9 ms·

In the US, there's no right to a business model. That's ridiculous. What's happened is certain bad actors have deliberately taken advantage of a weakness in the

In the US, there's no right to a business model. That's ridiculous. What's happened is certain bad actors have deliberately taken advantage of a weakness in the social contract to enrich themselves & lock down the ownership of our own culture. At best, we're dealing with moral turpitude, at worst with genuine sociopaths.

dageshi 6y ago
Without some kind of business model, no writer would be insane enough to write or publish a book because their audience would just read it for free.
- the_af 6y ago
  This is mistaken. Writers write. It's their calling. Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.
  - dageshi 6y ago
    No, what's mistaken is not noticing that the world has changed. Websites exist, youtube exists, there are a myriad of ways a writer might "write" or create which does not involve book form. Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them, but take that away and people capable of writing could and would go to modern competing products that didn't exist in the past.
    - the_af 6y ago
      > Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them If you mean "viable" business-wise, that's a tautology. If you mean "viable" as in "writers feel compelled to write books", that's simply false. Writers write. Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Writing books can be turned into a business, but it's not inherently a business. Also, a book is not its physical form. An electronic book is no less of a book than a paper book.
      - goto11 6y ago
        > Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Unless you are independently rich, you need an income to survive.
        the_af 6y ago
        That's not the only option. Some writers get by without being rich. Others have other jobs, and write because it's their passion. The falsehood here is "no writer will be insane enough to write without a business model".
        goto11 6y ago
        Sure some cushy jobs makes it possible to write on the side. It is no accident that historically a lot of authors and scientists were clergymen. But you need an income to be able to write.
        the_af 6y ago
        "Cushy jobs" is overstating it. People find the means to write with poor jobs too. Yes, you need to be able to have a means of living in order to write. Selling your books is one such way, but not the only one. Lots of writers would still write without a business model. That was my only point, really. It's false that one would have to be "insane" in order to write. We can argue about ifs and buts all day long, but that bit which I was replying to was hyperbolic and false.
        goto11 6y ago
        Can you mention some examples of novels by working-class authors from before the introduction of copyright and commercial publishing?
        the_af 6y ago
        I can do one better: I can mention a hugely popular and commercially successful writer -- whom you know of, at least by name-- who used to live from paycheck to paycheck, really struggling when he started (before succeeding enormously, of course) and who wrote in the introduction to one of his books: "Painting. Sculpture. Composing. Singing. Acting. The playing of a musical instrument. Writing. Enough books have been written on these seven subjects alone to sink a fleet of luxury liners. And the only thing we seem to be able to agree upon about them is this: that those who practise these arts honestly would continue to practise them even if they were not paid for their efforts; even if their efforts were criticized or even reviled; even on pain of imprisonment or death." He struck gold, of course, but note the sentiment he expressed. By his own admission, had he never been paid for it, he would have kept writing anyway, because that's what he does. And when he was starting he had other jobs -- and a family to support -- and really struggled with money, but kept going anyway.
  - goto11 6y ago
    Writers are free to make their work public domain if they want. The question is for all the author who have not decided to do that, but prefer to get paid for their work. > Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed. Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. Copyright was revolutionary because it meant an author could exist without catering to rich or powerful patrons.
    - the_af 6y ago
      > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Not only that. Plenty of struggling people write because they like writing. Writing is a calling which some people happen to be able to turn into a business. But do note the post I was replying to. I wasn't arguing about copyright. I was arguing about the hyperbole of "no writer would be insane enough [...]" which is simply untrue. And it's untrue by a lot, not by a little.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. You're mistaking publishing for writing. You need money to publish, because publishing is selling decorated paper. Or rather, you did need money to publish. Now you don't, but instead we throw up artificial barriers in order to preserve the status quo.
xhkkffbf 6y ago
There may not be a right to a business model, but by the same token no one has a right to someone else's work for free. I submit that copyright has served society quite well. The pandemic hasn't been that onerous. Amazon has been shipping books. Powell's has stayed open. No one was denied access to materials.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > There may not be a right to a business model, but by the same token no one has a right to someone else's work for free For entertainment, I agree. But only insomuch as entertainers need to eat too. For science, I disagree. Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it.
  - goto11 6y ago
    > Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it. Sure, but should scientists work for free?
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > Sure, but should scientists work for free? I think the premise of the question is flawed. I think science should be free and scientists should be paid a liveable wage as any other person should be. People can write stories all day long, even stories that will be read by nobody. Scientists can do science all day long even science that benefits nobody. But writing stories all day long practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Scientists doing science practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Both can be done with personal computers these days. Personal computers are extremely cheap to have and to maintain. There's nothing stopping it other than politics.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Can you name at least one scientist whose work is supported significantly by publishing royalties, from the publication of that actual work?
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
Your rights to a business model are encoded in laws and contracts you sign with others. Unless the law changes, then yeah there are certain rights around business models. It’s not a right to avoid innovation, but it’s a right to avoid lawbreaking and contract breaking.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Excellent! I have no contracts with any publishing house, and I doubt that IA does.
  - ISL 6y ago
    If IA agreed to a controlled-lending contract, it absolutely does.
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      They didn't. They were relying on the first sale doctrine.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    You are ignoring the laws part of his comment.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      I don't think that was there when I commented
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
goto11 6y ago
But a consumer cannot just unilaterally demand that a business should use a different business model more to the liking of the consumer. Lets say I hire a plumber to fix my sink. Afterwards I refuse to pay because I have decided plumbing work should be free and plumbers should instead make their income by selling branded merchandise. This would just be breach of contract. The plumber is not a psychopath by insisting on getting paid according the originally agreed contract. Maybe the plumber don't want to make income by selling branded merchandise but just want to get paid for plumbing. That is not for me to decide. I am free to look for a different plumber who will work for free.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > But a consumer cannot just unilaterally demand that a business should use a different business model more to the liking of the consumer. Yes, they can. It's weird that you think that people can't demand that any aspect of any business change (or end) because they don't like it. That's basically an argument against law and democracy. Your example is about someone entering a contract, accepting the fruits of that contract, then refusing to hold up their end of that contract. Completely unrelated.
  - goto11 6y ago
    But isn't it exactly what IA did? They refused to hold up their end of the contract.
    - scatters 6y ago
      Retroactive copyright extension makes a mockery of any argument based on contract rights.
slightwinder 6y ago
> What's happened is certain bad actors have deliberately taken advantage of a weakness in the social contract to enrich themselves & lock down the ownership of our own culture. That's ridiculous. Copyright exists becauce in the past bad actors misused the liberty of culture to exploit poor creators by selling their work without paying them anything at all. In the grand picture copyright is good, because it enables cretors to live from their work, and let's them invest into bigger pieces of culture of higher quality. What we need is to ensure a balance between the commercial interessts and societies interesst.
- account42 6y ago
  If you are saying that copyright is entirely obsolete now that authors can cheaply distribute their own contents via the internat without having to rely on publishers who might not pay them, then I agree.
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    No, I do not, and you are wrong. Internet does not solve the problem of Publishers ripping of creators. Instead modern technology intensifys the problem even more. This is happeng already today in the grey areas of copyright. Without copyright world would likely go full back down to the lowest levels of culture.
mixedCase 6y ago
Partly playing devil's advocate here, there's no right to a business model but there's a copyright and the IA violated it when they broke their digital lending agreement. Calling other people's work "our own culture" is a misleading appeal to emotion. Should we have a copyright system as it is today? Now that's a completely different question. And I don't think what they did helps at all in changing it for the better, at best they're just helping in testing and defining the limits of the current system.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
But there are rights to control copying. Something which libraries were never intended to perform.
paulcole 6y ago
This is like saying a bank doesn’t have a right to exist if enough people come in and rob it.
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  You seem to be inferring a "because" where it isn't intended. In the U.S., you don't have a right to a business model. Also, there were some "bad actors" that exploited a business model. No cause/effect there.

dageshi 6y ago

Without some kind of business model, no writer would be insane enough to write or publish a book because their audience would just read it for free.

the_af 6y ago
This is mistaken. Writers write. It's their calling. Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.
- dageshi 6y ago
  No, what's mistaken is not noticing that the world has changed. Websites exist, youtube exists, there are a myriad of ways a writer might "write" or create which does not involve book form. Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them, but take that away and people capable of writing could and would go to modern competing products that didn't exist in the past.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Books remain viable because there's a business model to support them If you mean "viable" business-wise, that's a tautology. If you mean "viable" as in "writers feel compelled to write books", that's simply false. Writers write. Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Writing books can be turned into a business, but it's not inherently a business. Also, a book is not its physical form. An electronic book is no less of a book than a paper book.
    - goto11 6y ago
      > Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets. Unless you are independently rich, you need an income to survive.
      - the_af 6y ago
        That's not the only option. Some writers get by without being rich. Others have other jobs, and write because it's their passion. The falsehood here is "no writer will be insane enough to write without a business model".
        goto11 6y ago
        Sure some cushy jobs makes it possible to write on the side. It is no accident that historically a lot of authors and scientists were clergymen. But you need an income to be able to write.
        the_af 6y ago
        "Cushy jobs" is overstating it. People find the means to write with poor jobs too. Yes, you need to be able to have a means of living in order to write. Selling your books is one such way, but not the only one. Lots of writers would still write without a business model. That was my only point, really. It's false that one would have to be "insane" in order to write. We can argue about ifs and buts all day long, but that bit which I was replying to was hyperbolic and false.
        goto11 6y ago
        Can you mention some examples of novels by working-class authors from before the introduction of copyright and commercial publishing?
        the_af 6y ago
        I can do one better: I can mention a hugely popular and commercially successful writer -- whom you know of, at least by name-- who used to live from paycheck to paycheck, really struggling when he started (before succeeding enormously, of course) and who wrote in the introduction to one of his books: "Painting. Sculpture. Composing. Singing. Acting. The playing of a musical instrument. Writing. Enough books have been written on these seven subjects alone to sink a fleet of luxury liners. And the only thing we seem to be able to agree upon about them is this: that those who practise these arts honestly would continue to practise them even if they were not paid for their efforts; even if their efforts were criticized or even reviled; even on pain of imprisonment or death." He struck gold, of course, but note the sentiment he expressed. By his own admission, had he never been paid for it, he would have kept writing anyway, because that's what he does. And when he was starting he had other jobs -- and a family to support -- and really struggled with money, but kept going anyway.
- goto11 6y ago
  Writers are free to make their work public domain if they want. The question is for all the author who have not decided to do that, but prefer to get paid for their work. > Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed. Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. Copyright was revolutionary because it meant an author could exist without catering to rich or powerful patrons.
  - the_af 6y ago
    > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Not only that. Plenty of struggling people write because they like writing. Writing is a calling which some people happen to be able to turn into a business. But do note the post I was replying to. I wasn't arguing about copyright. I was arguing about the hyperbole of "no writer would be insane enough [...]" which is simply untrue. And it's untrue by a lot, not by a little.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write. You're mistaking publishing for writing. You need money to publish, because publishing is selling decorated paper. Or rather, you did need money to publish. Now you don't, but instead we throw up artificial barriers in order to preserve the status quo.

xhkkffbf 6y ago

There may not be a right to a business model, but by the same token no one has a right to someone else's work for free. I submit that copyright has served society quite well. The pandemic hasn't been that onerous. Amazon has been shipping books. Powell's has stayed open. No one was denied access to materials.

inetknght 6y ago
> There may not be a right to a business model, but by the same token no one has a right to someone else's work for free For entertainment, I agree. But only insomuch as entertainers need to eat too. For science, I disagree. Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it.
- goto11 6y ago
  > Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it. Sure, but should scientists work for free?
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > Sure, but should scientists work for free? I think the premise of the question is flawed. I think science should be free and scientists should be paid a liveable wage as any other person should be. People can write stories all day long, even stories that will be read by nobody. Scientists can do science all day long even science that benefits nobody. But writing stories all day long practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Scientists doing science practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Both can be done with personal computers these days. Personal computers are extremely cheap to have and to maintain. There's nothing stopping it other than politics.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Can you name at least one scientist whose work is supported significantly by publishing royalties, from the publication of that actual work?

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

Your rights to a business model are encoded in laws and contracts you sign with others. Unless the law changes, then yeah there are certain rights around business models. It’s not a right to avoid innovation, but it’s a right to avoid lawbreaking and contract breaking.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Excellent! I have no contracts with any publishing house, and I doubt that IA does.
- ISL 6y ago
  If IA agreed to a controlled-lending contract, it absolutely does.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    They didn't. They were relying on the first sale doctrine.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  You are ignoring the laws part of his comment.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    I don't think that was there when I commented
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

goto11 6y ago

But a consumer cannot just unilaterally demand that a business should use a different business model more to the liking of the consumer. Lets say I hire a plumber to fix my sink. Afterwards I refuse to pay because I have decided plumbing work should be free and plumbers should instead make their income by selling branded merchandise. This would just be breach of contract. The plumber is not a psychopath by insisting on getting paid according the originally agreed contract. Maybe the plumber don't want to make income by selling branded merchandise but just want to get paid for plumbing. That is not for me to decide. I am free to look for a different plumber who will work for free.

pessimizer 6y ago
> But a consumer cannot just unilaterally demand that a business should use a different business model more to the liking of the consumer. Yes, they can. It's weird that you think that people can't demand that any aspect of any business change (or end) because they don't like it. That's basically an argument against law and democracy. Your example is about someone entering a contract, accepting the fruits of that contract, then refusing to hold up their end of that contract. Completely unrelated.
- goto11 6y ago
  But isn't it exactly what IA did? They refused to hold up their end of the contract.
  - scatters 6y ago
    Retroactive copyright extension makes a mockery of any argument based on contract rights.

slightwinder 6y ago

> What's happened is certain bad actors have deliberately taken advantage of a weakness in the social contract to enrich themselves & lock down the ownership of our own culture. That's ridiculous. Copyright exists becauce in the past bad actors misused the liberty of culture to exploit poor creators by selling their work without paying them anything at all. In the grand picture copyright is good, because it enables cretors to live from their work, and let's them invest into bigger pieces of culture of higher quality. What we need is to ensure a balance between the commercial interessts and societies interesst.

account42 6y ago
If you are saying that copyright is entirely obsolete now that authors can cheaply distribute their own contents via the internat without having to rely on publishers who might not pay them, then I agree.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  No, I do not, and you are wrong. Internet does not solve the problem of Publishers ripping of creators. Instead modern technology intensifys the problem even more. This is happeng already today in the grey areas of copyright. Without copyright world would likely go full back down to the lowest levels of culture.

mixedCase 6y ago

Partly playing devil's advocate here, there's no right to a business model but there's a copyright and the IA violated it when they broke their digital lending agreement. Calling other people's work "our own culture" is a misleading appeal to emotion. Should we have a copyright system as it is today? Now that's a completely different question. And I don't think what they did helps at all in changing it for the better, at best they're just helping in testing and defining the limits of the current system.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

But there are rights to control copying. Something which libraries were never intended to perform.

paulcole 6y ago

This is like saying a bank doesn’t have a right to exist if enough people come in and rob it.

_underfl0w_ 6y ago
You seem to be inferring a "because" where it isn't intended. In the U.S., you don't have a right to a business model. Also, there were some "bad actors" that exploited a business model. No cause/effect there.