7 ms·

I write books. I publish the contents for free online, too. But I still want copyright. If there were none, someone else could take my work, attribute it, put

by graeme 11y ago

I write books. I publish the contents for free online, too. But I still want copyright. If there were none, someone else could take my work, attribute it, put it on some SEO'd site and outrank me. What recourse would I have? Very few people are going to find the original source, search it, get past the SEO and find my site. And zero readers have commissioned a work. I make money, but not that way. Trust me, copyright isn't just for fatcats. Though I suspect it's mostly fatcats who propose unreasonable applications of copyright.

anonymfus 11y ago
For public domain content first search results are usually non-profit online libraries like Wikibooks and Project Gutenberg. In Russia where illegal book sharing is widespread most popular piracy libraries now are non-profits like Flibusta and Library Genesis.
- graeme 11y ago
  How does that help the original author monetize their work? I don't care whether the first result is non-profit or not. I care whether it's me. If I can't monetize works, I won't make them, I'll do something else. Are their Russian authors making money with working business models under their system of non-enforced copyright?
  - anonymfus 11y ago
    I incorrectly thought that your problem was that somebody else could monetize your work. Copyright is enforced here, sites are banned and people go to jail for installing unlicensed software. Piracy is widespread because of many cultural, historical and economical reasons. There are 3 main business models Russian authors use: crowdfunding (there are few platforms specialised on books), appealing to audience without internet access, and receiving support from the government.
  - throwawaymaroon 11y ago
    It's bizarre how you think people would stop making art if they didn't get paid for it. It's the kind of warped perspective that comes from being happy with the scraps you get, I guess.
  - scotty79 11y ago
    Selling copies is insane way to monetize something. When I want to make money programming I'm looking for a person that needs a program and write it for him often requesting at least portion of money up front. Writing programs in hopes of selling them in the future is like trying to strike gold. Even if you are not horribly wrong and someone will buy copy of your stuff and not immediately request a refund it will most likely be insanely cheap (from your point of view) and expensive for the people who can get that copy for free because it is almost as easy (often easier) than paying for it.
deciplex 11y ago
The problem is you're right, but you're not in good company. I want copyright too, and for pretty much the same reasons as you. But right now supporting "copyright" means you're taking the same side as assholes who insists on a term of 70 years after the death of the author, or more. Some people even at HN think copyright ought to have infinite duration. It means you're on the same side as those who want to send people to prison or put them in the poorhouse for putting a video on Youtube. The same side as jerks who want to deploy bots all across the web to indiscriminately take down content whether it infringes or not, and who wheel and deal with distribution channels when the draconian laws they bribe governments to pass aren't enough. Seriously, fuck these people. The political climate in much of the world eschews nuance on basically any issue you can name, and copyright is no exception. I want reasonable copyright terms of ten to twenty years from publication and to wipe my ass with the DMCA. If I can't have that, and if the choice is between copyright maximalists and those who would abolish copyright completely, I'll support shit-canning the idea altogether. It might not be the most fiscally or culturally sound solution, but it at least shows a basic understanding of how human culture even works, which I can't say for the maximalists.
- graeme 11y ago
  You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This comment in another part of the thread put it well. Do you have a response to the argument below? "If that happens, the web as we know it would cease to exist. Without a legal recourse to stop plagiarism and stolen content, people who are actually creating new content stop completely and move into other areas of work. Websites that produce original and unique content close up shop. Instead you're left with a bunch of low-quality rip off sites that have nothing original of their own. Then it the entire web stagnates over the years as very few new things get added to the net as a whole. And that's just the effect on the internet, that doesn't take into account real world publishing. I wish people would consider all of the consequences of these things before making statements like that. I haven't even begun to consider the consequences of eliminating copyright completely and just from what I can come up with off the top of my head makes it a non-starter." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384178
scotty79 11y ago
> could take my work, attribute it, put it on some SEO'd site and outrank me Attribution should be made in the way you want it to be made. Your domain name or email or unique random string one could google, could be part of your signature that would be obligatory for others to include if they want to share or build upon your work. > Very few people are going to find the original source, search it If I like something that somebody made I usually look him up to find out if he has other cool stuff. I do it with musicians, I do it with authors, with actors, with directors ... less so with graphic designers because they are way harder to find because information about authorship is almost never carefully retained for images. Same way as with code. If I find cool project I'm looking for original repo and most prominent forks.

by graeme 11y ago

anonymfus 11y ago

For public domain content first search results are usually non-profit online libraries like Wikibooks and Project Gutenberg. In Russia where illegal book sharing is widespread most popular piracy libraries now are non-profits like Flibusta and Library Genesis.

graeme 11y ago
How does that help the original author monetize their work? I don't care whether the first result is non-profit or not. I care whether it's me. If I can't monetize works, I won't make them, I'll do something else. Are their Russian authors making money with working business models under their system of non-enforced copyright?
- anonymfus 11y ago
  I incorrectly thought that your problem was that somebody else could monetize your work. Copyright is enforced here, sites are banned and people go to jail for installing unlicensed software. Piracy is widespread because of many cultural, historical and economical reasons. There are 3 main business models Russian authors use: crowdfunding (there are few platforms specialised on books), appealing to audience without internet access, and receiving support from the government.
- throwawaymaroon 11y ago
  It's bizarre how you think people would stop making art if they didn't get paid for it. It's the kind of warped perspective that comes from being happy with the scraps you get, I guess.
- scotty79 11y ago
  Selling copies is insane way to monetize something. When I want to make money programming I'm looking for a person that needs a program and write it for him often requesting at least portion of money up front. Writing programs in hopes of selling them in the future is like trying to strike gold. Even if you are not horribly wrong and someone will buy copy of your stuff and not immediately request a refund it will most likely be insanely cheap (from your point of view) and expensive for the people who can get that copy for free because it is almost as easy (often easier) than paying for it.

deciplex 11y ago

The problem is you're right, but you're not in good company. I want copyright too, and for pretty much the same reasons as you. But right now supporting "copyright" means you're taking the same side as assholes who insists on a term of 70 years after the death of the author, or more. Some people even at HN think copyright ought to have infinite duration. It means you're on the same side as those who want to send people to prison or put them in the poorhouse for putting a video on Youtube. The same side as jerks who want to deploy bots all across the web to indiscriminately take down content whether it infringes or not, and who wheel and deal with distribution channels when the draconian laws they bribe governments to pass aren't enough. Seriously, fuck these people. The political climate in much of the world eschews nuance on basically any issue you can name, and copyright is no exception. I want reasonable copyright terms of ten to twenty years from publication and to wipe my ass with the DMCA. If I can't have that, and if the choice is between copyright maximalists and those who would abolish copyright completely, I'll support shit-canning the idea altogether. It might not be the most fiscally or culturally sound solution, but it at least shows a basic understanding of how human culture even works, which I can't say for the maximalists.

graeme 11y ago
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This comment in another part of the thread put it well. Do you have a response to the argument below? "If that happens, the web as we know it would cease to exist. Without a legal recourse to stop plagiarism and stolen content, people who are actually creating new content stop completely and move into other areas of work. Websites that produce original and unique content close up shop. Instead you're left with a bunch of low-quality rip off sites that have nothing original of their own. Then it the entire web stagnates over the years as very few new things get added to the net as a whole. And that's just the effect on the internet, that doesn't take into account real world publishing. I wish people would consider all of the consequences of these things before making statements like that. I haven't even begun to consider the consequences of eliminating copyright completely and just from what I can come up with off the top of my head makes it a non-starter." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384178

scotty79 11y ago

> could take my work, attribute it, put it on some SEO'd site and outrank me Attribution should be made in the way you want it to be made. Your domain name or email or unique random string one could google, could be part of your signature that would be obligatory for others to include if they want to share or build upon your work. > Very few people are going to find the original source, search it If I like something that somebody made I usually look him up to find out if he has other cool stuff. I do it with musicians, I do it with authors, with actors, with directors ... less so with graphic designers because they are way harder to find because information about authorship is almost never carefully retained for images. Same way as with code. If I find cool project I'm looking for original repo and most prominent forks.