4 ms·

> But I don't think simply writing a book entitles you to income. Writing a copyrighted book today does not entitle you to income either. Do you really think

> But I don't think simply writing a book entitles you to income. Writing a copyrighted book today does not entitle you to income either. Do you really think artists make money just because they publish something? > I see them as good, noble pursuits in and of themselves. They should be done for their own sake. Agreed, but unless you are rich or someone supports you, that simply does not work. I suggest you take a look at universal income instead. One of its advantages is that people could work on non-profitable endeavors if they are fine with a very basic life. That, or wait until Star Trek becomes a reality :-) > I value seeing a musical artist perform live, so I will pay for a concert even if I can download their album for free. How do you do that for books and software which do not have any equivalent to a concert or performance? > This is how you separate the truly valued works, from the works that have been artificially given a monetary value for the sake of profit raising. Giving a concert does not mean your work is valuable. Neither publishing it digitally. And neither guarantee any audience whatsoever, much less profit... > Just because you can publish an ebook in 3 clicks, doesn't mean it is good literature, and doesn't mean it is worth paying for. This seems to follow from the "copyright entitles you to income", but since that isn't true, this does not follow either. Someone publishing a bad ebook (actually, not even a bad one, average ones and even many good ones too) is not going to get any sales. Ask any aspiring average author or artist. They will have countless stories of how their endeavors have not paid any bills yet.

Thorentis 6y ago
> Ask any aspiring average author or artist. They will have countless stories of how their endeavors have not paid any bills yet. How doesn't this support my argument of reforming copyright laws? If even the (imo flawed) intent of copyright laws isn't doing what it's supposed to do (an economic incentive for creation of work) then what is the harm in reform? You're right that holding copyright doesn't magically generate sales. People have to value the work in the first place. But I don't see how copyright laws as they exist now, make the work any more valuable. When I talk about value, I am not talking about something in a supply-demand sense. I am talking about a work being genuinely quality so that it earns some kind of reward for its merit. For example, I don't see buying a book the same as buying a ticket for entry. I see it as supporting an author. Let me use an example: I might buy a ticket to a museum, not knowing what artwork is inside. It could all be atrocious, or maybe just not to my taste. Regardless, it could be work I would never buy. Now, the sale of the ticket as been a "fee to see". I made no choice over whether I wanted to support the artists. I believe that copyright laws as they exist now, place books in a kind of imaginary museum. An author isn't deserving of income simply because they produced something. Nobody asked them to. If they were paid by a publisher to, then great. If not, then what makes them entitled to income? The mere act of putting pen to paper? Anybody can do that. If I want to support them I will do so based on merit. And I can only assess merit of I can read what they have written.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  > How doesn't this support my argument of reforming copyright laws? If even the (imo flawed) intent of copyright laws isn't doing what it's supposed to do (an economic incentive for creation of work) then what is the harm in reform? It doesn't because your suggested reform would only make it (even) worse... It'd imply only rich people could be full-time artists/authors. That is how it used to be centuries ago, by the way.

Thorentis 6y ago

> Ask any aspiring average author or artist. They will have countless stories of how their endeavors have not paid any bills yet. How doesn't this support my argument of reforming copyright laws? If even the (imo flawed) intent of copyright laws isn't doing what it's supposed to do (an economic incentive for creation of work) then what is the harm in reform? You're right that holding copyright doesn't magically generate sales. People have to value the work in the first place. But I don't see how copyright laws as they exist now, make the work any more valuable. When I talk about value, I am not talking about something in a supply-demand sense. I am talking about a work being genuinely quality so that it earns some kind of reward for its merit. For example, I don't see buying a book the same as buying a ticket for entry. I see it as supporting an author. Let me use an example: I might buy a ticket to a museum, not knowing what artwork is inside. It could all be atrocious, or maybe just not to my taste. Regardless, it could be work I would never buy. Now, the sale of the ticket as been a "fee to see". I made no choice over whether I wanted to support the artists. I believe that copyright laws as they exist now, place books in a kind of imaginary museum. An author isn't deserving of income simply because they produced something. Nobody asked them to. If they were paid by a publisher to, then great. If not, then what makes them entitled to income? The mere act of putting pen to paper? Anybody can do that. If I want to support them I will do so based on merit. And I can only assess merit of I can read what they have written.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
> How doesn't this support my argument of reforming copyright laws? If even the (imo flawed) intent of copyright laws isn't doing what it's supposed to do (an economic incentive for creation of work) then what is the harm in reform? It doesn't because your suggested reform would only make it (even) worse... It'd imply only rich people could be full-time artists/authors. That is how it used to be centuries ago, by the way.