8 ms·

Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs

Indie publisher here. My company publishes mostly how-to guides relating technology, personal finance, and health. In fact this afternoon I am reviewing proofs of a new title written by a surgeon meant to inform patients (and their family members) dealing with thyroid cancer and thyroid nodules. What I and my peers do for a living is nothing like building rocket ships or designing amazing software applications, but it provides information and entertainment for millions of people every day. Like many people on HN, I regularly use the wayback machine or other parts of the Internet Archive to track the history of websites or read out-of-copyright and public domain works. Sharing this information is important and should be continued. I also believe in the concept of "Fair Use" for sharing and discussing excerpts of more current works. But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. The Internet Archive decided that its mission trumped these rights and the laws of the United States. Even when it was asked to repeatedly stop, it continued. So here we are today. Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?" I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? The traditional publishing industry has been in economic decline for 20 years, with the number of regular readers declining and most retailers on the ropes. Few publishers or authors make much money, yet the output of authors and publishers grows every year thanks to self-publishing and other trends. And some of the work published every year is fantastic. I sometimes serve as a judge for indie publishing competitions, and it's amazing some of the work that authors and their publishers are putting out, even though very few titles will turn a profit. Even if you haven't read a book in the past year or two, it's safe to say at some time you did, or your loved ones did, and it informed or delighted you. Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we need to do what we do.

pdimitar 6y ago
> But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. That would have been fine if the power balance wasn't severely tilted in favour of the publishers. Most of them are greedy rent-seeker middle-men that do much more harm to the interests of the creators compared to if they tried to self-publish. I am not doubting you in particular. An indie publisher is likely more ethical than most mainstream publishers. But you have to recognise that you have a vested financial interest and that this might make you skip the bigger picture, which is... ...that a lot of programmers are creators. We also have "publishers" (middle-men) in terms of bad employers or hiring mediators, so you maybe should make an analogy targetting them. Copyright is clearly not working for humanity because a lot of people constantly try and break it. Maybe somebody should open their eyes for that fact and think of another paradigm. We can dream.
TheBobinator 6y ago
The purpose of copyright is to provide a temporary monopoly to creators for their works to encourage them to create more and thus transfer more to the public domain. Currently, it takes greater than 2 average lifetimes for a work to transfer into the public domain and copyrights have been extended something like 12 times due to Disney's lobbying; there is a strong argument that that current copyright law is forever. What interest does the public have in copyright that transfers nothing into the public domain? The "mainstream media" is in fact a publishing oligopoly of 4 companies (Ref: Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian). Furthermore, a 20TB HDD can store enough movies you can watch 3 a night for 2 decades; in 20 years time it'll be possible to store every newspaper clipping, TV Broadcast, movie and song on a desktop computer and in 40 on a thumb drive. Congress and Businesses have neglected the publics interest, and due to that the public is using technology to wipe their arse with the law and rightfully so. The "Legal and Business frameworks" are outdated, orwellian cultural astroturfing exercises supported that are counterproductive to the operation of a disciplined, free society. Go read Vietnam and Korean era Psychological warfare manuals and tell me they are not blueprints for how a modern news org works. When Mickey Mouse is free, I'll respect what you are doing. Until then, don't come sobbing to me. Nobody cares.
cygx 6y ago
Please clarify: Are you against the practice of controlled digital lending of books scanned from physical copies in general, or do you merely have issues with the 3 months of unrestricted lending?
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  I think his issue is with the IA unilaterally deciding that they can chose that they want to simply ignore the authors rights to get compensated for their work at any moment they want. And I totally understand his frustration. It's one thing to have pirating websites that have always distributed copyrighted material illegally. But for IA to decide that they only play by the rules when they want to is different imo. Not only is it bait and switch but it's also just weird to pretend to follow the law when you don't. Imagine your boss deciding that you just won't get compensated for a few months because they decided to give away for free the software you worked on. If IA wanted to give away other people's work , it's still up to them to foot the bill. It's not even that I'm totally against piracy, it's just that when I pirate I realize I'm not compensating the author and that if I like the stuff I'll try to do that later. Even the cracking scene tries to put notices on the torrents that if you like what you downloaded, consider supporting the creators. With how IA presents it's whole program, there's no way to explicitly know that the authors have had no say in the emergency library beforehand and that they don't get compensated . IA looks benevolent but the authors don't.
  - mantap 6y ago
    Do authors have rights to be compensated? If I go to a library and take out a book, the author doesn't get compensated again. The book may be read by hundreds of people but it was only paid for once. If I lend a book I own to a friend, the author doesn't get compensated again. It's my book, not the authors, and I can let anybody I want read it. There has never been an expectation that authors get compensated for each person who reads a book. The system has never worked like that. A book is a physical object and authors get compensated for each physical book that gets sold. It's only with the recent advent of ebooks in recent decades that "pay per reader" has even become technologically possible. Since the 90s.
dexen 6y ago
>How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? While I'm somewhat ambiguous about this IA matter, the example you bring up is rather unconvincing on HN. I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories. We have structured our work and our contracts with customers to get paid for the services rendered[1], not the number of zeroes & ones (nor files nor LoC nor other incidental artifacts). It's not only doable, it's also the arrangement closest to fair & morally right we have found so far. -- [1] yes, including some upfront payments where circumstances warrant it
- jasonlotito 6y ago
  > I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories. Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license. Very rarely are people releasing things into the public domain. All that code people are releasing are being released with the support of copyright. In fact, people here on HN and other communities very much oppose people taking things without permission. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with your own repositories.
  - dexen 6y ago
    >Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license That's a whataboutist tangent, but let's entertain it for a while. The copyright law is usually restrictive, in the form of "everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden", and some of the openings - like Fair Use - are somewhat contentious. Thus a specially crafted free license is used to make the work legally accessible & reusable in an unambiguous way in such legal environment. A free license for software is generally used to unambiguously establish the legal status - that simplifies dealing, especially for organizations and professionals. It effectively increases ability to access and re-use the software [1]. A license & copyright information is used to convey authorship and guarantee certain author's rights, like the right to attribution. Some licenses (eg. copyleft) are also used to prevent certain misuses (eg. tivoization), again with aim of increasing availability of the software for access and re-use. Conversely, releasing into public domain (which is a limited legal concept, not available in certain countries) runs with the risk of somebody else slapping a restrictive license on the code and making it unavailable via legal mechanisms. Free licensing is not only about improving availability and protecting the author and the reuser, it's also about preventing subsequent yanking of the code via machinations by a 3rd party. While those concerns are valid and need taking care of, pretty sure they aren't at the stake in the IA vs book authors discussion. They aren't mentioned in the OP either. >In fact, people here on HN and other communities very much oppose people taking things without permission. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with your own repositories. Ah yes, a challenge to prove a negative. I'll rise to it right after solving the halting problem :^)
EvanAnderson 6y ago
I was being hyperbolic in that question, to be sure. It's probably better asked as: When will the publishing industry finally accept that it exists in a world where counting copies made doesn't work as a business model anymore? Technology isn't going away. The business models will have to change. Some businesses will fail. Some creators will have tragic outcomes. Some works will never be created. Entire classes of works might never be created again. re: "...took my output without permission..." - I choose not to deal in "intellectual property". I've arguably left money on the table by not. I've chosen not to pursue projects that involved selling licenses for "intellectual property"-- projects that had a decent shot of profitability. Under the current terms of US copyright I consider it a tainted and morally questionable business. It's not one I want to participate in. I also have deep moral concerns with the idea that a creator should somehow be entitled to be paid again and again for work done once.
- Zonulet 6y ago
  In the UK, revenue from ebook sales grew 3% between 2018 and 2019. Where is your evidence that the business model of "counting copies" – i.e. selling books to people who want to read them – doesn't work any more?
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    I'm seeing reports of a 5% decrease (a ~152 million pound decrease) in print book sales in the UK from 2018 to 2019. "Selling books to people who want to read them" seems to be a declining business. The 3% increase in ebook licensing revenue from 2018 to 2019 was an absolutely increase of ~20 million pounds. That doesn't absorb event a quarter of the decrease in print sales. Given the relative price parity between the two, I'd say that people who aren't purchasing print books aren't licensing ebooks, by and large, either. Unless the book publishing industry can come up with some analog to subscription streaming services, or can use their lobby to kill general purpose computing devices, I don't think the long game looks very good for their business model. Video and audio media are well suited to the streaming market because there's enough inconvenience in making infringing copies to make paying license feeds worthwhile (at least, with current media file sizes and network speeds). I don't think ebooks have as strong a value proposition for paying the license fee vs. making an infringing copy.
NOGDP 6y ago
> But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. Is there something morally objectionable you find going on here, or are you just bringing up 'rights' and 'laws of the United States' because these fairly arbitrary laws happen to benefit you? > How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? Let's be clear - we are not talking about taking something away from someone. We are talking about copying something. And I would be fine with that. > How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? How is copying something a suggestion that the world would be a better place without that thing? That's completely backwards. > Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we need to do what we do. What? Why should I show respect for something I'm against and don't like? 'Even if you don't like the cigarette business, please show some respect for what they're doing.' How about no?
Ckirby 6y ago
"How would you feel if someone took your output without permission[...]. that has happened to me all the damn time and quite frankly I've stopped caring so boo effin hoo. we live in a postindustrial society. People have value extracted from them without due compensation every single day. Just be glad you're getting your slice of the pie as it is
lelandbatey 6y ago
> How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? I believe that being able to profit strictly from control of intellectual property is on the decline and will ultimately disappear. "Payment for access" to IP will be outcompeted by easy and ubiquitous technology for IP distribution (and thus infringement). I believe we'll move back to a world of primarily "payment for genesis". You want to make money as an author? Then find a way to say "hey world, I'll write a great book about XYZ if I get PQR money." In the same way software developers say "hey, you want this piece of software? I'll write XYZ software if I'm paid PQR money." It's a brutally huge change to the historical way publishing's done and the way artists earn a living. But it's already happening and I believe it'll only accelerate. The future is "payment for genesis" not "payment for control".
- pontifier 6y ago
  I disagree. Without protections on intellectual property, innovation is harmed. There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit.
  - 0_gravitas 6y ago
    > There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit. Ever hear of this hip new thing called FOSS?
    - pontifier 6y ago
      If you build a building, you expect to be able to use it. If you create a product, you expect to be able to sell it. If you create a new idea, you expect to be able to monetize it.
      - 0_gravitas 6y ago
        ...except for all the people who don't?
atweiden 6y ago
Look no further than GitHub Sponsorships for the future of online publishing. Speaking from experience, I derive far more value from signaling to onlookers that I financially support a particular "author" than I do from privately buying ... basically anything ... from that person. In addition, the author gets way more exposure this way, on a far more consistent basis -- just for being awesome. And I prefer this to a relationship doled out one financial transaction at a time and limited by artificial exclusivity. I want authors I connect with to be paid, but the best way of doing this is paying for their living expenses independent of their publishing schedule. All the while voluntarily promoting their public persona to my peers. Direct "sales" of information only deserves to have a future insofar as the buyer of the information gets important social signaling value from it, per GitHub sponsorships. It isn't limited to GitHub sponsorships, either. Use your imagination. Use your grasp of modern technology. In the publishing model of the future, authorship is financially compensated based on how much social signaling value their readers derive from monetary patronage. Rather than paywalling my work, or hyping it up using immoral sales psychology techniques which are extractive not contributory, I would much prefer rewarding individual patrons, who opt to voluntarily pay for any of my work, with social credibility. I think that's healthier for everyone, and I fully trust online communities dedicated to information consumption will be better than I am at packaging my information for further public consumption and distributing it far more widely than I could ever achieve as a lone individual.
AdrianB1 6y ago
>>How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? The output of my work is finally money and more than half is taken away from me; most people agree with this and quite a lot think I should be left with even less. It is called taxes and please don't tell me it's not the same because it is the output of my work and it is taken away without permission, so it is the same word for word.
- freshhawk 6y ago
  From that perspective (and it is a good one to take) that tax half is taken away after your employer takes a much larger percentage of the value away from the profit generated by your work. You get way more in exchange for the taxes at least. How come that much bigger chunk is mentioned so much less often?
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    I sell my work for money, I don't associate with my employer for a part of the profits. If I want a part of the profits, I buy shares. As long as I sell work for money, profit is not my problem as long as I am paid in full. For taxes I don't get a better deal, it depends a lot on the country you live, in my country I get almost nothing.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    >How come that much bigger chunk is mentioned so much less often? Capitalism.
RNCTX 6y ago
> I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? As someone with a humanities education (literature specifically) I feel like I've studied more than the average reader here about the particulars of famous printed works from the past. And that background says "bullshit" in response to your questions. Throughout history publishers have exploited authors mercilessly in an effort to keep ALL of the profit from their writing. In short, the answer to your hypothetical question is quite simple. All of these people you're addressing have code, and have original ideas. You on the other hand are just a publisher, you don't have any original work at all. You're nothing but a middle man. There are no more middle managers at toaster and television distributors in the developed world, sitting at desks filling out reports by hand and ordering fresh stocks of paperclips and staples. We got rid of those people when we modernized supply chains and in the process cut the prices of microwaves and televisions so that they're not luxury items anymore. Similarly, there's not going to be any room for publishing middle men for very long either. If I were you I'd find a new line of work.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > There are no more middle managers at toaster and television distributors in the developed world This is a joke right? There is absolutely a place for publishers, which is why they still exist fifteen years after anti-copyright campaigners said they'd be done in five. If authors decide not to go to publishers and publish directly you'll have a point. Broadly, they don't.
- k__ 6y ago
  This. I made five figures by selling my book via a small publisher. I know authors who sold their books via big publishers and they made magnitudes less money than me while selling magnitudes more copies than me. To me this sounds like a broken system.
  - RNCTX 6y ago
bsder 6y ago
> Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?" I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators. If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new." I have a problem with copyright outliving the author by very much. There will be no further output to incentivize, so why does the copyright persist? I have a problem with multi-decade copyrights overall. I have a lot less problem with people asking for strong copyright enforcement if it only lasts 20 years. I also have a problem with multi-decade copyright because it allows corporations to simply sit on works rather than licensing them because everybody is afraid that it might become popular and then they'll get fired--we've irretrievably lost movies and music because nobody would license them and then the vault they were sitting in burned. I would be far more sympathetic to the "publishing industry" if they were an active opponent to the abusiveness of copyright law. Instead they are merely rent-seekers abusing the system.
- solveit 6y ago
  > I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators. If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new." That would devalue the copyright and creators would get compensated less. This also applies to a lesser extent to your other problems. Copyright outliving the author increases the value of the copyright even when the author still lives. I also have many problems with copyright law as it stands now, but the problems are in the details, not in the principle of copyright being transferable, or of copyrights outliving the creators per se.
  - bsder 6y ago
    > That would devalue the copyright and creators would get compensated less. This also applies to a lesser extent to your other problems. Copyright outliving the author increases the value of the copyright even when the author still lives. Um, tough? The point of copyright isn't to create a perpetual rent ... it's to incentivize new creation. For example, George R. R. Martin might actually finish his books rather than dragging them out as a meal ticket if the copyright only lasted 10 years past transfer (the moment where the TV show got posted). Or perhaps he might start a new series that might be better. I'm not seeing the downside to society from giving creators incentive to produce rather than rent seek.
thothamon 6y ago
My questions on this are very simple: 1. Did they legally acquire the books they scanned? 2. Are they only allowing one subscriber at a time to check out/read the book? If so, then they are doing exactly what libraries do. To argue that there's some fundamental difference between a physical book and an electronic book is exactly why people hate the music industry, and if the publishing industry tries to go in the same direction, they'll get the same results.
- sp332 6y ago
  2. They are not. http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/ http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...
  - cfmcdonald 6y ago
    But this suit alleges that even when they were, it was illegal.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? How would you feel if some aging industry held back the creation of the society of the future simply because they don't belong in it? The entire publishing industry has been rendered obsolete by modern technology. They exist to make and distribute copies of books. We have far better ways to do that now. The only reason they still exist is the fact they own the intellectual property. The government has granted them a monopoly that will last over a hundred years. That is literally the only reason why they're able to compete with vastly superior technology. The truth is copyright makes no sense in the 21st century. When copyright was created, people had to be major industry players in order to make copies at scale. People needed industrial hardware like printing presses. This is no longer the case: everyone has at least one computer, making copies now costs $0 and is as easy as copy paste. Once the data is known it's trivial to make copies and distribute them. People infringe copyright every day without even realizing it. Only the first copy must be paid for. Authors must find a way to get paid before they write their books. Crowdfunding and patronage might be the answer. Creation must be like an investment rather than a product to be sold. Insisting on maintaning the archaic copyright industry means ignoring reality.
- 6510 6y ago
  The modern models: Get paid before making something. Using crowd funding one might not even be obligated to deliver. A serious attempt to make something can be good enough. There are monthly donations for those who continue to demonstrate relevant qualities. It's a bit like a job contract with a hundred or a thousand employers. I think we will eventually figure out a system where we can collectively order a work and pay for it after delivery. Perhaps with a series of deadlines. Strange thoughts: Books still have their value over digital media in that they are a robust storage medium and you can re-sell the copy. It should at least in theory be possible to reduce the number of copies printed to a point where value is preserved. If a book in a good state is new or not shouldn't matter to the customer.
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
You are a middle man. They are makers. You need to change your business model, limiting the potential of some technology just because it doesn't suit your business model is absurd and it just keeps happening in multiple markets( e.g. CD drivers being slower as a copyright protection measure). I can't wait until your market deflates enough that even the big guns don't have the money to push for this bullshit.
fpoling 6y ago
Recently I was able to read a book from 1850 because somebody bothered to go to a library, scan it and publish as ebook for 1USD. And the book itself was a new print for a work that was published 50 years before so it was published after the copyrights expired.

pdimitar 6y ago

> But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. That would have been fine if the power balance wasn't severely tilted in favour of the publishers. Most of them are greedy rent-seeker middle-men that do much more harm to the interests of the creators compared to if they tried to self-publish. I am not doubting you in particular. An indie publisher is likely more ethical than most mainstream publishers. But you have to recognise that you have a vested financial interest and that this might make you skip the bigger picture, which is... ...that a lot of programmers are creators. We also have "publishers" (middle-men) in terms of bad employers or hiring mediators, so you maybe should make an analogy targetting them. Copyright is clearly not working for humanity because a lot of people constantly try and break it. Maybe somebody should open their eyes for that fact and think of another paradigm. We can dream.

TheBobinator 6y ago

The purpose of copyright is to provide a temporary monopoly to creators for their works to encourage them to create more and thus transfer more to the public domain. Currently, it takes greater than 2 average lifetimes for a work to transfer into the public domain and copyrights have been extended something like 12 times due to Disney's lobbying; there is a strong argument that that current copyright law is forever. What interest does the public have in copyright that transfers nothing into the public domain? The "mainstream media" is in fact a publishing oligopoly of 4 companies (Ref: Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian). Furthermore, a 20TB HDD can store enough movies you can watch 3 a night for 2 decades; in 20 years time it'll be possible to store every newspaper clipping, TV Broadcast, movie and song on a desktop computer and in 40 on a thumb drive. Congress and Businesses have neglected the publics interest, and due to that the public is using technology to wipe their arse with the law and rightfully so. The "Legal and Business frameworks" are outdated, orwellian cultural astroturfing exercises supported that are counterproductive to the operation of a disciplined, free society. Go read Vietnam and Korean era Psychological warfare manuals and tell me they are not blueprints for how a modern news org works. When Mickey Mouse is free, I'll respect what you are doing. Until then, don't come sobbing to me. Nobody cares.

cygx 6y ago

Please clarify: Are you against the practice of controlled digital lending of books scanned from physical copies in general, or do you merely have issues with the 3 months of unrestricted lending?

mardifoufs 6y ago
I think his issue is with the IA unilaterally deciding that they can chose that they want to simply ignore the authors rights to get compensated for their work at any moment they want. And I totally understand his frustration. It's one thing to have pirating websites that have always distributed copyrighted material illegally. But for IA to decide that they only play by the rules when they want to is different imo. Not only is it bait and switch but it's also just weird to pretend to follow the law when you don't. Imagine your boss deciding that you just won't get compensated for a few months because they decided to give away for free the software you worked on. If IA wanted to give away other people's work , it's still up to them to foot the bill. It's not even that I'm totally against piracy, it's just that when I pirate I realize I'm not compensating the author and that if I like the stuff I'll try to do that later. Even the cracking scene tries to put notices on the torrents that if you like what you downloaded, consider supporting the creators. With how IA presents it's whole program, there's no way to explicitly know that the authors have had no say in the emergency library beforehand and that they don't get compensated . IA looks benevolent but the authors don't.
- mantap 6y ago
  Do authors have rights to be compensated? If I go to a library and take out a book, the author doesn't get compensated again. The book may be read by hundreds of people but it was only paid for once. If I lend a book I own to a friend, the author doesn't get compensated again. It's my book, not the authors, and I can let anybody I want read it. There has never been an expectation that authors get compensated for each person who reads a book. The system has never worked like that. A book is a physical object and authors get compensated for each physical book that gets sold. It's only with the recent advent of ebooks in recent decades that "pay per reader" has even become technologically possible. Since the 90s.

dexen 6y ago

>How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? While I'm somewhat ambiguous about this IA matter, the example you bring up is rather unconvincing on HN. I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories. We have structured our work and our contracts with customers to get paid for the services rendered[1], not the number of zeroes & ones (nor files nor LoC nor other incidental artifacts). It's not only doable, it's also the arrangement closest to fair & morally right we have found so far. -- [1] yes, including some upfront payments where circumstances warrant it

jasonlotito 6y ago
> I, just like many other fellow users here, publish our code (both end product and tools) to public, and to organizational, Git repositories. Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license. Very rarely are people releasing things into the public domain. All that code people are releasing are being released with the support of copyright. In fact, people here on HN and other communities very much oppose people taking things without permission. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with your own repositories.
- dexen 6y ago
  >Sure, but that code is generally tied to a license That's a whataboutist tangent, but let's entertain it for a while. The copyright law is usually restrictive, in the form of "everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden", and some of the openings - like Fair Use - are somewhat contentious. Thus a specially crafted free license is used to make the work legally accessible & reusable in an unambiguous way in such legal environment. A free license for software is generally used to unambiguously establish the legal status - that simplifies dealing, especially for organizations and professionals. It effectively increases ability to access and re-use the software [1]. A license & copyright information is used to convey authorship and guarantee certain author's rights, like the right to attribution. Some licenses (eg. copyleft) are also used to prevent certain misuses (eg. tivoization), again with aim of increasing availability of the software for access and re-use. Conversely, releasing into public domain (which is a limited legal concept, not available in certain countries) runs with the risk of somebody else slapping a restrictive license on the code and making it unavailable via legal mechanisms. Free licensing is not only about improving availability and protecting the author and the reuser, it's also about preventing subsequent yanking of the code via machinations by a 3rd party. While those concerns are valid and need taking care of, pretty sure they aren't at the stake in the IA vs book authors discussion. They aren't mentioned in the OP either. >In fact, people here on HN and other communities very much oppose people taking things without permission. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise with your own repositories. Ah yes, a challenge to prove a negative. I'll rise to it right after solving the halting problem :^)

EvanAnderson 6y ago

I was being hyperbolic in that question, to be sure. It's probably better asked as: When will the publishing industry finally accept that it exists in a world where counting copies made doesn't work as a business model anymore? Technology isn't going away. The business models will have to change. Some businesses will fail. Some creators will have tragic outcomes. Some works will never be created. Entire classes of works might never be created again. re: "...took my output without permission..." - I choose not to deal in "intellectual property". I've arguably left money on the table by not. I've chosen not to pursue projects that involved selling licenses for "intellectual property"-- projects that had a decent shot of profitability. Under the current terms of US copyright I consider it a tainted and morally questionable business. It's not one I want to participate in. I also have deep moral concerns with the idea that a creator should somehow be entitled to be paid again and again for work done once.

Zonulet 6y ago
In the UK, revenue from ebook sales grew 3% between 2018 and 2019. Where is your evidence that the business model of "counting copies" – i.e. selling books to people who want to read them – doesn't work any more?
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  I'm seeing reports of a 5% decrease (a ~152 million pound decrease) in print book sales in the UK from 2018 to 2019. "Selling books to people who want to read them" seems to be a declining business. The 3% increase in ebook licensing revenue from 2018 to 2019 was an absolutely increase of ~20 million pounds. That doesn't absorb event a quarter of the decrease in print sales. Given the relative price parity between the two, I'd say that people who aren't purchasing print books aren't licensing ebooks, by and large, either. Unless the book publishing industry can come up with some analog to subscription streaming services, or can use their lobby to kill general purpose computing devices, I don't think the long game looks very good for their business model. Video and audio media are well suited to the streaming market because there's enough inconvenience in making infringing copies to make paying license feeds worthwhile (at least, with current media file sizes and network speeds). I don't think ebooks have as strong a value proposition for paying the license fee vs. making an infringing copy.

NOGDP 6y ago

> But when it comes to outright republishing of in-copyright printed works, the rights of creators and publishers need to be recognized. Is there something morally objectionable you find going on here, or are you just bringing up 'rights' and 'laws of the United States' because these fairly arbitrary laws happen to benefit you? > How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? Let's be clear - we are not talking about taking something away from someone. We are talking about copying something. And I would be fine with that. > How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? How is copying something a suggestion that the world would be a better place without that thing? That's completely backwards. > Finally, even if you don't personally care for the book industry, try to show some respect for what we're doing, and the legal and business frameworks we need to do what we do. What? Why should I show respect for something I'm against and don't like? 'Even if you don't like the cigarette business, please show some respect for what they're doing.' How about no?

Ckirby 6y ago

"How would you feel if someone took your output without permission[...]. that has happened to me all the damn time and quite frankly I've stopped caring so boo effin hoo. we live in a postindustrial society. People have value extracted from them without due compensation every single day. Just be glad you're getting your slice of the pie as it is

lelandbatey 6y ago

> How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? I believe that being able to profit strictly from control of intellectual property is on the decline and will ultimately disappear. "Payment for access" to IP will be outcompeted by easy and ubiquitous technology for IP distribution (and thus infringement). I believe we'll move back to a world of primarily "payment for genesis". You want to make money as an author? Then find a way to say "hey world, I'll write a great book about XYZ if I get PQR money." In the same way software developers say "hey, you want this piece of software? I'll write XYZ software if I'm paid PQR money." It's a brutally huge change to the historical way publishing's done and the way artists earn a living. But it's already happening and I believe it'll only accelerate. The future is "payment for genesis" not "payment for control".

pontifier 6y ago
I disagree. Without protections on intellectual property, innovation is harmed. There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit.
- 0_gravitas 6y ago
  > There is no incentive to invest substantial resources in development if there is no ability to profit. Ever hear of this hip new thing called FOSS?
  - pontifier 6y ago
    If you build a building, you expect to be able to use it. If you create a product, you expect to be able to sell it. If you create a new idea, you expect to be able to monetize it.
    - 0_gravitas 6y ago
      ...except for all the people who don't?

atweiden 6y ago

Look no further than GitHub Sponsorships for the future of online publishing. Speaking from experience, I derive far more value from signaling to onlookers that I financially support a particular "author" than I do from privately buying ... basically anything ... from that person. In addition, the author gets way more exposure this way, on a far more consistent basis -- just for being awesome. And I prefer this to a relationship doled out one financial transaction at a time and limited by artificial exclusivity. I want authors I connect with to be paid, but the best way of doing this is paying for their living expenses independent of their publishing schedule. All the while voluntarily promoting their public persona to my peers. Direct "sales" of information only deserves to have a future insofar as the buyer of the information gets important social signaling value from it, per GitHub sponsorships. It isn't limited to GitHub sponsorships, either. Use your imagination. Use your grasp of modern technology. In the publishing model of the future, authorship is financially compensated based on how much social signaling value their readers derive from monetary patronage. Rather than paywalling my work, or hyping it up using immoral sales psychology techniques which are extractive not contributory, I would much prefer rewarding individual patrons, who opt to voluntarily pay for any of my work, with social credibility. I think that's healthier for everyone, and I fully trust online communities dedicated to information consumption will be better than I am at packaging my information for further public consumption and distributing it far more widely than I could ever achieve as a lone individual.

AdrianB1 6y ago

>>How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? The output of my work is finally money and more than half is taken away from me; most people agree with this and quite a lot think I should be left with even less. It is called taxes and please don't tell me it's not the same because it is the output of my work and it is taken away without permission, so it is the same word for word.

freshhawk 6y ago
From that perspective (and it is a good one to take) that tax half is taken away after your employer takes a much larger percentage of the value away from the profit generated by your work. You get way more in exchange for the taxes at least. How come that much bigger chunk is mentioned so much less often?
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  I sell my work for money, I don't associate with my employer for a part of the profits. If I want a part of the profits, I buy shares. As long as I sell work for money, profit is not my problem as long as I am paid in full. For taxes I don't get a better deal, it depends a lot on the country you live, in my country I get almost nothing.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  >How come that much bigger chunk is mentioned so much less often? Capitalism.

RNCTX 6y ago

> I'd like to put the question to those HN members who work in tech: How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? As someone with a humanities education (literature specifically) I feel like I've studied more than the average reader here about the particulars of famous printed works from the past. And that background says "bullshit" in response to your questions. Throughout history publishers have exploited authors mercilessly in an effort to keep ALL of the profit from their writing. In short, the answer to your hypothetical question is quite simple. All of these people you're addressing have code, and have original ideas. You on the other hand are just a publisher, you don't have any original work at all. You're nothing but a middle man. There are no more middle managers at toaster and television distributors in the developed world, sitting at desks filling out reports by hand and ordering fresh stocks of paperclips and staples. We got rid of those people when we modernized supply chains and in the process cut the prices of microwaves and televisions so that they're not luxury items anymore. Similarly, there's not going to be any room for publishing middle men for very long either. If I were you I'd find a new line of work.

Mindwipe 6y ago
> There are no more middle managers at toaster and television distributors in the developed world This is a joke right? There is absolutely a place for publishers, which is why they still exist fifteen years after anti-copyright campaigners said they'd be done in five. If authors decide not to go to publishers and publish directly you'll have a point. Broadly, they don't.
k__ 6y ago
This. I made five figures by selling my book via a small publisher. I know authors who sold their books via big publishers and they made magnitudes less money than me while selling magnitudes more copies than me. To me this sounds like a broken system.
- RNCTX 6y ago

bsder 6y ago

> Someone earlier asked the question, "Why can't the publishing industry just hurry up and die?" I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators. If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new." I have a problem with copyright outliving the author by very much. There will be no further output to incentivize, so why does the copyright persist? I have a problem with multi-decade copyrights overall. I have a lot less problem with people asking for strong copyright enforcement if it only lasts 20 years. I also have a problem with multi-decade copyright because it allows corporations to simply sit on works rather than licensing them because everybody is afraid that it might become popular and then they'll get fired--we've irretrievably lost movies and music because nobody would license them and then the vault they were sitting in burned. I would be far more sympathetic to the "publishing industry" if they were an active opponent to the abusiveness of copyright law. Instead they are merely rent-seekers abusing the system.

solveit 6y ago
> I have a problem with copyright being transferable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creators. If you transfer a copyright or license it out, its term should get shortened dramatically. "Congratulations--you got a payout. Now make something new." That would devalue the copyright and creators would get compensated less. This also applies to a lesser extent to your other problems. Copyright outliving the author increases the value of the copyright even when the author still lives. I also have many problems with copyright law as it stands now, but the problems are in the details, not in the principle of copyright being transferable, or of copyrights outliving the creators per se.
- bsder 6y ago
  > That would devalue the copyright and creators would get compensated less. This also applies to a lesser extent to your other problems. Copyright outliving the author increases the value of the copyright even when the author still lives. Um, tough? The point of copyright isn't to create a perpetual rent ... it's to incentivize new creation. For example, George R. R. Martin might actually finish his books rather than dragging them out as a meal ticket if the copyright only lasted 10 years past transfer (the moment where the TV show got posted). Or perhaps he might start a new series that might be better. I'm not seeing the downside to society from giving creators incentive to produce rather than rent seek.

thothamon 6y ago

My questions on this are very simple: 1. Did they legally acquire the books they scanned? 2. Are they only allowing one subscriber at a time to check out/read the book? If so, then they are doing exactly what libraries do. To argue that there's some fundamental difference between a physical book and an electronic book is exactly why people hate the music industry, and if the publishing industry tries to go in the same direction, they'll get the same results.

sp332 6y ago
2. They are not. http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/ http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-eme...
- cfmcdonald 6y ago
  But this suit alleges that even when they were, it was illegal.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> How would you feel if someone took your output without permission, whether it's designs or code or something else unique and hard to make? How would you feel if people cheered this on, or called for your demise, suggesting that the world would be a better place without your work? How would you feel if some aging industry held back the creation of the society of the future simply because they don't belong in it? The entire publishing industry has been rendered obsolete by modern technology. They exist to make and distribute copies of books. We have far better ways to do that now. The only reason they still exist is the fact they own the intellectual property. The government has granted them a monopoly that will last over a hundred years. That is literally the only reason why they're able to compete with vastly superior technology. The truth is copyright makes no sense in the 21st century. When copyright was created, people had to be major industry players in order to make copies at scale. People needed industrial hardware like printing presses. This is no longer the case: everyone has at least one computer, making copies now costs $0 and is as easy as copy paste. Once the data is known it's trivial to make copies and distribute them. People infringe copyright every day without even realizing it. Only the first copy must be paid for. Authors must find a way to get paid before they write their books. Crowdfunding and patronage might be the answer. Creation must be like an investment rather than a product to be sold. Insisting on maintaning the archaic copyright industry means ignoring reality.

6510 6y ago
The modern models: Get paid before making something. Using crowd funding one might not even be obligated to deliver. A serious attempt to make something can be good enough. There are monthly donations for those who continue to demonstrate relevant qualities. It's a bit like a job contract with a hundred or a thousand employers. I think we will eventually figure out a system where we can collectively order a work and pay for it after delivery. Perhaps with a series of deadlines. Strange thoughts: Books still have their value over digital media in that they are a robust storage medium and you can re-sell the copy. It should at least in theory be possible to reduce the number of copies printed to a point where value is preserved. If a book in a good state is new or not shouldn't matter to the customer.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago

You are a middle man. They are makers. You need to change your business model, limiting the potential of some technology just because it doesn't suit your business model is absurd and it just keeps happening in multiple markets( e.g. CD drivers being slower as a copyright protection measure). I can't wait until your market deflates enough that even the big guns don't have the money to push for this bullshit.

fpoling 6y ago

Recently I was able to read a book from 1850 because somebody bothered to go to a library, scan it and publish as ebook for 1USD. And the book itself was a new print for a work that was published 50 years before so it was published after the copyrights expired.