2 ms·

Makes sense, at a high level. Should we cancel copyright before this system is well-established and stable? It seems like there could be arguments for it, if c

by geofft 6y ago

Makes sense, at a high level. Should we cancel copyright before this system is well-established and stable? It seems like there could be arguments for it, if copyright is indeed a great abuse, but if it's not, it seems like it would be systematically better to establish the new system in parallel with copyright, and then we could argue not only that copyright is bad but it's no longer necessary. Is copyright in fact no longer necessary? How many people support crowdfunding projects with digital rewards or join programs like Patreon specifically for access to copyrighted works (whether that's because they want legal access, or because there's some form of DRM, or whatever) vs. because they are happy to support the creator anyway? That is, to what extent would getting rid of copyright also reduce the profitability of crowdfunding/patronage? (There's an inverse question - could we get rid of copyright and still have people interested in buying physical books from official sources? That is, could we change the legal mechanism but not the social one? If we think people will pay creators just because they like their work - and it seems that in fact they do - why wouldn't they buy copies of works from creators just because they like their work, even if not compelled to do so via copyright?) How do new authors (or new creators/artists of any kind, really) get a living wage via crowdfunding? I contribute to the Patreon of a couple of creators I like, but they're all established in some way - i.e. I contribute to support these particular creators not needing to participate in the system of selling licensed works for royalties, but it doesn't seem to be a systematic change. How much do creators make via crowdfunding/patronage make, anyway - do established writers tend to earn money comparable to the advances and royalties they'd get from a traditional publisher? One feature of the current system is that if your books are popular with people who don't have much money (students being one of many examples), you still get paid through taxpayer-funded libraries buying copies of your work. How should we preserve that property - should we make it a norm for your local public library to participate in patronage? Did Internet Archive do anything to advertise the crowdfunding sites of authors whose books they lent? Could they have? Related to that, is it possible for the Internet Archive to continue operating infrastructure for digital lending for creators who want to be supported for their work by letting authors post e-books and linking to crowdfunding/patronage sites?

matheusmoreira 6y ago
I've been warned about repetitive ideological discussion on HN so I should probably not elaborate on the matter. I do agree with you though. These are all important points that should be addressed. I do not know the answers to these questions. I sincerely hope someone smarter than me will be able to come up with really good answers. I just think that we can't go on like this. Copyright is based on a lie: artificial scarcity. It wasn't so obvious before the 20th century but computers and the internet changed everything. Society must change as well. In order to enforce copyright in the 21st century, computing freedom must be sacrificed. I don't think anyone here wants that outcome. So I defend the end of copyright.
- geofft 6y ago
  > In order to enforce copyright in the 21st century, computing freedom must be sacrificed. I'm not sure this is true. The publishers aren't demanding that Internet Archive add DRM to their e-books - they're demanding that Internet Archive stop distributing them entirely. I can certainly imagine a world where DRM-free e-books are the norm and unlicensed distribution is limited only by legal threat and not by technical means. Yes, the fact that information can now be copied instantly for free (it could previously be copied with some time and effort with a photocopier, or with typewriters samizdat-style, or with pen and paper monk-style) means the publishers are less confident that legal threat will be enough... but we did mostly end up in a world where DRM-free music is easily available. But also, physical books aren't going away. As long as you can buy physical books, you can participate in a world of copyrighted books without running DRM agents on your computer. You miss out on some potential 21st-century gains like having the text of the book in electronic format and being able to share it without spending some time at a scanner, but you haven't lost anything you had in the 20th century. (Also on the topic of computing freedom, how do we get the benefits of the GPL - especially receiving things like source code - if we no longer have copyright?)
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > I can certainly imagine a world where DRM-free e-books are the norm and unlicensed distribution is limited only by legal threat and not by technical means. The state of YouTube proves that the copyright industry will not accept such a world. They want the technology industry to prevent copyright infringement from happening. They don't want to have to sue anyone after it has happened. Copyright infringement is widespread, decentralized and international so legal threats simply don't work. Prevention is the only option. Copyright infringement prevention is only possible if they seize control of our computers. That is morally objectionable and cannot be allowed to happen even if it destroys the copyright industry. > how do we get the benefits of the GPL - especially receiving things like source code - if we no longer have copyright? We don't. The GPL was created by Stallman in reaction to copyright protection being extended towards source code. Without copyright, the software development world might revert to what it was like before that event. I don't fully understand what it was like in those days but there are descriptions in his books.

by geofft 6y ago

matheusmoreira 6y ago

I've been warned about repetitive ideological discussion on HN so I should probably not elaborate on the matter. I do agree with you though. These are all important points that should be addressed. I do not know the answers to these questions. I sincerely hope someone smarter than me will be able to come up with really good answers. I just think that we can't go on like this. Copyright is based on a lie: artificial scarcity. It wasn't so obvious before the 20th century but computers and the internet changed everything. Society must change as well. In order to enforce copyright in the 21st century, computing freedom must be sacrificed. I don't think anyone here wants that outcome. So I defend the end of copyright.

geofft 6y ago
> In order to enforce copyright in the 21st century, computing freedom must be sacrificed. I'm not sure this is true. The publishers aren't demanding that Internet Archive add DRM to their e-books - they're demanding that Internet Archive stop distributing them entirely. I can certainly imagine a world where DRM-free e-books are the norm and unlicensed distribution is limited only by legal threat and not by technical means. Yes, the fact that information can now be copied instantly for free (it could previously be copied with some time and effort with a photocopier, or with typewriters samizdat-style, or with pen and paper monk-style) means the publishers are less confident that legal threat will be enough... but we did mostly end up in a world where DRM-free music is easily available. But also, physical books aren't going away. As long as you can buy physical books, you can participate in a world of copyrighted books without running DRM agents on your computer. You miss out on some potential 21st-century gains like having the text of the book in electronic format and being able to share it without spending some time at a scanner, but you haven't lost anything you had in the 20th century. (Also on the topic of computing freedom, how do we get the benefits of the GPL - especially receiving things like source code - if we no longer have copyright?)
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > I can certainly imagine a world where DRM-free e-books are the norm and unlicensed distribution is limited only by legal threat and not by technical means. The state of YouTube proves that the copyright industry will not accept such a world. They want the technology industry to prevent copyright infringement from happening. They don't want to have to sue anyone after it has happened. Copyright infringement is widespread, decentralized and international so legal threats simply don't work. Prevention is the only option. Copyright infringement prevention is only possible if they seize control of our computers. That is morally objectionable and cannot be allowed to happen even if it destroys the copyright industry. > how do we get the benefits of the GPL - especially receiving things like source code - if we no longer have copyright? We don't. The GPL was created by Stallman in reaction to copyright protection being extended towards source code. Without copyright, the software development world might revert to what it was like before that event. I don't fully understand what it was like in those days but there are descriptions in his books.