4 ms·

> (or, more practically, that authors continue to author books instead of deciding to go work at a tech company or something) Have you done or read research to

> (or, more practically, that authors continue to author books instead of deciding to go work at a tech company or something) Have you done or read research to suggest this is something to worry about? There are other concerns certainly. But I have trouble understanding how someone who has ever visited Wikipedia or visited github could even ask this question. It sure sounds like a conceptual anachronism to me. (Though not nearly as bad as the person who wanted to shift from discussing copying data to holding up a bank the last time this topic came up.)

jefftk 6y ago
I think if you talked to most authors and asked "would you still do this if it were unpaid" you'd get almost entirely "no"s. Do you expect otherwise?
- indigochill 6y ago
  If you asked most software engineers if they'd code if it were unpaid, you'd also get mostly "no"s. And yet FOSS carries on. There are some people who simply need to create. And yes, some FOSS is subsidized by companies who pay their engineers to contribute, but there are also people who contribute on their own time.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "And yet FOSS carries on." Isn't it already very well established that FOSS is currently largely being built by people employed by corporations? They are most definitely not unpaid.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    I agree that writing wouldn't go to zero. But I do think we'd get a lot less of it! (And the same if FOSS were entirely unpaid)
  - geofft 6y ago
    The amount of FOSS in the world that exists from people who contribute on their own time is a small fraction of the amount of software (total) in the world. Yes, software won't die out, but if somehow people couldn't get paid to be software engineers any more, there would be a lot less software engineering happening. It's certainly possible to argue that copyright is so bad that we should have way fewer authors and musicians in this world, such that only those who are truly passionate about writing and making music (and/or independently wealthy) will do it, but it doesn't seem to me that that's what people are arguing.
- sjy 6y ago
  The question isn’t whether they’d work for free, it’s whether they’d work if it was impossible to generate revenue through enforceable copyrights. We know that even under these conditions, some authors would work for free, others would be paid by companies that benefit from their work other than through the sale of licensed copies, and still others would be paid by patrons and governments. It’s impossible to say whether the loss of all new works that don’t fall into these categories would outweigh the gain of all existing creative works becoming available for unlimited free use, but we can be pretty confident that there would still be more new creative works (perhaps of lower average quality) than any person could consume in a lifetime.
geofft 6y ago
> Have you done or read research to suggest this is something to worry about? Yes, I've heard many authors saying that they're unhappy with the emergency library in particular because they are concerned they won't be able to get paid to write books if this happens. And, based on my training and experience, if someone isn't paid to do their job anymore, they'll look for another job. I'm aware of GitHub. I've published things to GitHub myself. Many of them I was paid to publish. There's a lot more I would publish to GitHub if I weren't writing proprietary code all day. You can go see all the pull requests I haven't responded to. I think it's absolutely true that if you gave people a way to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, they'd do work they love anyway, and I myself point to GitHub as an example of that. I think it's also true that if you don't give people a way to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, they'll find something else to do with their life that does. I've also visited Wikipedia. Here's a quote from the first person to make one million edits: "Being suddenly and involuntarily unemployed will do that to you." I think that demonstrates that if he could do something else and get paid for it, he would have.
- pabs3 6y ago
  In case you aren't aware of it, FOSSjobs is a site where companies post jobs for working on open source. There is also a list of resources, which contains a list of a bunch of open source companies and other ways to get paid to work on open source. https://www.fossjobs.net/ https://www.fossjobs.net/ https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources
- jancsika 6y ago
  I thought the greater implication of your parenthetical was that there is a danger that down the line fewer books of probably less quality would end up being written. I gave an example in the context of encyclopedias where vastly more articles of at least equal quality ended up being written. I'm asking for any citation you can give of trends that go in the opposite direction of encyclopedias, music recordings, blogs, citizen journalism, propaganda, to name a few. It's my observation that when the cost to publish and read hits essentially zero the amount of content goes up, not down.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> But I have trouble understanding how someone who has ever visited Wikipedia or visited github could even ask this question. I can't decide whether that statement is autistic or pedantic, or both. - neither are 200 page literary works, so your comparison is very strange. I don't know anybody who goes to github for entertainment. - a lot of Wikipedia "editors" are PR firms (ie. paid) - the entire reason for copyright law was to allow authors and musicians to monetize their work, authorized by Congress. So there was an obvious need for that legislation. - Amazon's first product was books, so obviously somebody appreciates them enough to pay for them. Do github and Wikipedia replace movies in your world too?

jefftk 6y ago

I think if you talked to most authors and asked "would you still do this if it were unpaid" you'd get almost entirely "no"s. Do you expect otherwise?

indigochill 6y ago
If you asked most software engineers if they'd code if it were unpaid, you'd also get mostly "no"s. And yet FOSS carries on. There are some people who simply need to create. And yes, some FOSS is subsidized by companies who pay their engineers to contribute, but there are also people who contribute on their own time.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "And yet FOSS carries on." Isn't it already very well established that FOSS is currently largely being built by people employed by corporations? They are most definitely not unpaid.
- jefftk 6y ago
  I agree that writing wouldn't go to zero. But I do think we'd get a lot less of it! (And the same if FOSS were entirely unpaid)
- geofft 6y ago
  The amount of FOSS in the world that exists from people who contribute on their own time is a small fraction of the amount of software (total) in the world. Yes, software won't die out, but if somehow people couldn't get paid to be software engineers any more, there would be a lot less software engineering happening. It's certainly possible to argue that copyright is so bad that we should have way fewer authors and musicians in this world, such that only those who are truly passionate about writing and making music (and/or independently wealthy) will do it, but it doesn't seem to me that that's what people are arguing.
sjy 6y ago
The question isn’t whether they’d work for free, it’s whether they’d work if it was impossible to generate revenue through enforceable copyrights. We know that even under these conditions, some authors would work for free, others would be paid by companies that benefit from their work other than through the sale of licensed copies, and still others would be paid by patrons and governments. It’s impossible to say whether the loss of all new works that don’t fall into these categories would outweigh the gain of all existing creative works becoming available for unlimited free use, but we can be pretty confident that there would still be more new creative works (perhaps of lower average quality) than any person could consume in a lifetime.

geofft 6y ago

> Have you done or read research to suggest this is something to worry about? Yes, I've heard many authors saying that they're unhappy with the emergency library in particular because they are concerned they won't be able to get paid to write books if this happens. And, based on my training and experience, if someone isn't paid to do their job anymore, they'll look for another job. I'm aware of GitHub. I've published things to GitHub myself. Many of them I was paid to publish. There's a lot more I would publish to GitHub if I weren't writing proprietary code all day. You can go see all the pull requests I haven't responded to. I think it's absolutely true that if you gave people a way to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, they'd do work they love anyway, and I myself point to GitHub as an example of that. I think it's also true that if you don't give people a way to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, they'll find something else to do with their life that does. I've also visited Wikipedia. Here's a quote from the first person to make one million edits: "Being suddenly and involuntarily unemployed will do that to you." I think that demonstrates that if he could do something else and get paid for it, he would have.

pabs3 6y ago
In case you aren't aware of it, FOSSjobs is a site where companies post jobs for working on open source. There is also a list of resources, which contains a list of a bunch of open source companies and other ways to get paid to work on open source. https://www.fossjobs.net/ https://www.fossjobs.net/ https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources
jancsika 6y ago
I thought the greater implication of your parenthetical was that there is a danger that down the line fewer books of probably less quality would end up being written. I gave an example in the context of encyclopedias where vastly more articles of at least equal quality ended up being written. I'm asking for any citation you can give of trends that go in the opposite direction of encyclopedias, music recordings, blogs, citizen journalism, propaganda, to name a few. It's my observation that when the cost to publish and read hits essentially zero the amount of content goes up, not down.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> But I have trouble understanding how someone who has ever visited Wikipedia or visited github could even ask this question. I can't decide whether that statement is autistic or pedantic, or both. - neither are 200 page literary works, so your comparison is very strange. I don't know anybody who goes to github for entertainment. - a lot of Wikipedia "editors" are PR firms (ie. paid) - the entire reason for copyright law was to allow authors and musicians to monetize their work, authorized by Congress. So there was an obvious need for that legislation. - Amazon's first product was books, so obviously somebody appreciates them enough to pay for them. Do github and Wikipedia replace movies in your world too?