4 ms·

I think it's important to distinguish between scientific papers, which the authors want to make as publicly accessible as possible, and fiction (and non-fiction

by Zanni 7y ago

I think it's important to distinguish between scientific papers, which the authors want to make as publicly accessible as possible, and fiction (and non-fiction) books, which the authors are trying to make a living from. There are a lot of issues with current copyright law, but "free copying" isn't a solution that's going to appeal to working writers.

mindslight 7y ago
Whether authors approve or not, that is the reality we're headed towards unless the copyright cartel actually manages to stuff the Internet back in the box.
- ghaff 7y ago
  If that’s the case then many authors simply won’t write. Some books are written for reasons that aren’t primarily about royalty checks. But largely eliminate those checks and far fewer books will get written.
  - toyg 7y ago
    Have you seen how many books are published at any given time? Maybe “writing fewer” might not be such a bad outcome after all. (It’s not going to happen, btw. The existence of things like self-publishing and vanity publishers is proof that supply will continue to outstrip demand, probably forever. Economic incentives are fundamentally secondary in this particular activity.)
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      If I have to choose between paying $15 to read the next Sanderson in a heavy DRM'd Kindle vs reading some random self-published book I think the choice is obvious to me. Not all of those guys are Hugh Howey.
      - enriquto 7y ago
        For me, it is also crystal clear: no matter what, I will never condone the usage of DRM.
  - austhrow743 7y ago
    That's completely fine.
bachmeier 7y ago
I don't think we want to move to a system where you can't monetize books, but very few authors are able to live a middle class life by writing books in the current system.
- Retric 7y ago
  However, other systems like Patreon seem to support vastly more authors than traditional publishing.
einpoklum 7y ago
Artificially preventing people from copying files as as silly as trying to prevent people from quoting poems. It's a doomed endeavor. "Free copying" is not a solution, it's a reality that can't - and shouldn't - be avoided.
zozbot234 7y ago
> which the authors are trying to make a living from You can monetize content a lot more effectively via "free copying" combined with crowdfunding ala Kickstarter/Patreon. (That model only hits a potential failure case for something like movies or AAA games, where currently you can only ever hope to defray your costs if close to 100% of your audience pays up, and they're already paying "premium" prices, so they can't be reasonably expected to pay even more as a "patron"'s contribution to the creative process. But then again, that's just another way of saying "this content is unreasonably expensive - there's plenty of stuff that's vastly cheaper to create, and we should be funding that instead!")

by Zanni 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

Whether authors approve or not, that is the reality we're headed towards unless the copyright cartel actually manages to stuff the Internet back in the box.

ghaff 7y ago
If that’s the case then many authors simply won’t write. Some books are written for reasons that aren’t primarily about royalty checks. But largely eliminate those checks and far fewer books will get written.
- toyg 7y ago
  Have you seen how many books are published at any given time? Maybe “writing fewer” might not be such a bad outcome after all. (It’s not going to happen, btw. The existence of things like self-publishing and vanity publishers is proof that supply will continue to outstrip demand, probably forever. Economic incentives are fundamentally secondary in this particular activity.)
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    If I have to choose between paying $15 to read the next Sanderson in a heavy DRM'd Kindle vs reading some random self-published book I think the choice is obvious to me. Not all of those guys are Hugh Howey.
    - enriquto 7y ago
      For me, it is also crystal clear: no matter what, I will never condone the usage of DRM.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  That's completely fine.

bachmeier 7y ago

I don't think we want to move to a system where you can't monetize books, but very few authors are able to live a middle class life by writing books in the current system.

Retric 7y ago
However, other systems like Patreon seem to support vastly more authors than traditional publishing.

einpoklum 7y ago

Artificially preventing people from copying files as as silly as trying to prevent people from quoting poems. It's a doomed endeavor. "Free copying" is not a solution, it's a reality that can't - and shouldn't - be avoided.

zozbot234 7y ago

> which the authors are trying to make a living from You can monetize content a lot more effectively via "free copying" combined with crowdfunding ala Kickstarter/Patreon. (That model only hits a potential failure case for something like movies or AAA games, where currently you can only ever hope to defray your costs if close to 100% of your audience pays up, and they're already paying "premium" prices, so they can't be reasonably expected to pay even more as a "patron"'s contribution to the creative process. But then again, that's just another way of saying "this content is unreasonably expensive - there's plenty of stuff that's vastly cheaper to create, and we should be funding that instead!")