE and ultimately RESSURRECTION and ASCENSION and faith in the SECOND COMING and A FINAL DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE.
Certainly post biblical readings (and biblical readings also–the Psalms can be comforting and Proverbs educating–but they also talk about sadness and lack of faith and asking for faith–and we know that Saul did divination and David committed adultery even after knowing God and committed murder to do the adultery–they also asked for faith and lost faith. Peter lost faith and while did not betray like Judas he did not want to admit he knew Jesus and acted like he was someone else. But in Catholic readings John of the Cross talks about the now much talked about Dark Night of the Soul–and Padre Pio talks about blasphemous thoughts—should we start talking aboug St. Augustine or St. Terese of Lisieux.
The reason the media and our culture may be so interested in this is that they are influenced, perhaps subconsciosly or uninentionally through culture, by Calvin and a cult of success and a view of Christianity tied into middle class living at a US Modern standard and a positive thinking message (which is not all bad) with Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, Oral Roberts, and even Pat Robertson.
As well as an occultic (perhaps) and New Age message of Self Help through Napolean Hill, Matz, Gawain, Silva, Tony Robbins, and now the Secret.
(I did not put Steven Covey while he is influenced by this and believes in visualization and positive thinking–he is a Mormon and also believes in a Aristotle/Aquinas like (or lite) Natural Law)
Lastly, some friends of mine in Opus Dei (which I am pro but disagree here) believe that natural virtue is a sign of being open to supernatural virtue and they build on each other (with heavy influences from Plato and less so Aristotle). There is a practice, among some, in Opus Dei to recruit from the honor roll (admitted to me by a director) because they are already disciplined and have human virtue. A former director of a residence (another one) told me that business success was a sign of virtue (and I agree to a point) and how he liked Japanese students because of their natural virtue (as did St. Francis Xavier although he also later made other less PC cultural observations).
I believe that salvation and “recruiting” is more of a “surprise” and that while discipline and natural virtue are important and good–and I like Aristolte and there is much Truth that the Church has embraced–that the Gospel message is a surprise–the First will be last and the last will be First–Blessed are poor and meek–not the Harvard MBA or the best students. God used people that did not seem the best to create great miracles. There can be a cult of success in Catholicism. Opus Dei may sometimes be guilty of this (although not universally and they do great work) Similiarly, some Traditional Catholics in their desire for Monarchy (which is logically justified and an argument can be made) or desire for the Habsburg Monarchy become obsessed with aestethics and liturgy at the expense perhaps of interior conversion. They are focused on the Royal Blood Line of the Holy Family and not the humbleness and humanness. A man in prison is equal to the Emporer of the Holy Roman Empire in the eyes of God.
The US/American cult of success can be inspiring and enabling.
But it is only part of life and is not the ultimate answer of the Christian life.
This whole debate on on faith and doubt reminds me of the Ingrid Bergman black and white film in Swedish with English subtitles called the Seventh Seal. I think Bergman was or is Swedish.
A Swedish Crusader, who was filled with faith and zeal–returns from the Crusades to find the Plague and Black Death and he loses his faith in God. The thought that there might not be a God is unbearable to him. Death comes to him and they have a game of chess. He wants proof of the existence of God. The death from the Crusades and the Plague in Europe make him lose his faith. Death (not the Devil) asks him (in Swedish): “Do you ever stop questioning?” and he responds “No, I never stop”.
I always liked the movie and thought it was profound. I think it is applicable here.
I think the term would be existenstialism.
Pope John Paul II I think used the term Christian existentialism and liked Juan de la Cruz and his Dark Night of the Soul (which is being talked about a lot after the “revelations” of Mother Teresa–but I wonder how many people have read the Dark Night or understand?
anyone remember the Bergman movie?
anyone think it is applicable here?
Okay, let’s try a three-in-one response:
Mary,
I’ve already explained why I think publishers would still pay writers even absent copyright. Please see my previous comments (e.g. August 28 at 6:40).
You use the fruits of someone else’s labor (their writing) every time you read this blog, everytime you borrow a book from a friend, and whenever you listen to the radio or watch TV without listening to the commercials. Do you think that if someone watches TV she is morally obligated to watch the commercials?
Mary Kay,
I’m not sure I get the reference to vandalism, but as I said to Ed Peters, I’m fuly aware that copyright laws exist. The question is whether they should. If we were back in the 1920s, and you were arguing for the repeal of prohibition, it would not be a compelling argument for me to point out that alcohol was in fact illegal.
If you think that Ed Peter’s argument from natural justice is compelling, perhaps you could respond to my objection to it. If Ed’s argument is right, why wouldn’t that make libraries and reselling books immoral?
MIss Jean,
Not only do I think it’s okay to copy someone else’s ideas, it is essential. How else are ideas to be spread if they are not to be copied?
Suppose that in the example you give, instead of being visited by a Peeping Tom, you are visited by the lawyer for a different motorcycle company. They claim that your product infringes on a previous patent that they hold. True, their patent is very technical and vague, it would take a team of lawyers to figure out what it means, but they are willing to litigate the matter to the hilt.
The difference between my example and yours is that mine happens quite often.
Plagerism is a separate issue, as it involves fraud. Etc.
Blackadder,
If you think that Ed Peter’s argument from natural justice is compelling, perhaps you could respond to my objection to it.
Perhaps you could be so kind as to specify which of the 97 comments is your objection to Ed Peters’ compelling argument. Thanks.
btw, I’ll have to check this, but apparently a small amount is forwarded to an author when his book is borrowed from the library. It’s ture that doesn’t happen with re-sale.
Tommorrow for anything else.
guys, blackadder is pulling our leg. he either doesn’t get it (in which case he needs assistance beyond what he can get in blog setting), or he won’t get it, (in which case we wasting our time.)
i’ve been in these kind of combox exchanges before, this one gives every sign of being a waste. kind regards, all.
Actually, Blackadder, the difference is that when you’re reading supposedly FREE articles on the Internet, the authors are supplying free content to the readers. You know, like radio does. Or TV you watch on the airwaves. People who write for those programs get paid via sponsors or viewers (yay, fundraising drives!) I could use this entire combox to explain the money that exchanges hands between advertisers and programmers, between cable companies and networks, but it doesn’t matter. You don’t care.
Maybe you’re the kind of lawyer who doesn’t bill your hours of work that you put into building a case. After all, that’s just gathering facts and anyone can do that. Facts are free, right? Maybe you only get paid for the hours you’re actually in court. No doubt if your client doesn’t pay you, that’s fine because the truth should be free and it is essential that no one have to pay for the truth to come out. Good for you.
However, if I write something, I solicit money for the right to print it. I don’t give my stories and poems and interviews away. They aren’t opinions (like these posts), which everyone and their mom gives to anyone who will listen or read. They aren’t ideas that everyone gets through general observation. They don’t pay very much unless I’m lucky enough to get reprints (and I don’t sell my reprint rights BTW). So when another magazine or newspaper picks up my story and uses it, they need to pay me. And they need to acknowledge that I wrote it, not leaving the by-line off like it’s some urban legend. It takes me days and sometimes weeks to do a story, so I need to at least make enough to cover transportation, etc.
And, just to be clear, copyright DOES expire. And limited reproduction of copyrighted work is acceptable for educational purposes. And etcetera. But this isn’t the forum to explain copyright, is it? If you want to go into detail, Blackadder, I’ll give you my e-mail address. And I’ll bill you. 😉
Suppose you’re a bookstore and I give you a choice: you can have a book to sell in March, when it first comes out, or you can wait and not get it until June. Oh, and you should know that your competitor down the street will be getting it in March. Which would you pick?
I’d simply find another publisher who’d promptly hand me truckloads of the republished book to sell within days. In one day, a printing press can put out tens of thousands of copies and they can be bound overnight. In four days it can be delivered to half the country. This is what happens today in countries where copyright is not protected.
Well, where to start…
Standard royalty rates that I provide authors are between 12% and 18% of net sales. (i.e. if the books ship to the bookstore but are returned unsold they do not count as sales.) Ed Peters analogy is actually quite accurate as some fiction/non-fiction royalties are closer to 10% but rarely lower (unless the publisher ran over you during the contract phase, which rarely happens to such an excessive degree.)
I have provided advances from as little as $1,000 and as much as $500,000 to a single author. They are paid in advance based on our best educated guess of the eventual sales revenue of the book minus us covering our bet a bit. These advances are recouped in royalties until they are paid off in which time the author receive additional royalty.
The copyright is held by the publisher. It is not SOLD to the publisher, it is standard practice since the publisher assumes all risk.
If as an author you want to receive real revenue, sign with a publisher. If you are an academic writing on an obscure topic and simply want a wide audience, post your material to an open source (hopefully, peer-reviewed) site and have it delivered via the web.
If you want an terribly poor version of your ideas to hit the marketplace, publish and print it yourself through a “self-publisher” and retain the copyright. My response to 99% of the population who chooses to do this is next time get an editor and a publisher. If you cannot get either, start a blog, because your work is not ready for the marketplace of ideas. (even Jimmy, I assume, would agree that he shouldn’t take an unedited edition of all his writings on his blog and throw them into a book.) I have read Jimmy’s books, they are better written and I assume at least copyedited.
Too much of Blackadder (sic) comments discuss non-copyrighted material that is open to multiple publishers. Most contracts between authors and publishers do not allow for competitive signings and publication of the same material. Historic material that is being used by Blackadder (sp) to prove his point is another conversation altogether and has little to do with the primary points exhibited in this combox.
I also agree with whoever stated that this combox has gone way off topic.
Correction: Jimmy’s blog is certainly ready for the marketplace of ideas (as it is certainly promoting them here.)
My point is know your medium and treat it with respect. How you express yourself in a blog, combox, email, or letter is different than how you would publish a book.
But this is a side discussion to overall conversation. Sorry I didn’t preview that – Jimmy, no offense intended.
Mary,
Try the August 29 comment at 1:16.
As Horatio seems to work in publishing and says that a 10% royalty is typical, I accept correction on the point.
I am serious when I say that I don’t think copyright is a matter of natural justice and that I don’t think it’s necessary to support authors. However, it’s late, and I don’t have the time and energy at this point to respond to every objection that’s been raised (and, quite frankly, I don’t much like the insulting tone of some of the more recent comments). I may try to address some of them tomorrow, if I have time.
I’ve already explained why I think publishers would still pay writers even absent copyright. Please see my previous comments (e.g. August 28 at 6:40).
You offer scenarios that did not occur in the past, and do not occur now, when there are no copyright protections, that have, in fact, never occurred. It’s like arguing that a “health” exception to prohibiting abortion would kick in only the woman’s health was in serious danger. We know that what you describe is not what has happened, or what is happening, and therefore we conclude it won’t happen.
Blackadder, I apologize if my comments appeared insulting. It was not my intention.
I do work and enjoy working in publishing. That said, it does not make my arguments for copyright as an extension of natural law/justice any more valid than yours against it. This context is new territory for me. While I am not persuaded by your arguments thus far, it is not to say I assume authority over this aspect of our discussion.
This whole debate on on faith and doubt reminds me of the Ingrid Bergman black and white film in Swedish with English subtitles called the Seventh Seal. I think Bergman was or is Swedish.
IngMAR Bergman…
As sent to me by a good friend who is Indian and Hindu, Aarti is a HINDU ritual!! Whether it is Shiva or Aarti, both are Hindu and both are pagan!
http://www.saranam.com/guide/?n=Puja.DefinitionOfPuja
DefinitionOfPuja
There are several Hindu Rituals and Practices: The primary Hindu rituals can be defined: Aarti, Bhajan, Darshan, Mantra, Puja, Satsang, Stotra and Yagna
Aarti
Aarti, Arti, arathi, or Arati is a Hindu ritual in which light from wicks soaked in ghee (purified butter) or camphor is offered to one or more deities. It may be said to have descended from the Vedic concept of fire rituals, or homa. The word may also refer to the traditional Hindu devotional song that is sung in the ritual of the same name.
Aarti is generally performed twice or three times daily. For example, in the morning and in the evening, and at the end of a puja or bhajan session.
Aarti in Hindu temples
In mandirs (Hindu temples) aarti is performed daily by pujaris (priests). There is usually a ‘mangala-arati’ first thing in the morning, another later in the morning, one at lunchtime, and the final arati of the day at sundown.
The assembled devotees in the temple sing various types of kirtana and bhajans during the arati ceremony. The pujari performing arati first purifies his hands with sacred water from the acamana cup. He then sprinkles three spoonfuls of water over a conch, and blows it three times. He then lights an odd number of incense sticks (usually three) from a ghee lamp standing beside the altar. While ringing a small bell, he waves it seven times around the deities, and then he waves it once to the assembled devotees.
The pujari next lights a five-wick ghee lamp from the large lamp and offers it; four circles to the deities’ feet, two to their navel, three to their face, and then he waves it seven times around the deities’ whole bodies. He then gives it to another devotee, who presents the lamp to each devotee in the temple room. When offered the ghee lamp, devotees touch the flame with their hands, and then touch their hands to their foreheads.
The pujari then takes a smaller conch and fills it with water. He offers it by waving it three times around the deities’ heads and seven times around their bodies. He then pours the water into a shaker; which another devotee takes and walks around the temple room shaking it, ensuring that everyone has been touched by the water.
The next item offered is a cloth, offered seven times around the deities. After the cloth has been offered, the pujari takes a plate with flowers on it and offers it seven times around the deities’ bodies. The plate is then taken by another devotee and offered to the rest of the devotees, who each sniff the flowers.
After that, the pujari takes a camara (yak-tail whisk) from beside the altar and waves it before the deities, to keep the flies away from them. In warm weather, he will also wave a peacock fan before the deities.
Horatio,
That’s okay. I realize that the idea we could do without copyright sounds nutty at first. No doubt every objection and concern raised by the idea cannot be addressed in a single comments thread. If I had it to do over again, I would have tried to keep my comments more focused on the specific incident between Cardinal Wojtya and Ms. Fallaci, and on the idea that copyright isn’t required by natural justice, rather than getting sidetracked speculating on how a system without copyright might work.
>Aarti is a HINDU ritual!!
By that Fundie Prot Logic Christmas trees are Germanic Pagan rituals & Priests blessing wedding rings are Roman Pagan rituals.
You lost this argument John. Moving to another thread & pretending you where not refuted doesn’t make you right.
Aarti is secular.
Pope John XXIII and Paul VI got rid of the Tiaras because they were psychic and knew their successor Pope John Paul II would get the mark of Shiva and he needed room.
Not only do the Pope’s make claims to be primacy among Christians and Bishops but now–the Pope is the first among Hindus and the head priest of Shiva (and probably Vishnu and Brahma)
Lastly, no other cultures have incense, candles, purification ceremonies–and those that do that are not explicitly Christian or European are clearly demonic and pagan.
Blackadder,
and, quite frankly, I don’t much like the insulting tone of some of the more recent comments
How disingenuous, especially after insulting writers.
Blackadder, you have an opinion. A forcefully stated one, but still, an opinion. An opinion that can not be substantiated.
Ed Peters gave a compelling argument. I don’t see that you’ve made a substantial objection to his compelling argument. Nor do I see any substantial backing up of your claim that copyright somehow is not rooted in natural justice.
I asked you which of these posts is your objection to Ed’s argument. You did not answer. Nor did you respond to Miss Jean’s apt analogy that “Maybe you’re the kind of lawyer who doesn’t bill your hours of work that you put into building a case. After all, that’s just gathering facts and anyone can do that. Facts are free, right? Maybe you only get paid for the hours you’re actually in court. No doubt if your client doesn’t pay you, that’s fine because the truth should be free and it is essential that no one have to pay for the truth to come out.”
Of course, that’s assuming that you are indeed a lawyer and we have only Snowman’s comment saying so.
OTOH, re-reading your posts reminds me of a high school or college student who has a paper due and thinks it’s smart to pose as opposing copyright to troll for material for a paper that he then passes off as his own material.
That may or may not be you, but it’s as likely as a “lawyer” who got (at least) some facts wrong and hasn’t made a clear, concise, cogent argument.
Whichever you are, if you are Catholic, you could stand boning up on moral theology.
And as everyone needs to, deepen your own spiritual life as to what it means to follow the crucified Christ.
Mary Kay, great entry! Like I said the other day. His argument is not compelling. And it amounts to a lot of cape waiving. Whatever he’s selling, I’m not buying it. His thoughts do not have a biblical ring to them.
In the words of Stevie Nicks: “You can go your own way,” but it can get lonely out there. The bible is very clear, and it just takes an open heart to get it. God speaks to us through it. “A worker is worth his wages”
We are supposed to read God’s word, not mangle. I think this guy mangles it. Or maybe it’s a woman. You never know with call names.
Whatever happened to common decency? A writer deserves to be recompensed for his labor. And to get the best deal possible. You’ve got mouths to feed. Period.
Michael,
The Seventh Seal was a great movie. He kept Death occupied and saved a lot of others from an early death by doing so. Your entries deserve a good read. Wouldn’t you say the crusader won that game of chess?
Fr. Anthony De Mello once said “Faith is the capacity to doubt.” I find that encouraging.
Mary Kay,
First, I haven’t insulted writers. Please point me to what I said that makes you think I did.
Second, I did answer you when you asked about Ed Peter’s argument. See my comment posted on August 29th at 8:06. The original comment, again, was posted August 29th at 1:16.
Third, as I said last night (August 29th 8:23) I don’t have the time to respond to every single one of the many comments directed at me here. If you want my response to Miss Jean’s argument, it is this: whether I bill my clients for the time I spend on a case depends on what we agree to before hand. We may agree for him to pay me based on my time spent working on the case. Or we could agree that I am to be paid a fixed fee for provided a certain service, regardless of how much or how little time I spend providing that service. We could agree that I will work on a contingency fee basis, in which case I would get a percentage of any damages award if we win, but nothing if we lose. Or I might agree to take a case pro bono, in which case I wouldn’t get paid at all. I don’t consider any of these options to be the only one that is morally legitimate. All are fine, so long as that is what we agree to.
Finally, since by your own admission you know nothing about me, I would suggest that you not make judgments about the state of my moral and spiritual life.
Horatio,
I just went over some of your recent posts and find them informative. I think this forum has gone way off topic. I went back to the original article and saw where Fallaci contacted the Archdiocese in Poland and did make a request. So she contacted them. The then-Cardinal Wojtyla told his secretary to tell her it wasn’t customary to pay copyright fees. Does this change anything since the word “customary” was used? And a previous comment about not having addresses available or a New York phonebook doesn’t really matter. What say you?
Also, she laughed when she called him a bad guy and then went on to say he was “a great figure.” Sounds as though she didn’t hold a real grudge about it. When publishing, is this the general lay of the land?
since by your own admission you know nothing about me
You don’t know about the writing/publishing business but that didn’t stop you from voicing a strong opinion.
I would suggest that you not make judgments
I would suggest that you stop being so cavalier about others’ livelihood.
I haven’t insulted writers
Your view that writers are not entitled to full recompense for their work, your notion that writers are to be “supported” that in some way differs from other people who work – both are insulting to writers. Granted, not in your view. But “moral obligation” is not only your view. It is rooted in the deposit of faith.
Your response to Miss Jean highlights your choice. Two thoughts: One is that it is your choice whether or not you take a case pro bono, but the way you’d have it for writers is that they would have no choice. The second is that the fact that you can choose that the obligation not be met, that choice does not nullify the moral obligation itself.
I have to go back and see what your response to Ed was before continuing.
Esau and Smoky Mt, I just saw your comments. Be nice to me or I won’t let you drive in my pink Cad-dee-lac :^) (why anyone would want a pink car is beyond me)
Which comment wasn’t nice, Mary Kay?
IIRC, I just asked what you were writing…
Mary Kay,
The fact that I advocate a position *you* think would be harmful to writers does not mean that I have insulted writers. I think you owe me an apology.
Blackadder, I was about to say something about needing a second request for what you meant when I noticed that the 8:06 comment is addressed to “Mary.” There are two Mary’s and I go by Mary Kay. If the 8:06 post was addressed to me, I was unaware of it.
The 8:06 post is simply a variation of all your proposed scenarios. The underlying moral obligation is still present. There are factors that say whether it is met or not. Sometimes it is the choice of the worker to decline payment. Sometimes a social institution, such as a public library, is created to address certain needs, but that’s a modifier, not a nullifier, of intellectual property.
In my look back at the posts, I found this sentence in your 8/28, 3:44pm post: no one would ever think of treating them the way we treat other property rights.
The difference is that you think that the if they haven’t been treated the same as physical property rights, then they are “made up” and somehow less valid.
In contrast, I view it as an injustice that has finally been redressed. (or in process of being redressed)
You may have thought some of my words hard, yet look at how long it took to reach a point of discussion and the “less than thrilled with your idea” consensus.
Part of that is that your thinking on this is indeed somewhat muddled. You started out with the premise of no moral obligation, but you didn’t back it up with any of the standard sources of moral guidance. Instead, you used legal arguments. There’s a difference.
This has the potential for an interesting discussion, but as others have observed, it is tangential to Jimmy’s post. If you have a blog or a website to begin to sound this out, I’d travel over there, but probably not a lot at the moment.
Smoky Mt, yes you’re always nice. It was the first thing I thought of when your post caught my eye and meant to be teasing. Obviously I should not try to mix teasing when in the midst of a different kind of discussion. Sorry about that.
As for what I’m writing, I’m transitioning into an area that’s more technical writing but I did figure out story structure enough for two short stories when out of commission with my back.
Blackadder,
The fact that others on this thread do not share your view means that an apology is unwarranted.
Those of you who want to know Jimmy‘s view on the matter should look here.
Mary, thanks.
Mary Kay,
I must be misunderstanding you. Because to me it seems like you just said the fact most people in this thread disagree with me about copyright means that it’s okay to insult me.
You say that my “8:06 post is simply a variation of all [my] proposed scenarios.” But my 8:06 post is only eight words long. It says: “Mary, Try the August 29th comment at 1:16,” and was in answer to your question about my response to Ed Peters.
Perhaps you meant to refer to the 1:16 post and not the 8:06 one. If so, then I’m still a bit confused, as the 1:16 post contains not simply a variation of my proposed scenarios but consists of a counter-example to Mr. Peters’ argument that copyright is a matter of natural justice.
Mr. Peters’ argument was that an author would make less money if I made a bunch of copies of a book and then resold them, as the people who bought the book from me might otherwise have bought it through the original publisher. I pointed out that the same is true of me buying copies of his book and then renting them out (or lending them, or reselling them after I’ve read them).
This, by the way, is a moral argument, not a legal one. I don’t recall making any strictly legal arguments in this thread, which makes your claim that this is what I mainly did somewhat mysterious to me. I did make some economic arguments, but given that many people on this thread think that getting rid of copyright is morally objectionable precisely because of the economic effects they think this would have, I think such arguments are warranted.
I agree that things have gotten pretty far away from the original topic and that continued discussion of these matters here is not likely to be very fruitful. Besides which, if you really do think that the “consensus” against my point of view means it is okay to insult me (and I really hope that I have misread you on this), then I don’t think I’d want to discuss this matter with you further at all, regardless of the venue.
By the way, I agree with virtually everything that Jimmy says in the post linked to above. If writers didn’t get paid for writing books, there would be a lot less of them. Copyright is one way of seeing to it that this happens. Given that there are copyright laws, we have a moral obligation to obey them. Etc.
What Jimmy’s post doesn’t address is a) whether there are any alternate systems other than copyright that would ensure it could be profitable for writers to write books, or b) what our moral obligations would be if there were no copyright laws. It’s understandable that he wouldn’t address these subjects as they were outside the scope of his post. How he would have answered these questions had he addressed them I don’t know.
I know next to nothing about copyright law, and I know we’re totally off-topic here.
That being said, I am involved in music, and am aware of composers who have a work published by a certain publisher, who publishes it for a while and then it goes out of print. At this point, the composer is totally in limbo, since he cannot publish the piece himself, but the publisher is just letting it sit in a warehouse somewhere.
This seems like a problem with at least the current system of copyright law.
Continuing off-topic, but perhaps not against Jimmy’s rules, I will will address three points made (I hope I can provide some clarity and not further confusion).
Michele P. –
The Western vs. Communist country interpretation of copyright law is a relevant issue in this conversation. The to-be Pope’s reference to customary laws is assumed consistent with the written laws of communist Poland. So, if you have no law, you have no law to follow. How moral/natural law plays into this is not something I can speak to directly, but the Cardinal was apparently within his rights (or limited rights w/in communism) to decline royalty. Being a broad thinker, he should probably have granted her royalty outside the law of his morally-poor nation, but the good of open thought brought to a Communist nation is beyond monetary compensation.
Blackadder –
How an author is protected or compensated without copyright is beyond me. Though I would be intrigued by your explanation.
JH –
Most book contracts have dual responsibility. If the author doesn’t produce or doesn’t produce in an acceptable fashion to the publisher, the contract is cancelled.
But, if the Publisher accepts but does not publish the material, or fails to keep it in print, or fails to publish revisions of the work, then the rights generally return to the author without penalty. It is usually in reference to “good faith” exectution of the conditions in the contract.
I don’t know much about music, but a writer does have options to pursue in the event the publisher shelves their project.
I hope some of this helps.
Blackadder, I did not insult you. Please point out where you think I insulted you.
and I really hope that I have misread you on this
You’ve misread me big time.
This, by the way, is a moral argument
Yet you have not made a single reference to any of the standard guides for moral behavior.
Whatever in your mind makes a point a “strictly legal” one, your arguments have had a legalistic tone, although my brain isn’t sufficiently up and running to find examples in the hundred plus posts.
I did run across this statement of yours:
If getting rid of copyright means getting rid of people who are in it for the money, then I’m not sure I see the problem.
That’s a very curious statement. Could you give some examples of writers who you think are “in it for the money?”
That being said, I am involved in music, and am aware of composers who have a work published by a certain publisher, who publishes it for a while and then it goes out of print. At this point, the composer is totally in limbo, since he cannot publish the piece himself, but the publisher is just letting it sit in a warehouse somewhere.
This seems like a problem with at least the current system of copyright law.
No, it’s a bad contract. Writers are told all the time to make sure that their contracts contain a clause about going out of print.
And there was just a to-do about a publisher trying to say that there is no lower limit to the number of copies they can sell in a period without the book being out of print. Writers revolted. The publisher backed down.
If getting rid of copyright means getting rid of people who are in it for the money, then I’m not sure I see the problem.
Let’s stop paying doctors. That will get rid of the doctors who are in it for the money.
What Jimmy’s post doesn’t address is a) whether there are any alternate systems other than copyright that would ensure it could be profitable for writers to write books, or b) what our moral obligations would be if there were no copyright laws.
You omit his comment “That natural law basis means that we aren’t morally free to ignore it.”
Mary Kay,
In your August 30th comment at 9:30 you said that I was being disingenuous, said I had insulted writers when I hadn’t, speculated that I might be high school or college student trolling for ideas for a paper, and made judgments about my moral and spiritual life. When I asked you not to do this your responses were “I would suggest that you stop being so cavalier about others’ livelihood” and “[t]he fact that others on this thread do not share your view means that an apology is unwarranted.” I figured you couldn’t really mean that it was okay to insult me because I held an unpopular view, but your words did seem to indicate this.
As for the quote you cite, here is the context. Speculating about the effect of a non-copyright regime on publishing, I predicted that:
“Publishers would publish more copies of the really popular books (which would therefore be quite cheap) and less of the less popular ones (which would be more expensive). At the margins, there might be some people who couldn’t make a living at writing under the new system, but that this would lead to less overall quality in books is not at all clear. In fact, there have been plenty of artists who pretty much didn’t get paid for their work at all, as they were not published until after they were dead. If getting rid of copyright means getting rid of people who are in it for the money, then I’m not sure I see the problem.”
I’m less confident about this prediction than I was a couple of days ago. I now think it’s just as likely that getting rid of copyright would tend to benefit less popular writers at the expense of more popular ones (for reasons it would take me too long to explain right now). In any event, I don’t see how anything I said here constitutes an insult to writers.
Perhaps an analogy would make this clear. I think that we should get rid of farm subsidies. I recognize that without subsidies, some farmers would go out of business (while others would be able to make a decent living whereas they couldn’t before). Still, despite the fact that some people might no longer be able to be successful farmers, I think the overall benefit to the country and to farming would be positive. And I think that if a person is a farmer because he wants to make money, then it is no great loss if he has to make money in some other line of work. Have I insulted farmers? I don’t think so.
No one is entitled to make a living as farmer, or as a writer, or as anything else for that matter. I have a friend who wrote a novel. He spent four years on it; poured his heart and soul into it. So far, he hasn’t been able to find a publisher. I hope that he does, but I don’t for a second think (and neither does he and neither do you) that he has a right to be paid for his book simply because he put a lot of time and effort into it. If he can’t sell his work for enough to make a living doing so, then he needs to find another source of income. Saying this is no insult to him.
I don’t know what you mean by “the standard guides of moral behavior” but as this post is already far too long, I’ll let it pass.
So far, he hasn’t been able to find a publisher. I hope that he does, but I don’t for a second think (and neither does he and neither do you) that he has a right to be paid for his book simply because he put a lot of time and effort into it.
But he does have a right to expect, it seems to me, that if anyone gets paid for his work, it will be him (or whoever he agrees should be paid). And that right, it again seems to me, is grounded in the natural law.
“But he does have a right to expect, it seems to me, that if anyone gets paid for his work, it will be him (or whoever he agrees should be paid).”
Again, it this is right, it would seem to mean that it’s immoral to resell a book (without compensating the author or at least getting his agreement).
Also, copyrights last only for a set period of time, after which anyone may republish a work without getting the permission of or paying compensation to the author or her heirs. If what you say is right, then this would seem to be unjust.
should be “if this is right” not “it this is right”
Again, if this is right, it would seem to mean that it’s immoral to resell a book (without compensating the author or at least getting his agreement).
Also, copyrights last only for a set period of time, after which anyone may republish a work without getting the permission of or paying compensation to the author or her heirs. If what you say is right, then this would seem to be unjust.
I don’t believe that the existence or non-existence of copyright laws, or the specific terms thereof, are necessarily just or unjust, anymore than re-selling a book is necessarily just or unjust.
The premise of copyright laws, I believe, is that without them it will be very hard (if not impossible) for authors to reap the fruits of their labors if they may be copied immediately and without compensation. That is a natural law issue, or perhaps simply a matter of natural justice, if you prefer.
That interest is significantly lessened as time passes, which explains (at least in part) why the expiration of a copyright is not necessarily unjust or contrary to natural law. I would also expect that re-selling is a comparatively small market, and therefore does not necessarily interfere with the ability of an author to get just compensation for his work. (At the same time, I do not think it would be necessarily unjust for a legal system to forbid re-selling without compensation within its copyright scheme.)
Esquire,
It sounds like you are making a social utility argument in favor of copyrights. If writers were not compensated for their work, they wouldn’t write in the first place. Copyright is necessary to ensure that sufficient number of writers do get paid for their work. Therefore copyright is justified because of the benefit society receives from having so much more valuable writing works.
If this is not what you mean, let me know. If it is what you mean, I’d say that your argument, while plausible, has a false assumption, namely that there are no alternatives to a copyright system that would provide a sufficient incentive for writers to ply their craft. Rather that reiterating what I’ve said on the subject before, let me direct you to the following paper that deals with the alternatives issue in more depth:
http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/cole1.html
Here’s the thing… if we don’t have copyright laws, then we need some other system to make sure writers, artists and others get compensated fairly for their work. And this alternate system would be…? Anyone? Bueller?
In light of the fact that we have no other widely accepted, workable system, copyright law, as such, does become a natural law issue.
Banning the reselling of books would just be unworkable (creating an illegal black market) as well as unreasonable. If I have a book, and then I sell it to someone, I no longer have access to the book. I have given up something, which the buyer has aquired. The writer has already benefited from that particular book, just as car companies benefit from the sale of cars only once.
Also, the buyer of a used book gives up certain things in the interest of saving money. He has to wait until used copies are available and he generally has to be content with goods that are worn or damaged to some extent or other. Some readers do horrible things to books, like break the spines, or write in the margins, or fold the corners. “Near Mint” copies cost more.
I simply don’t see how libraries are inherently unjust. Copyright law benefits both society and the author, but libraries do, too. An educated populace will (on the whole) read (and buy) more books, creating more work for writers. They will also – hopefully – develop a little taste, so that better writers will be more in demand.
Okay, I cross-posted with Blackadder.
I’ll follow the link later and find out more about these alternates to copyright law, but right now I gots work to do.
Blackadder, if “insult” is in the eye of those who perceive it, then what you saw as insult and what I saw as insult are equally valid. You think you have good reasons for your statements. I also think I have good reasons for my statements.
speculated that I might be high school or college student trolling
I said that your posts reminded of said students. It does happen that people misrepresent who they are. On another thread, someone presented himself as Russian Orthodox. While he may or may not be the fundamentalist Protestant that he sounds like, he most certainly is not Russian Orthodox. So yes, especially in the early posts of someone whose name I don’t recognize, there is speculation. There’s a loosey goosey slipperiness aspect of your argument that reminded me of others who have used slippery arguments.
Perhaps it was your insistence on the aspect of moral obligation that led me to the assumption that you were Catholic. There are several non-Catholics who are regulars here, but state that clearly.
and made judgments about my moral and spiritual life
What I said was that if you were Catholic you could stand boning up on your moral theology. That was because you had made it a question of moral obligation but did not reference any standard moral guidance. I would not have made that statement to someone I knew was non-Catholic.
I would suggest that you stop being so cavalier about others’ livelihood”
This echoed your statement to show you that it goes both ways. You strongly voiced an opinion based on little information. What I said was in response to a combination of what you said and my coming from a Catholic perspective.
I looked at the Acton site and although it appears to have some Catholic input, it clearly does not come wholly from a Catholic perspective.
With the information that I have now, I would have said it differently. But I did not know then what I do now.
“[t]he fact that others on this thread do not share your view means that an apology is unwarranted.”
Since I was unaware of what you perceived was insulting, on what basis would I connect your unpopular view with “okay to insult you?”
btw, as you apparently don’t know me yet, my intention in combox discussions is more for a greater understanding of Catholicism than scoring debate points. (thinking of others, not you) I have no desire or intetion of insulting you. When I do make sharper comments, it’s because there’s a point too important to play around with. In addition to copyright, there’s the larger issue of on what basis does one discuss moral issues.
Going to part 2 since this is long.
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that you and I are not on the same page and that has been part of what’s happened. Your statement that “no one is entitled to make a living” at a particular livelihood is very different from my view that God gives each of us a purpose to fulfill, a specific task. It’s not a matter of being “entitled” to do that work.
The rest of your paragraph about your friend is responding to something I haven’t said.
I don’t know what you mean by “the standard guides of moral behavior”
Yes, I realize that now.
I skipped the middle paragraphs about the various economic and/or marketing scenarios because they don’t tell me anything about moral obligation, either yes or no.
I’d say that your argument, while plausible, has a false assumption, namely that there are no alternatives to a copyright system that would provide a sufficient incentive for writers to ply their craft.
Nice try.
What you have been arguing is
Copyright laws strike me as being more a matter of positive law than natural right, and in the absence of any laws saying that you must pay for publishing a particular literary work, I don’t see that there would be any moral obligation to do so.
You have not asserted that copyright is one of many methods to ensure writers are paid for their work. You have asserted that morally there is no need for anyone to pay writers anything for the use of their work.
I went to the link. It offered precisely NO valid arguments.
One it offered, for instance, is that publishers will go on publishing works that don’t succeed because they can’t pick out which one will succeed and the only disadvantage is that they won’t get as much money for the ones that do. A quick glance at real, live scenarios shows that this grossly underestimates the ability of other publishers to exploit the successful books of the first publisher.
In fact, under this scenario, not only the writer, but the editor who pulled the book from the slush, the copy editor who proof-read it, the publicity agent who advertized are ALL treated as not “worthy of their hire.”
Having read the article Blackadder posted to, I don’t see how it addresses copyright in anything but the broadest economic terms. It does not really go into the question from the perspective of the creator of a piece of work.
“…I don’t for a second think… that he has a right to be paid for his book simply because he put a lot of time and effort into it.”
“But he does have a right to expect… that if anyone gets paid for his work, it will be him”
Exactly. If I paint a picture, I may never get paid for doing it, which is all fine… but if ANYONE is to be paid for it, it should durn well be me who is paid FIRST.
That is not to say I have to be paid MORE than anyone associated with a particular work of mine. If someone comes along who is able to distribute my work to a wide audience, I might realistically expect that they will make more (perhaps FAR more) off that project than I will, as they likely will be taking quite a financial risk in order to make such distribution possible.
Those with the means to distribute/reproduce works don’t have the right, though, to distribute whatever they like without buying permission to do so.
It sounds like you are making a social utility argument in favor of copyrights. If writers were not compensated for their work, they wouldn’t write in the first place.
No. There is a social utilitarian argument for copyrights, but that is not my point. My point is simpler. If someone works, and their work has value, they should get paid fairly for it.
Someone may come up with a better system to ensure that happens. I haven’t seen it yet.
Tim,
Let’s separate two ideas. First, “if ANYONE is to be paid for [a written work], it should durn well be [the writer] who is paid FIRST.”
I agree with this, more or less. A writer has the right not to publish what he has written, and if he is not willing to publish without getting paid, then it would be wrong for anyone to publish his work without first paying him what he demands.
Second, “[t]hose with the means to distribute/reproduce works don’t have the right, though, to distribute whatever they like without buying permission to do so.”
This does not follow from the first idea, nor do I think it is right. Even under the current copyright system, it’s not true that no one can distribute/reproduce works without buying permission to do so. If I buy a copyrighted work, I am allowed to give that work to someone else, sell it to someone else, make copies of the work, give copies to other people (so long as I don’t do it on a mass scale or for profit), include small portions of that work in my own work (so long as I fall within the “fair use” exception to copyright), and once a certain number of years has passed, I can make and sell as many copies of the work as I want. Either these these exceptions are all illegitimate, or the principle is false, at least as stated.
“If someone works, and their work has value, they should get paid fairly for it.”
If you mean “value” in the economic sense, then I agree. But in that case the value of work is determined by what people are willing to pay for it.
If, on the other hand, you mean value in some other sense, then I probably don’t agree. In my view, there are few things more valuable than prayer. I can also testify that prayer can take a lot of time, effort, and energy, in short, a lot of work. But I don’t think people should be paid to pray, or that they have a right to compensation whenever they pray. Raising kids also takes a lot of work, and few could doubt that it is a real benefit to society that parents do so. Yet we do not pay parents to raise their kids, and I do not think this constitutes an injustice. Same with art. If I paint the world’s most beautiful painting, and no one is willing to buy it from me, this may not speak well of the taste of modern society, but it isn’t an injustice.
Mary,
“You have not asserted that copyright is one of many methods to ensure writers are paid for their work.”
I have asserted that repeatedly. I understand if you don’t find what I say convincing, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t say it.
“You have asserted that morally there is no need for anyone to pay writers anything for the use of their work.”
In all cases? No. In some cases? Yes. If someone steals my manuscript and publishes it, then that is wrong. But if someone does what Cardinal Wojtyla did, then that isn’t wrong.
Mary Kay,
I don’t think that insults are in the eye of the beholder (for example, if I’m insulted whenever someone says the phrase “in the eye of the beholder” this is my problem, not the problem of people who use the phrase). But it’s not worth arguing about.
Perhaps you might do me the favor of telling me what you mean by “the standard guides for moral behavior” and how it is that others in this discussion have made reference to these guides while I haven’t.
Blackadder, the exceptions you outlined rather prove the rule than disprove it.
Also, please keep in mind that I said;
“[t]hose with the means to distribute/reproduce works don’t have the right… to distribute WHATEVER THEY LIKE without buying permission to do so.”…
Which is true. They MAY publish SOME things without permission – and these categories are legally defined – but in general, arrangements must be made. If you OWN the copyright and decide to give it away, that is your business, of course, but it doesn’t make the copyright worthless. Public domain is all fine, a reasonable time after the artist is dead.
I completely agree that no artist (or writer or whatever) is entitled to get paid for their work… unless someone wishes to see it. I believe I made that pretty clear. Society doesn’t OWE me a living as an artist.
However, if you want my work to hang on your wall (or sit on your bookshelf) – or if you want to provide my work to others – morally, you OWE me compensation.
Lest we forget the original point:
Not only did the Communist government of Poland refuse to recognize Western copyrights, they also refused to allow money to leave the country. You could not exchange zloty for Western currency without (a) official permission or (b) going through the black market. The Catholic Church was obviously not going to get official permission to pay for documents that the regime deemed subversive; the Church wasn’t even supposed to publish them. And the black market was fraught with perils of its own, including a truly ruinous exchange rate and the constant risk of confiscation and arrest by the secret police.
In effect, the only way Cardinal Wojtyla could have paid Ms. Fallaci would be to (illegally) set up a Polish bank account in her name and fill it with Polish currency that she would never be able to spend. The droit moral of copyright is important indeed, but it’s hard to see any point in enforcing the principle through such a futile exercise.
the Church wasn’t even supposed to publish them
But the Church did publish them. So if they could publish them, why couldn’t they pay her (or someone on her behalf) in some way?
the only way Cardinal Wojtyla could have paid Ms. Fallaci would be to (illegally) set up a Polish bank account in her name and fill it with Polish currency that she would never be able to spend
Yet they found a way to publish it.
Yes, the Church in Poland found a way to publish it. The Church in Poland had no way of getting the proceeds (if any) out of the country. And it would hardly be just to expect Catholics in other countries to pay the cost of providing Ms. Fallaci with royalties for Polish editions of her work.
I find it rather bizarre that you appear to think they should have paid a royalty that was forbidden under Polish law to publish a work that was also forbidden under Polish law, in order to satisfy the copyright laws of countries that had nothing to do with the publication.
And you still haven’t explained what good a bank account full of zloty would be to Ms. Fallaci while the Iron Curtain lasted.
“You have asserted that morally there is no need for anyone to pay writers anything for the use of their work.”
In all cases? No.
Yes. In all cases.
You have asserted the right springs from positive law rather than moral right, and therefore is not morally obligatory.
The Church in Poland had no way of getting the proceeds (if any) out of the country… And you still haven’t explained what good a bank account full of zloty would be to Ms. Fallaci while the Iron Curtain lasted.
Please Tom, you don’t know your history. In Poland, “Real wages rose 40% between 1971 and 1975, and for the first time most Poles could afford to buy cars, televisions and other consumer goods. Poles living abroad, veterans of the Armia Krajowa and the Polish Armed Forces in the West, were invited to return and to invest their money in Poland, which many did. The peasants were subsidized to grow more food. Poles were able to travel — mainly to West Germany, Sweden and Italy — with little difficulty.”
“For the rest of the 1970s, resistance to the regime grew, in the form of trade unions, student groups, clandestine newspapers and publishers, imported books and newspapers, and even a “flying university”. The regime made no serious attempt to suppress the opposition. Gierek was interested only in buying off dissatisfied workers and keeping the Soviet Union convinced that Poland was a loyal ally.”
Yes, Poles living abroad were invited to invest their money in Poland. Poles living in Poland were not, as a rule, under the same invitation to send their money out of the country.
And none of this alters the fact that the publication was illegal under Polish law. (So were the clandestine newspapers and publishers, the imported books and newspapers, and the rest. That the regime tolerated them, or at least was unable to stop them, doesn’t alter the fact.) Or the fact that Polish law at that time did not recognize Western copyrights.
But I do accept your correction in the matter of dates. The article linked is rather fuzzy, saying only that the publication occurred in the 1970s. If it was in the period you cited, 1971-75, your case is of course much stronger. I had been thinking of conditions a little later, when the economy was far less buoyant and the regime became less tolerant.
You have asserted the right springs from positive law rather than moral right, and therefore is not morally obligatory.
In fairness, copyright was historically established as a matter of positive law, and the rationale given was utilitarian and not based upon an assertion of moral right. The earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors. Samuel Johnson fought a bitter campaign against copyright in England for that very reason, but was, as we know by the sequel, defeated.
And none of this alters the fact that the publication was illegal under Polish law.
Are you saying “the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of Krakow, Poland, led by then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla” committed a crime?
copyright was historically established as a matter of positive law, and the rationale given was utilitarian and not based upon an assertion of moral right. The earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors.
“England’s Statute of Anne (1710) is widely regarded as the first copyright law. The statute’s full title was “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.” This statute first accorded exclusive rights to authors (ie, creators) rather than publishers”
“Modern copyright has been influenced by an array of older legal rights that have been recognized throughout history, including the moral rights of the author who created a work, the economic rights of a benefactor who paid to have a copy made, the property rights of the individual owner of a copy, and a sovereign’s right to censor and to regulate the printing industry.”
Are you saying “the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of Krakow, Poland, led by then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla” committed a crime?
I’m saying it published what the Party regarded as seditious documents. This was not a crime but a political offence — which, under what passed for law in Communist regimes, was far more serious.
This was not a crime but a political offence
You said it was “illegal” not just offensive.
By the way, Algami, when you quotet from third-party sources, it’s both customary and helpful to actually name those sources.
But if you don’t think that the copyright law of 18th-century England redounded chiefly to the benefit of publishers rather than authors, I do suggest you check out what Dr. Johnson had to say on the subject. He was quite eloquent and plausible; his case was not airtight, but reasonably convincing — probabilis in the Latin sense. I myself was rather doctrinaire on the subject of intellectual property until I happened upon it; since, I have had definite doubts.
You said it was “illegal” not just offensive.
Anything deemed by the Party to be offensive was ipso facto illegal. It could even be made illegal retroactively; this was not, I believe, a regular practice in Poland, but it was S.O.P. in the Soviet Union for many years.
chiefly to the benefit of publishers rather than authors
Your prior claim was that “the earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors.” That was shown to be false and now you change your tune to “chiefly”.
Mary,
I said that *copyright* was a matter of positive law, and not of natural right. There is a difference between the right not to publish (which I think is a natural right steming out of man’s right to privacy and has long been recognized as such) and the rights protected by a copyright system. It is one thing to say that a person has the right not to publish his work if he wishes. It is quite another to say that if he does publish he has the right to receive compensation from anyone who publishes, distributes, reproduces, and/or reads his work.
Do you really want to argue with me about what my position is? That hardly seems sensible.
Anything deemed by the Party to be offensive was ipso facto illegal.
Then it was a crime.
Anything deemed by the Party to be offensive was ipso facto illegal.
Then it was a crime.
Not everything illegal is a crime. Under English common law and the systems derived from it, most illegal acts are classified not as crimes but as torts. Under the Code Napoléon and systems derived from it, a similar distinction obtains, though the terminology is quite different. Under Marxist legal theory, such as it is, virtually anything can be declared illegal and punished without having ever been formally defined as a criminal act.
In practice, persons guilty of what a Western country would recognize as crimes were punished as criminals. Persons guilty of political offences were punished much more severely. In the U.S.S.R. it was quite common to hand over political offenders to the mere criminals, large numbers of whom were employed as trusties in the Gulag. I am told that the trusties had some very inventive punishments. But the acts they were punishing were not crimes as defined by any honest legal system.
Your prior claim was that “the earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors.” That was shown to be false and now you change your tune to “chiefly”.
There is no change in my position, and you need not resort to high-school debating club tactics to try to discredit me. Nor have you shown anything to be false, except by careful proof-texting of a quotation from an uncredited source. That cuts no ice with me.
There is a difference between whom the laws were intended to benefit and whom they happened to benefit. I said quite clearly that they redounded chiefly to the benefit of publishers. Authors also happened to derive some benefit, but as Dr. Johnson argued (and I have reluctantly come to partially accept), the persons most responsible for the content of the Copyright Acts were not authors themselves and did not have authors’ interests foremost in their hearts.
Tim,
Here’s the thing. You seem to admit that it’s not always true that “if you want my work to hang on your wall (or sit on your bookshelf) – or if you want to provide my work to others – morally, you OWE me compensation.” You acknowledge that there are counter-examples to this principle, yet you still want to rely on the principle as the moral basis for copyright. This strikes me as being problematic.
If you want to say that the above principle is generally true but there are exceptions, I’m fine with that. But you have to tell me what justifies the exceptions.
Is it that the author can agree to these exceptions? They certainly can. But even if they don’t it makes no legal difference and I hope you would agree it makes no moral difference either. If an author says that he forbids anyone to read his books unless they personally buy the copy they are reading, this does not morally bind the reading public.
Is it that these exceptions are codified in law? But laws can be changed. Suppose the law was changed so that copyright protection extended only for one month. Would it then be morally permissible for someone to republish his work two months after initial publication? If not, why not? On what grounds do you distinguish limiting copyright to one month from limiting it to some longer period of time? If the answer is some variant on “because otherwise writers would not be able to make a living,” then we are back to a social utility argument.
I don’t know what document Algami was quoting from, but the Wikipedia article on the history of copyright seems to support Tom’s position. According to it, the first copyright protections were given to printers in Italy in the 15th century, and were not intended to benefit authors. In England the first copyright priviledge was given to a printer, Richard Pynson, in 1518, and early copyrights seem to have been given primarily to publishers at least until the Statute of Anne in 1709.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
It was posted:
“And none of this alters the fact that the publication was illegal under Polish law.
Are you saying “the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of Krakow, Poland, led by then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla” committed a crime?”
Hmmm…are these not the same dioceses with Bishop(s) APPOINTED by JPII whom it has been uncovered upwards of 20% of the priests and at least one confirmed Bishop collaborated with the communists who have NO God??
A stretch for you to believe??
You have asserted the right springs from positive law rather than moral right, and therefore is not morally obligatory.
In fairness, copyright was historically established as a matter of positive law, and the rationale given was utilitarian and not based upon an assertion of moral right.
I bet you that laws against harming slaves were historically based on utilitarian reason. Do you think that they therefore had no moral right?
I said that *copyright* was a matter of positive law, and not of natural right.
Balderdash. You said:
in the absence of any laws saying that you must pay for publishing a particular literary work, I don’t see that there would be any moral obligation to do so.
Blackadder –
I believe you have things backward. That is, I think copyright law (compensation for artists and writers, etc…) IS an adjunct of natural law, but I believe the *exceptions* to copyright law are built on social utilitarian concerns… that is, it would just be unworkable and impossible to enforce copyright laws beyond a certain point.
If there were a way to ensure that the creators of works would be compensated every time someone read or copied their work, that would be completely just (I don’t see how one could argue that), but such a system simply can’t happen in real life. The moral question is simple enough – “the worker is worth his wages” – but there comes a point where a system that attempts to enforce the ideal in an absolute sense becomes cumbersome and unreasonable.
As long as writers and artists can see a reasonable compensation for the enjoyment of their product by others, there is no pressing need to sweat the fact that they may be in some sense “cheated” out of some additional amount.
The details of such laws can be left to the courts, and artists and publishers can hammer out arrangements suitable enough to all parties. If I find a copy of Pascal’s “Pensées” on the side of the road, I am not going to lose any sleep over compensating all his living descendents for the experience of reading it. I don’t think anyone has said that. Still, if it were practical to do so, it might be the decent thing – the moral thing – to do. But the law was made for man, and not man for the law.
Under Marxist legal theory, such as it is, virtually anything can be declared illegal and punished without having ever been formally defined as a criminal act.
The English language formally defines what you describe to be crime:
crime
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
There is no change in my position… Nor have you shown anything to be false, except by careful proof-texting of a quotation from an uncredited source. That cuts no ice with me.
Your own claims cut no ice with the truth. FACT: You first claimed “the earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors.” FACT: In your subsequent claim, you inserted the word “chiefly.” One needn’t look to any third party source to see you changed your tune.
As to the “uncredited source,” it is widely accepted that the Statute of Anne is the world’s first copyright act. That, of course, doesn’t mean everyone agrees to that claim. Nonetheless, it and its subsequence case history are available for you to read. The Statute says “the author of any book… shall have the sole liberty of printing and reprinting such book.” Yes, there was a period of time subsequent to the passage of the law whereby publishers insisted the law was for their benefit and the lower courts supported them, but this was settled by 1774, in Donaldson v. Becket, which confirmed that the Statute of Anne indeed moved property rights in literary works away from publishers toward authors.
the Wikipedia article on the history of copyright seems to support Tom’s position. According to it, the first copyright protections were given to printers in Italy in the 15th century, and were not intended to benefit authors.
It expressly says the opposite: “England’s Statute of Anne (1710) is widely regarded as the first copyright law… This statute first accorded exclusive rights to authors (ie, creators) rather than publishers.”
As to Italian history, it says, “Most early Italian enactments in regard to literature were framed not so much with reference to the protection of authors as for the purpose of inducing printers (acting as publishers) to undertake certain literary enterprises which were believed to be important to the community.” Note that “most” is not the same as “the first” and “not so much” is not the same as “not intended to benefit authors.” For example, in 1486, author Antonio Sabellico, the historian to the republic, was given the sole right to publish his Decade of Venetian Affairs. In 1491, the Senate gave a similar right to Peter of Ravenna to print and sell his work The Phoenix. Such protections were generalized with the 1545 Venice decree of the Council of Ten which prohibited publication of an author’s work without proof of the author’s permission.
Let’s try this again without italics…
Under Marxist legal theory, such as it is, virtually anything can be declared illegal and punished without having ever been formally defined as a criminal act.
The English language formally defines what you describe to be crime:
crime
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
There is no change in my position… Nor have you shown anything to be false, except by careful proof-texting of a quotation from an uncredited source. That cuts no ice with me.
Your own claims cut no ice with the truth. FACT: You first claimed “the earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors.” FACT: In your subsequent claim, you inserted the word “chiefly.” One needn’t look to any third party source to see you changed your tune.
As to the “uncredited source,” it is widely accepted that the Statute of Anne is the world’s first copyright act. That, of course, doesn’t mean everyone agrees to that claim. Nonetheless, it and its subsequence case history are available for you to read. The Statute says “the author of any book… shall have the sole liberty of printing and reprinting such book.” Yes, there was a period of time subsequent to the passage of the law whereby publishers insisted the law was for their benefit and the lower courts supported them, but this was settled by 1774, in Donaldson v. Becket, which confirmed that the Statute of Anne indeed moved property rights in literary works away from publishers toward authors.
the Wikipedia article on the history of copyright seems to support Tom’s position. According to it, the first copyright protections were given to printers in Italy in the 15th century, and were not intended to benefit authors.
It expressly says the opposite: “England’s Statute of Anne (1710) is widely regarded as the first copyright law… This statute first accorded exclusive rights to authors (ie, creators) rather than publishers.”
As to Italian history, it says, “Most early Italian enactments in regard to literature were framed not so much with reference to the protection of authors as for the purpose of inducing printers (acting as publishers) to undertake certain literary enterprises which were believed to be important to the community.” Note that “most” is not the same as “the first” and “not so much” is not the same as “not intended to benefit authors.” For example, in 1486, author Antonio Sabellico, the historian to the republic, was given the sole right to publish his Decade of Venetian Affairs. In 1491, the Senate gave a similar right to Peter of Ravenna to print and sell his work The Phoenix. Such protections were generalized with the 1545 Venice decree of the Council of Ten which prohibited publication of an author’s work without proof of the author’s permission.
And again…
What’s the secret to the turning italics off?
At last…
Under Marxist legal theory, such as it is, virtually anything can be declared illegal and punished without having ever been formally defined as a criminal act.
The English language formally defines what you describe to be crime:
crime
n.
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
There is no change in my position… Nor have you shown anything to be false, except by careful proof-texting of a quotation from an uncredited source. That cuts no ice with me.
Your own claims cut no ice with the truth. FACT: You first claimed “the earliest copyright laws were drawn up for the benefit of publishers, not authors.” FACT: In your subsequent claim, you inserted the word “chiefly.” One needn’t look to any third party source to see you changed your tune.
As to the “uncredited source,” it is widely accepted that the Statute of Anne is the world’s first copyright act. That, of course, doesn’t mean everyone agrees to that claim. Nonetheless, it and its subsequence case history are available for you to read. The Statute says “the author of any book… shall have the sole liberty of printing and reprinting such book.” Yes, there was a period of time subsequent to the passage of the law whereby publishers insisted the law was for their benefit and the lower courts supported them, but this was settled by 1774, in Donaldson v. Becket, which confirmed that the Statute of Anne indeed moved property rights in literary works away from publishers toward authors.
the Wikipedia article on the history of copyright seems to support Tom’s position. According to it, the first copyright protections were given to printers in Italy in the 15th century, and were not intended to benefit authors.
It expressly says the opposite: “England’s Statute of Anne (1710) is widely regarded as the first copyright law… This statute first accorded exclusive rights to authors (ie, creators) rather than publishers.”
As to Italian history, it says, “Most early Italian enactments in regard to literature were framed not so much with reference to the protection of authors as for the purpose of inducing printers (acting as publishers) to undertake certain literary enterprises which were believed to be important to the community.” Note that “most” is not the same as “the first” and “not so much” is not the same as “not intended to benefit authors.” For example, in 1486, author Antonio Sabellico, the historian to the republic, was given the sole right to publish his Decade of Venetian Affairs. In 1491, the Senate gave a similar right to Peter of Ravenna to print and sell his work The Phoenix. Such protections were generalized with the 1545 Venice decree of the Council of Ten which prohibited publication of an author’s work without proof of the author’s permission.
Algami, I see you found the magic wand with the “italics disperser.” :^)
Blackadder, I find the arguments of Mary, Esquire, Tim, et al. far more persuasive than yours. You’ve persuaded me that you have a strongly held opinion, but nothing more. While there are some interesting lines of thought, I have no interest pursuing them until I know where you are coming from when you claim “no moral obligation.”
Perhaps you might do me the favor of telling me what you mean by “the standard guides for moral behavior” and how it is that others in this discussion have made reference to these guides while I haven’t.
Let me address the second half first. In this discussion, the only standard source quoted is the Scripture verse that the worker is worth his wages. However, I’ve had the pleasure of reading posts by these fines folks for quite a while and I know, from previous citations and references, where they go to for moral guidance. The only thing you’ve quoted has been a journal.
As for what I mean by the “standard guides for moral behavior,” I’m going to hold off on that for a round or two (not forever – I will get to it). The reason is that I’d like to avoid the knee-jerk debate response and simply gather information where you’re coming from. I’ve already said that I come from a Catholic perspective. Now it’s your turn. Especially since you initiated the whole “moral obligation” aspect in the first place.
Michael, your 8/29 5:41pm post:
So the doubting of faith from a Protestant perspective of Mother Teresa is a sign she was not or is not saved. That she should of become a born again Christian and she would have CERTAINTY in salvation. Moreover, the poor she were helping may have been predistined to be poor or even predistined to be damned.
is interesting and clarifies the reaction of some non-Catholics. It’s yet another example of non-Catholics unaware of what they don’t know. And yet another reason to be thankful to be Catholic.
Tim,
I agree that it wouldn’t be workable to require compensation everytime someone reads or enjoys a written work. But if this is all that justifies a lack of compensation, then many of the exceptions currently contained in copyright law would have to be considered unjust. It would be no more difficult to require compensation from the modern publishers of the works of Chesterton, Dickens, or Shakespeare than it is to try and enforce copyright protections against pirated works in China or India. In fact, it would be much easier to do so. Nor would there be anything unworkable about banning libraries or second-hand book selling. (I know you’ve said you don’t think there would be anything unjust about doing these things, but you don’t seem to think that they are morally required, which they would seem to be if copyright were a natural right that was justly limited only to the extent that enforcement would be unworkable).
Mary Kay,
It would seem unfair to chide me for not citing certain sources in making my arguments when no one else in this exchange, yourself included, has done so either (apart, that is, from a single Scripture verse we both agree doesn’t quite settle the matter). I would have been happy to include in my arguments citations to Scripture verses dealing with the issue of copyright. But there are no such verses. That there are no such verses should be unsuprising, as the first copyright protections were not created until over a thousand years after the Scriptures were written.
I am a Catholic. Catholics believe that moral argument need not always be based on revelation, and that the principles of the moral law are accessible to reason. While Catholics are of course free to cite to Scripture, magisterial texts, the lives of the Saints, and other such sources when making a moral argument, there is no requirement that they must do so.
It would be no more difficult to require compensation from the modern publishers of the works of Chesterton, Dickens, or Shakespeare than it is to try and enforce copyright protections against pirated works in China or India. In fact, it would be much easier to do so.
It’s not exactly easy to enforce laws against rape and murder, either.
Blackadder,
It would seem unfair to chide me for not citing certain sources in making my arguments
By virtue of the fact that you introduced the aspect of moral obligation to the discussion, it is not unreasonable to ask you on what basis you made that statement.
When I asked about “standard guides for moral behavior,” it was precisely Scripture, the Catechism and magisterial texts or their equivalent that I was thinking of.
What on earth was so difficult about answering that question?
there is no requirement that they must do so.
I will need to check that against someone whose knowledge of Catholicism I can trust.
My expectation is that when a Catholic makes a moral argument, he or she does so in context of Catholic teaching and states how the present argument arose. That’s just plain academic tradition. Not to mention common sense. That goes along with my expectation that a Catholic moral argument be identifiably Catholic.
Having looked more into the journal you quoted, I will now reserve opinion. But I have to tell you that your presentation in this specific instance simply didn’t work.
I wish there was a more amicable way to close this, but I can’t think of any.
Mary, thank you for keeping some common sense in this discussion. 🙂
Mary Kay,
“By virtue of the fact that you introduced the aspect of moral obligation to the discussion, it is not unreasonable to ask you on what basis you made that statement.”
That would have been reasonable. But you didn’t ask me that. Instead you argued with me for a few days, then stated that I hadn’t made reference to any of the “standard guides of moral behavior,” and it was only after a couple of attempts that I got you to explain what you meant by this.
If you’re concerned about the legitimacy of Catholics making moral arguments that don’t explicitly cite Scripture or Church documents, you might ask Jimmy about it. Better yet, look at the blog-post on Intellectual Property Mary cited to earlier in the discussion:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/12/intellectual_pr.html
In it, Jimmy makes an argument for the moral legitimacy of copyright laws without citing to Scripture or magisterial documents.
“It would be no more difficult to require compensation from the modern publishers of the works of Chesterton, Dickens, or Shakespeare than it is to try and enforce copyright protections against pirated works in China or India.”
Really? And to whom would these royalties be paid? In Shakespeare’s case, half of London would be hiring lawyers and taking DNA tests to try and get a piece of the pie.
Copyright is a matter of natural law, but when authors sign contracts with publishing companies, they understand that used copies of their books will eventually make it into the marketplace. They understand that people will loan books to one another and that libraries will carry their work. None the less, they agree to the terms of these contracts because it gives them reasonable compensation for their work. Beyond that, they are giving tacit approval to all these other realities. We are not under any obligation to pay them for what they have agreed to give away.
Copyright law is an adjunct of natural moral law, but that doesn’t make copyright law immune to common sense.
Blackadder, you do have a slickness with words, I’ll grant you that much.
I’m going to address your comment about Jimmy’s previous post first. Again, Jimmy has credibility based on knowing where he comes from. That’s why people ask for his view on a particular matter.
In the post you cite, Jimmy did refer to natural law. The Catholic Encyclopedia quotes St. Thomas Aquinas that natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II, Q. xciv).” No, it’s not’s an academic treatise, but then Jimmy has stated that he’s more interested in answering where the person is. (paraphrased)
Everyone else has moved on from this topic and I have no interest in continuing it. I will leave this for you to consider:
You came barreling in, an unknown entity, expecting people to roll over belly up and take at face value your claim that there’s no moral obligation for writers to get their full income.
You have consistently demonstrated a greater interest in scoring debate points than a genuine exchange. In your most recent post, you portray me as “arguing with you” when I simply disagreed. You portrayed me as being “unreasonable” in not asking for your basis when in fact the discussion had not yet developed to that point. If anything, you were the one who entered a casual discussion, introducing a comment certain to start the discussion along a particular track.
and it was only after a couple of attempts that I got you to explain what you meant by this.
Talk about inverting what actually happened. The confusion was not on my part. I asked you several times what basis you used and specifically said I was holding off to prevent the knee jerk debate response.
You have spectacularly confirmed what were earlier hypothetical probes. You are very good with spin.
But I know vulnerable people who have been hurt by those good at spin, not intentionally malicious, but unthinking and unaware of what they don’t know. Then someone else has to clean up the mess created by the unaware spin expert.
At this point, anything I say, you’ll find an objection for it.
Tim,
Your argument, if correct, would seem to make a system with no copyright protection just as compatible with natural law as our current system. Suppose that all copyright protections were abandoned. An author who publishes a work would then know that, once the work is published, people will be allowed to make whatever reproductions of it that they wish and sell them for whatever they wish. If an author agrees to publish under such circumstances, hasn’t he implicitly agreed to have his work used in such a way?
“If an author agrees to publish under such circumstances, hasn’t he implicitly agreed to have his work used in such a way?”
The fact is, we DO have copyright laws, and I can’t really speak to how authors might behave if we didn’t.
Copyrights are also meant to protect publishers, and their considerable investment (and risk) in publishing new work. This, I believe, is also a natural law concern.
If I contract with an author for a story and I initially print 50,000 copies of a book that turns out to be mega-big (like Harry Potter big), I ought to have exclusive rights, for a reasonable period of time, to any re-prints or subsequent editions. That’s only fair and right.
That gives me the profits I deserve for publishing a best-seller, and it also continues (quite properly) to enrich the author to whom I pay royalties. The author of a jillion-selling book ought to make more than the author of an obscure treatise. Seems pretty simple.
The fact that I can use terms like “deserve” and “ought” to describe such an arrangement reflects its roots in natural law.
None of this has anything to do with the content or quality of the work. There will always be brilliant-but-overlooked authors and artists, and there will always be those who pander to low tastes in order to sell books. That is a separate issue. We are talking about who is to be paid for the books that are sold, not whether they are worthy to sell or not.
You seem pretty determined to show that copyright law is not really a matter of natural moral law. Is there some personal reason for that?
“You seem pretty determined to show that copyright law is not really a matter of natural moral law. Is there some personal reason for that?”
Nope. None. I’ve said what I’ve said here because I think it’s true, not because I have any personal stake in the matter.
“If I contract with an author for a story and I initially print 50,000 copies of a book that turns out to be mega-big (like Harry Potter big), I ought to have exclusive rights, for a reasonable period of time, to any re-prints or subsequent editions. That’s only fair and right.That gives me the profits I deserve for publishing a best-seller.”
The only profits that a publisher deserves to make from publishing a book are those it can get in a free and competitive market. No doubt a great many books would be best-sellers if they were sold for a quarter, but that doesn’t mean that their publishers deserve to turn a profit on them, or that they should receive a government enforced monopoly over publishing simply to increase their profits.
“The author of a jillion-selling book ought to make more than the author of an obscure treatise.”
That this will happen in most cases, I don’t doubt. But I don’t agree that it ought to happen in all cases. The only reason I can see why Dan Brown ought to be paid more for his writing than, say, Robert George is that people are willing to pay him more. If some patron were willing to pay Robert George a large sum to publish a book, and this sum turned out to be more than what Dan Brown got for one of his books, I do not see the injustice.
You seem pretty determined to show that copyright law is not really a matter of natural moral law.
Tim, I noticed the same thing and wondered why. You’re right that such determination, that is, so much time and energy put into a topic, is associated with a strong motivation, a personal reason being the most usual.
His response, “I’ve said what I’ve said here because I think it’s true” strikes me as very genuine and sufficient for a combox. That still leaves the strong motivation. I would hazard a guess that Blackadder’s philosophy aligns with a group of conservatives, including Catholics, with a libertarian bent as paradoxical as that sounds.
The only profits that a publisher deserves to make from publishing a book are those it can get in a free and competitive market… that doesn’t mean that their publishers deserve to turn a profit on them, or that they should receive a government enforced monopoly over publishing simply to increase their profits.
The government doesn’t give the publisher a monopoly, unless somone first gave the publisher the copyright. Otherwise, the publisher has a contract with the author (owner of copyright) and the government protects the copyright owner against what is called “unfair” use of his work.
The only reason I can see why Dan Brown ought to be paid more for his writing than…
Without copyright, Dan Brown would have made less money. While his Da Vinci Code had early success, it also has had continued success for years from the book (translated into 44 languages) and subsequent movie, thanks to copyright. But if you don’t think copyright is moral, perhaps you think he didn’t “deserve” what he was paid. Maybe you believe that if an author and his chosen publisher don’t have mega resources to saturate the market (with book worldwide in 44 languages and movie on DVD) in an initial global flash success then the author and his publisher must settle for limited earnings as others move in and exploit the author’s and original publisher’s work for their own gain.
“I’ve said what I’ve said here because I think it’s true, not because I have any personal stake in the matter.”
Okay. I wasn’t sure it was really proper to ask, but at the same time, I think it is an important thing to consider. If one has a shelf full of pirated CDs (or a hard drive full of pirated mp3s, or movies or whatever) one might find themselves doggedly arguing that copyright laws are unfair.
“The only profits that a publisher deserves to make from publishing a book are those it can get in a free and competitive market.”
The market is both free and competitive. You (like anyone) may publish any work you have the right to publish, and you may print as many as you like as cheaply as you like. You may not publish work that others have taken the pains to develop and promote. That is a kind of piracy. Unfair on its face.
“…that doesn’t mean… that they should receive a government enforced monopoly over publishing simply to increase their profits.”.
You mean like my government enforced monopoly on the rights to my OWN ARTWORK? Copyright is a real thing, to me… that is, I have the RIGHT (a quite natural right, firmly rooted in natural law) to COPY my own work, and YOU don’t – unless (wait for it) I *sell* (or give) that right to you.
Then, YOU would have the “copy rights”. Is it really that complicated?
Tim J.,
You are correct. It is not complicated.
Blackadder,
You said: “If someone steals my manuscript and publishes it, then that is wrong.” Perhaps we should work from your definition of “steal.”
If I give you a copy of my manuscript with the understanding that you can only read it but not copy it, and you make copies and distribute them to others, have you stolen my manuscript?
If I sell you a copy of my manuscript with the same understanding, and you make copies and distribute them to others, have you stolen my manuscript?
What about if I sell you a license to my manuscript, which gives you the ability to read but not make copies, and you make copies and distribute them to others, have you stolen my manuscript?
What if someone else steals my manuscript and sells you a copy without restriction. Can you then make copies and distribute them to others, or have you stolen my manuscript.
If the market is truly “free” as you seem to envision it and I have the ability to sell my manuscript on whatever terms I can, I should be able to do all of the above, privately limiting your right to copy my work. In other words, the rights created automatically by our copyright system would have to (at least in theory) be negotiated and re-negotiated with each transaction. I am not in the least convinced that such an alternative is more efficient, more fair, or more desireable — in any sense — than our current system. On the contrary, it seems to me a matter of some common sense to have a system that recognizes automatically the right of an artist/author to prevent others from copying his/her work.
Esquire,
If you give my a copy of your manuscript with the understanding that I can only read it but not copy it, and I make copies and distribute them to others, I haven’t stolen your manuscript (you still have it). But I haven’t violated our agreement, and that’s wrong.
An author could condition the sale of her work in the way you describe. If most authors did so, publishing would resemble not so much the current system (which allows limited copying and exchange for a limited amount of time, and unlimited copying and exchange after that) as a system where copyright was absolute and rigorously enforced. I think that such a system would be undesirable and unworkable, and so would be unlikely to develop absent copyright law.
There was a guy a while back, Andrew Galambos, who tried something like this. He used to teach seminars on moral and political philosophy, and thought that, since he’d come up with the arguments and ideas contained in the seminar, it was wrong for anyone to repeat these ideas or arguments without paying him, and made anyone who took the seminar agree not to repeat them outside of class. Personally, I think he was kind of weird. But if you think that copyright is a matter of natural justice, then there’s nothing weird about his idea at all. It can take just as much creativity and effort to come up with a good argument as a good poem. If a person has the right to be paid whenever someone uses the one, why not the other?
Tim,
Currently, neither recipes nor fashion designs can be protected by copyright. Is that unfair on its face?
“Currently, neither recipes nor fashion designs can be protected by copyright. Is that unfair on its face?”
I don’t know anything about that – I ain’t no lawyer – but I would certainly like to see some documentation that spelled it out in more detail. That’s a pretty broad assertion. Recipes and fashion designs may also be protected to some extent under a different sector of the law – I don’t know.
Not knowing anything much about the professional world of recipes or fashion design, I can’t tell you whether it is fair or not.
As far as the guy who wants a Vow of Secrecy from all those who take his seminars… yeah, it’s weird, but fair enough if that’s the way he insists on it. He’s dreaming, though. He also may be WAY overestimating the originality of his own thoughts. Sounds like a colossal ego.
If you really want to take his seminar, well, you do things his way, I suppose. The whole idea would tend to make me dismiss him as a crank, but that’s just me.
“…nor fashion designs can be protected by copyright.”
Actually, fashion designs can be protected by Patents.
Esau,
Fashion designs are rarely able to be patented and even where they have been, doing so has proved unworkable:
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/36/MAGDO.html
even where they have been, doing so has proved unworkable
Blackadder,
I didn’t say anything about they’re being valid patents; I only referred to the fact that there have been patents issued for such things.
Blackadder,
Though this isn’t quite the example I had in mind (can’t remember the actual one on the top of my head right now that’s the more ideal example), but it’s an example nevertheless:
US Patent 7,186,163
Blouse and brassiere combination