Maybe someone knew you would write an article about this??
Like how Amazon showed they could delete Kindle content by deleting "1984" — that *had* to be some insider trying to get the message to the world about the injustice.
Maybe somebody knew that if they screwed with YOUR account, then you'd bother telling the world and bring attention to this problem?
Anyway, ridiculous stuff. I wish we had an open-framework for social networking like we have with e-mail. There should be a way to network via whatever system you want and not have to agree to any particular provider's policies in order to interact with other people in this way.
To hae a productive discussion, agree on the meaning of terms
and then stick to those agreed meanings.
It matters not whether copyright is property or not WITHIN THIS DISCUSSION. What matters is that copyright is distinct from rights that go with physical property. Anybody who wishes to have a useful discussion needs to accept that, and I think people on both sides here DO accept that.
The problem with the words is that in arguments elsewhere (i.e. not on this precise web page), many people use some claims to accept the term "property" when it comes to copyright but then they go on to assert things about all property (copyright included) that, in reality, only apply to physical property.
Nobody need care what words are used unless the words lead to confusion about what copyright is and isn't. AND IN THIS CASE THEY DO LEAD TO CONFUSION, and often it appears that this confusion is INTENTIONAL. So, if anyone wants to insist that we use the word "property" for copyright, then please accept the burden of always qualifying this by adding "this does not mean it has all of the qualities of physical property." Then we can be clear.
If you are able to stop me from copying something, that is not the exercise of a "right" that is POWER. Rights are freedom to do things or to avoid being subjected to things. When my actions have no direct impact on you, any influence you have has nothing to do with your rights.
Right = freedom
Power = control
Copyright is INDEED a right! The right to copy. Our copyright law isn't about protecting rights, it's about restricting them. It is about taking away this right from most people for the purpose of incentivizing creation of works.
Well, I knew about audiobooks on archive.org and elsewhere. I agree with you overall, but actually the sabotage issue has more to do with certain media. Pop music, for example, there's tons and tons of substantial stuff if we go back just a few years. There weren't that many audiobooks 30 or 40 years ago though, so that's an emerging medium.
In fact, almost all modern media is copyrighted. Public domain is puny for video, photos, audio recording… literature and sheet music are among the few items that have a substantial public domain, and they are also the media the public is most used to getting from the public library historically.
We're not used to having public domain pop songs or movies. If we had that, it could bring a big shift in our habits for buying new music or movies. Who knows…?
Personally, I basically want to see the end to all intellectual property laws. I'm just talking about what the issues are as I see them. I think there would be a downturn in the sales of new sheet music and new pop music records and new movies if copyright were brought back to shorter terms. Everyone would spend more time enjoying the public domain. Which is a good thing, though, in my opinion.
Nobody actually seems to make this argument, but there's a real reason that extending copyright on old works might have an impact on publishing for the public good:
New works have to compete against existing works for attention. As new works are under copyright, and thus less accessible than public domain, sabotaging the public domain by extending copyright on old works could help new works to compete. In other words, we incentivize new creations by restricting access to old ones.
I do not believe doing this is actually in the public interest, but it is at least a rational concept. I suspect it is more real than the other arguments. I suspect that if we suddenly brought all works older than 20 years into the public domain, there would be a substantial reduction in the sales of new works. On balance, I think this trade off would be worthwhile, but that's at least a rational debate to be had.