# When is Copyright Infrigement OK? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315 "2006-06-03T21:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/61 "2006-06-10T23:20:57Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > It has stopped them since 1907. Federal election campaigns have to account for every dollar of campaign funds coming in and going ou. It is highly regulated, and the penalties for violating the law are heavy. Bleah. And so there was obviously no need for McCain/Feingold (not that M/F solves anything) or any other lobbying reform. They’re “not allowed”, and thus all is well. Nothing to see here, move along. Right. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/62 "2006-06-11T00:09:40Z")
I’d like to throw in one more question, if I may: What punishment would you be happy with for different copyright violations? (You can make up your own classifications if you wish. Anything from sharing an mp3 to owning a Cd duplication facility to hosting warez etc. etc.) I’m interested in this because I wonder how many people agree with current laws on the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/63 "2006-06-11T20:46:11Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And if I work free-lance for a company in a non-artistic, non-creative job, and die in the middle of a big project, having worked hard on it but not finished it, the situation for my hypothetical widow would be different how? You (your widow) would be paid for what you had done. Mine wouldn’t. _BIG_ difference. > [@clairobscur](#): > > So, if you got money for a long time from your work, your heirs wouldn’t get anything more. I wouldn’t take the random date of death of the author as a starting point. Basically, you’re proposing what I proposed about 25 posts ago? Although I made an error there, it should have said “whichever comes later” instead of “whichever comes first.” I believe that copyright should last the life of the author, or 50 years, whichever comes later. If I live 50 years after writing the book, then the copyright stops when I die. If I die before that, the copyright lasts 50 years from when it was published, not 50 years from when I die. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Exactly. It always seems that copyright supporters want artists and authors to get guarantees and benefits that no one else gets. Not true. See my explanation of risk/reward below. There are no guarantees for writers (the book flops, we make nothing\*). The benefits are only a tradeoff for the risks. > [@Mr2001](#): > > If you’re worried that your $2500 advance on royalties won’t leave anything else for your wife after your death, or even that she might have to pay it back, why not negotiate a better deal with the publisher? Demand 6 months’ pay for your 6 months of work! This arrangement only stands because people are willing to take it. You don’t understand. When you take a work-for-hire job, like our hypothetical construction worker, there’s no risk. He does the work, he gets the money. There’s no upside, either. If the building he worked on wins awards and becomes the hottest nightclub in town, he doesn’t get any more money. Writers work with a risk/reward tradeoff. If we write a book that fails miserably, we don’t make any money\*. But if the book is a massive success, we share in the profits from our work. If you shorten copyright protection, you leave all of the risk, but you take away a chunk of the reward–the part we can pass on to our families if we die early. - If you’re preparing to argue that advances take away the risk, go read some contracts and see what an advance is. It is essentially a _loan_ against future royalties. If the book flops, the publisher can demand that the author repay the advance. With small advances, this virtually never happens, and some big-name authors can negotiate up-front money that’s not in loan form, but for the vast majority of us, the advance just keeps the bills paid while we’re writing. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/64 "2006-06-11T20:50:28Z")
> [@Gozu](#): > > What punishment would you be happy with for different copyright violations? (You can make up your own classifications if you wish. Anything from sharing an mp3 to owning a Cd duplication facility to hosting warez etc. etc.) Treat it like any other theft. You steal a 99-cent song, you pay your buck and get a misdemeanor on your criminal record. You print up 50,000 copies of a counterfeit book or CD and sell them, making a quarter-million dollars in profits, you go to jail, lose the profits, and become a felon. I suppose it should include lost profit calculations, but that gets very complex… ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/65 "2006-06-11T21:32:32Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Writers work with a risk/reward tradeoff. If we write a book that fails miserably, we don’t make any money\*. But if the book is a massive success, we share in the profits from our work. If you shorten copyright protection, you leave all of the risk, but you take away a chunk of the reward–the part we can pass on to our families if we die early. I’m not trying to be a dick here, but you know the risk/reward before you get into it. An example: my grandfather had a job scrubbing the inside of oil tanks; dirty, dangerous, physically demanding, etc., but he was well paid for the risk. If he had died, that would’ve been it; no gauranteed profit for his family (I wasn’t born yet). Here’s a different take: I’m working in academia. I could get paid much more in industry. I’m making a choice about: (1) what I like to do, (2) which job allows me the lifestyle I prefer, and (3) (potentially) being less-at-risk of being laid off. I’m sacrificing reward for reduced risk. If I so desired, I could be a high-school teacher and reduce both risk and reward even more. Here’s a third take: a friend of mine is a professional gambler. When he wins, he wins. When he loses, he loses. Now _that’s_ a risk/reward situation. You’re arguing that, for some reason, writing a book should absolve you of having to recognize the risks associated with becoming a writer, that you should get special laws for your support. Huh? Please note again that I’m in no way arguing that copyright should be abolished. Rather, I’m simply addressing your risk/reward argument. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/66 "2006-06-11T21:33:54Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Treat it like any other theft. But it’s not theft. It’s copyright infringment. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/67 "2006-06-11T23:55:26Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > You don’t understand. When you take a work-for-hire job, like our hypothetical construction worker, there’s no risk. He does the work, he gets the money. There’s no upside, either. If the building he worked on wins awards and becomes the hottest nightclub in town, he doesn’t get any more money. > > Writers work with a risk/reward tradeoff. If we write a book that fails miserably, we don’t make any money\*. But if the book is a massive success, we share in the profits from our work. If you shorten copyright protection, you leave all of the risk, but you take away a chunk of the reward–the part we can pass on to our families if we die early. Yup, I understand that. But no one’s forcing you to take that agreement. There’s nothing inherent in the act of writing that requires you to be paid differently, or accept more risk, than a construction worker. Maybe you accept it because you like the possibility that you might become a millionaire from your book’s runaway success, but that’s called _gambling_, and it doesn’t deserve any more sympathy than any other form of gambling. No one is forcing you (meaning artists and authors as a group) to gamble instead of taking the same guaranteed-but-modest pay as the construction worker. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/68 "2006-06-11T23:57:13Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Treat it like any other theft. […] I suppose it should include lost profit calculations, but that gets very complex… Ah, so once again, you want special treatment. It’s not enough to treat as theft an act that bears little resemblance to actual theft–you want to treat it _more_ harshly than actual theft. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/69 "2006-06-12T16:59:49Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > You’re arguing that, for some reason, writing a book should absolve you of having to recognize the risks associated with becoming a writer, that you should get special laws for your support. Huh? Let me try explaining this a different way. Your grandfather took the job, knowing that a year’s work would net him $X. By the end of the year, he had been paid the entire amount. I write a book, guessing (remember the risk thing) that it will probably net me $X. By the end of the first year, I’ve probably received about 30% of X. That number is higher for some writers, lower for others. Generally, at least in my experience, it takes 5-10 years to reach 90% of X. I’m not asking for special laws or protections to let me roll in the extra dough. My income is spread out over a long period of time, _and I’m asking for enough time to receive it_. Imagine that your grandfather’s company had said, “we’ll pay you this amount for performing a risky job, but we’ll spread it out over ten years.” He works for a year, and settles back to receive the money. At the end of the 2nd year, he dies. Wouldn’t you expect the company to be obligated to pay the rest of his money into his estate? THAT is the situation a writer is in. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > But it’s not theft. It’s copyright infringment. If I’m selling candy bars for a buck, and you take one without paying for it, it’s theft, right? If I’m selling songs for a buck, and you take one without paying for it, why should that be any different? It’s still theft. You’re still taking something that isn’t yours without paying for it. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Yup, I understand that. But no one’s forcing you to take that agreement. There’s nothing inherent in the act of writing that requires you to be paid differently, or accept more risk, than a construction worker. If you want to be a freelance writer, you have to accept the way the biz works, unless you have a _lot_ of leverage. Unless you’re Bill Clinton or Stephen King and you can negotiate millions up front, you’re stuck with the system as it is. There are tens of thousands of new books published each year. If the publishing companies paid each writer a fair wage for the books, they couldn’t afford to publish them. The majority of books are commercial failures. The publishing companies deal with this by offering to share the risk with the author: your book flops and you get little or nothing, but if it succeeds you share in the profit. If authors weren’t willing to accept those deals, most books would never get published. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Ah, so once again, you want special treatment. It’s not enough to treat as theft an act that bears little resemblance to actual theft–you want to treat it _more_ harshly than actual theft. Where the heck did _that_ come from? Thre’s no special treatment at all. Let’s say you’ve built 1,000 widgets that you normally sell for $10 each. Somebody steals your widgets and sells them for $1 each. Should the thief have to pay you $1,000 (because that was his profit) or $10,000 (because that’s what you lost)? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/70 "2006-06-12T17:27:02Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > You (your widow) would be paid for what you had done. Mine wouldn’t. _BIG_ difference. Hmmm… No. When I mentionned working free-lance, I wasnt thinking of people who bill $ X/ hour, but rather to people working on projects who are paid when the project is completed. [quote] Basically, you’re proposing what I proposed about 25 posts ago? Although I made an error there, it should have said “whichever comes later” instead of “whichever comes first.” I believe that copyright should last the life of the author, or 50 years, whichever comes later. If I live 50 years after writing the book, then the copyright stops when I die. If I die before that, the copyright lasts 50 years from when it was published, not 50 years from when I die. [quote] Well, yes. I agree with that. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/71 "2006-06-12T17:34:28Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > No one in this thread has advocated “everlasting copyright”. OK. replace “everlasting” whith “unreasonnably long”. My answer stays the same : people investing in Disney stocks because Disney holds the copyright of a work done 75 years ago doesn’t encourage creativity. It deters them from investing in a more creative company that doesn’t benefit from thee overprotective laws. They encourage investing in the “already done long ago” rather than in the “not yet thought of”. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/72 "2006-06-12T20:04:49Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Bleah. And so there was obviously no need for McCain/Feingold (not that M/F solves anything) or any other lobbying reform. They’re “not allowed”, and thus all is well. Nothing to see here, move along. Right. McCain-Feingold was about “soft money”, i.e., money from [Political Action Committees](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee), the leading of which are: 1. EMILY’s List $22,767,521 2. Service Employees International Union $12,899,352 3. American Federation of Teachers $12,789,296 4. American Medical Association $11,901,542 5. National Rifle Association $11,173,358 6. Teamsters Union $11,128,729 7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,819,724 8. National Education Association $10,521,538 9. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees $9,882,022 10. Laborers’ International Union of North America $9,523,837 ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/73 "2006-06-12T20:10:23Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > My answer stays the same : people investing in Disney stocks because Disney holds the copyright of a work done 75 years ago doesn’t encourage creativity. Where do you think Disney gets the money to create _new_ works? From its investors. And from return on investments, including copyrights. Yes, including copyrights for works created 75 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/74 "2006-06-12T23:01:58Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > If I’m selling candy bars for a buck, and you take one without paying for it, it’s theft, right? If I’m selling songs for a buck, and you take one without paying for it, why should that be any different? It’s still theft. You’re still taking something that isn’t yours without paying for it. But with actual theft, you aren’t just getting something for free, you’re taking it _away_ from someone else. That isn’t a minor difference - the only reason stealing is wrong, IMO, is that you’re depriving someone else. No one has a right to get your money, but they do have the right to hang onto the things they have unless they agree to part with them. If you could touch a candy bar at the store, magically make a copy, and walk off with a free candy bar while still leaving the original on the store shelf, that wouldn’t be stealing and I’d say it wouldn’t be wrong at all. > [@](#): > > If you want to be a freelance writer, you have to accept the way the biz works, unless you have a _lot_ of leverage. Unless you’re Bill Clinton or Stephen King and you can negotiate millions up front, you’re stuck with the system as it is. That’s why I’m not blaming any particular author, but authors as a whole. This arrangement exists because everyone accepts it. If they would band together to demand a better payment structure, publishers would be forced to give it to them. I don’t think they will, though - I think they _like_ to gamble, to think that they might become millionaires if their books take off. > [@](#): > > Where the heck did _that_ come from? Thre’s no special treatment at all. Let’s say you’ve built 1,000 widgets that you normally sell for $10 each. Somebody steals your widgets and sells them for $1 each. Should the thief have to pay you $1,000 (because that was his profit) or $10,000 (because that’s what you lost)? Here’s what you wrote: _“You steal a 99-cent song, you pay your buck and get a misdemeanor on your criminal record. […] I suppose it should include lost profit calculations, but that gets very complex…”_ But 99 cents is the normal selling price, not the cost. The “lost profit” is already included in it. In fact, it’s _all_ “lost profit”, because there is no marginal cost for each copy of the song. There’s an initial cost to produce the master recording, but you can’t just divide that by the number of copies that exist to find the cost per copy. Unlike CDs, which are manufactured up front, downloadable copies are created on the fly as people buy them. Now, in your example, something’s missing: the cost to the widget maker of each widget. You can’t assume he has lost $10,000 that he otherwise would’ve had, unless you can prove that he would’ve sold every one that was stolen at that price. In other words, the profit isn’t lost because it was never his to begin with. You do know, however, that he’s missing a bunch of stock, which cost him a certain amount to produce originally and will probably cost the same amount to replace. But in the case of songs, there is no cost to replace them - mainly because they’re not missing in the first place, but also because if you have even one copy, you can produce an infinite number of extra copies for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/75 "2006-06-13T00:42:24Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Let me try explaining this a different way. Your grandfather took the job, knowing that a year’s work would net him $X. By the end of the year, he had been paid the entire amount. I write a book, guessing (remember the risk thing) that it will probably net me $X. By the end of the first year, I’ve probably received about 30% of X. That number is higher for some writers, lower for others. Generally, at least in my experience, it takes 5-10 years to reach 90% of X. First, let me state again that I’m not arguing for abolishing copyright. Second, part of the risk you incur in being a writer is recognizing that you may _never_ receive $X (similar to entrepreneurs). Third, it seems to me that you should be arguing for copyright terms of 20 years (or thereabouts), not 50 years or death, whichever is longer. I say that because, as you say, in 10 years (taking your upper bound to be agreeable), you’ll receive 90% of $X. I’m kicking in the extra decade as a bonus. By arguing for 50 / death, it seems to me you’re arguing for a _better_ than $X return, which indicates a desire to go beyond the risk you yourself recognize and ask for special laws. > [@](#): > > If I’m selling candy bars for a buck, and you take one without paying for it, it’s theft, right? If I’m selling songs for a buck, and you take one without paying for it, why should that be any different? It’s still theft. You’re still taking something that isn’t yours without paying for it. It’s not theft. Copying an idea is not theft. An idea can be reproduced infinitely; it is not theft. It is, however, copyright infringement. And I think it’s right and proper to penalize copyright infringement. But it’s not theft. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/76 "2006-06-13T01:15:23Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Where do you think Disney gets the money to create _new_ works? From its investors. And from return on investments, including copyrights. Yes, including copyrights for works created 75 years ago. Apparently, my contention wasn’t clear . I contend that Disney is less creative than other, more recent companies or individuals because a significant part of its activity still rely on profits made on old works. Hence that money invested in Disney is less conductive to creativity than money invested elsewhere. When you’re investing in Disney, you’re investing in large part in Mickey Mouse, not in something new. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/77 "2006-06-13T01:31:18Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > By arguing for 50 / death, it seems to me you’re arguing for a _better_ than $X return, which indicates a desire to go beyond the risk you yourself recognize and ask for special laws. I agree with the creator keeping copyright until his death. But it’s not an issue of return for me, it’s an issue of moral rights on one’s own creation. > [@](#): > > It’s not theft. Copying an idea is not theft. An idea can be reproduced infinitely; it is not theft. It is, however, copyright infringement. And I think it’s right and proper to penalize copyright infringement. But it’s not theft. I agree with that. Comparing copyright infrigement with theft is very misleading. Copyright is a very abstract concept we had to come up with to further specific goals. Theft, at the contrary, is very concrete and obvious. Human societies worked quite well and for a long time without any copyright or patent laws, while theft has always been a no-no. Mentionning copyrights some centuries ago would have gotten you the same reaction people have with the well-known tale of the man asked to pay for smelling the roasted meat and offering the sound of his money as payment : laughs. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/78 "2006-06-13T02:28:43Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Hmmm… No. When I mentionned working free-lance, I wasnt thinking of people who bill $ X/ hour, but rather to people working on projects who are paid when the project is completed. Okay, that’s fine. If I have a contract with you to build a house, and I die when I’m half-done, I fully expect that my estate will get paid for half of the work. Same thing. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Now, in your example, something’s missing: the cost to the widget maker of each widget. You can’t assume he has lost $10,000 that he otherwise would’ve had, unless you can prove that he would’ve sold every one that was stolen at that price. In other words, the profit isn’t lost because it was never his to begin with. You do know, however, that he’s missing a bunch of stock, which cost him a certain amount to produce originally and will probably cost the same amount to replace. Ah, so you do agree with me…sort of. Let’s say it cost him $5,000 to produce the widgets. You’re arguing that he should get $5,000 back from the person who took them. Okay, let’s say I write a book and produce $5,000 worth of them. You reproduce the books on a photocopier (or whatever), and sell them at half my price. I get nothing, so you owe me the $5,000, right? But it also cost me a half-year of my time to write the book. That’s worth something, right? And that’s what copyright is about–getting paid for the time it took to write the book. Are you really saying that if you spend 6 months writing a book I should be free to do whatever I want with it without paying you? > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I say that because, as you say, in 10 years (taking your upper bound to be agreeable), you’ll receive 90% of $X. I’m kicking in the extra decade as a bonus. By arguing for 50 / death, it seems to me you’re arguing for a _better_ than $X return, which indicates a desire to go beyond the risk you yourself recognize and ask for special laws. Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. Royalties don’t follow a linear curve. If you make $Y in the first 5 years, you’re not going to make $2Y in ten years. The royalties gradually decline. If I’ve received 90% of $X in ten years, it may take me another 5 years to get up to $X (after which the book goes out of print or the sales go to zero), or it may take another 50. The royalties approach $X asymptotically. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > It’s not theft. Copying an idea is not theft. We’re not talking about ideas. You can’t copyright an idea. You can only copyright a finished piece of work. If I come up with an idea for a book, I can’t stop you from writing another book using my idea. I _can_ stop you from using my actual words. > [@Mr2001](#): > > That’s why I’m not blaming any particular author, but authors as a whole. This arrangement exists because everyone accepts it. No. Please reread what I wrote. The arrangement exists because it’s not economically feasable to produce all of the books produced today on a work-for-hire basis. If we didn’t have a royalty system, the majority of books would never get published–not because publishers force the system on authors, but because publishers couldn’t afford to do it without sharing the risk. > [@Mr2001](#): > > I think they _like_ to gamble, to think that they might become millionaires if their books take off. Well, duh! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/79 "2006-06-13T04:06:23Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Ah, so you do agree with me…sort of. Let’s say it cost him $5,000 to produce the widgets. You’re arguing that he should get $5,000 back from the person who took them. Okay, let’s say I write a book and produce $5,000 worth of them. You reproduce the books on a photocopier (or whatever), and sell them at half my price. I get nothing, so you owe me the $5,000, right? No, because I didn’t take your books. You still have them. (Maybe I could pay you in photocopied money, but I don’t think the Secret Service would approve.) > [@](#): > > But it also cost me a half-year of my time to write the book. That’s worth something, right? And that’s what copyright is about–getting paid for the time it took to write the book. It’s indirectly about that, sure. But in most other industries, people manage to get paid _directly_ for the time they spend working. > [@](#): > > Are you really saying that if you spend 6 months writing a book I should be free to do whatever I want with it without paying you? Yes, as long as you give proper credit and as long as you’re not breaking any contract we made beforehand. I knew before I started writing it that it’d be impossible to keep people from making copies; complaining about your copying would be as futile as complaining about the tide washing away my sand castle. > [@](#): > > We’re not talking about ideas. You can’t copyright an idea. You can only copyright a finished piece of work. If I come up with an idea for a book, I can’t stop you from writing another book using my idea. I _can_ stop you from using my actual words. It’s reasonable to call that an idea too. A book contains a sequence of words, and what is a sequence but an abstract concept, and what is that but an idea? Whatever you call it–an idea, a sequence, a chunk of information, a majestic assembly of verbiage–it can’t be taken away by copying. > [@](#): > > No. Please reread what I wrote. The arrangement exists because it’s not economically feasable to produce all of the books produced today on a work-for-hire basis. If we didn’t have a royalty system, the majority of books would never get published–not because publishers force the system on authors, but because publishers couldn’t afford to do it without sharing the risk. Then perhaps there are too many books being produced today. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315/80 "2006-06-13T04:59:31Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. Royalties don’t follow a linear curve. If you make $Y in the first 5 years, you’re not going to make $2Y in ten years. The royalties gradually decline. If I’ve received 90% of $X in ten years, it may take me another 5 years to get up to $X (after which the book goes out of print or the sales go to zero), or it may take another 50. The royalties approach $X asymptotically. No, that was quite obvious. If it were linear and you received 90% of $X by year 10, by year 20, you’d have 180% of $X. Which is why I kicked in the extra decade. Also, to be a little nit-picky, the curve of $X is not asymptotic, which says that it approaches but never reaches, a given value. > [@](#): > > We’re not talking about ideas. You can’t copyright an idea. You can only copyright a finished piece of work. If I come up with an idea for a book, I can’t stop you from writing another book using my idea. I _can_ stop you from using my actual words. We’re not talking about physical property either, which is what the term “theft” entails. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-copyright-infrigement-ok/359315.md?page=5)