4 ms·

There was a time before copyright existed, and we got pretty nice books from it. And now that I’m thinking on it, considering how the internet of today looks, w

by sildur 6y ago

There was a time before copyright existed, and we got pretty nice books from it. And now that I’m thinking on it, considering how the internet of today looks, with people creating content to earn money versus the internet of 20 years ago, with people creating content for the love of it, I think I would like a future where books are written for passion instead of for money. Less books, more quality.

gamblor956 6y ago
Yes, and all of those works that you're thinking of were written either by individuals from wealthy families (today we would call them trust fund babies), royalty, clergyman, or artists funded by patrons from one of the first 3 groups. I disagree about the "less books, more quality" argument. Today, we have more books, more quality. Sure, there are lots of bad books today, but the volume of high-quality works today so far exceeds the volume of any books (good or bad) produced during the patronage era that it's like comparing a nuclear bomb to a match.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > individuals from wealthy families (today we would call them trust fund babies), royalty, clergyman, None of whom got their money from exorting readers of their books. What you have there is a argument for basic income, not a argument for copyright.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Crucially, other than the artists receiving patronage, none of them were paid for writing their books at all. History is filled with many authors who died young and penniless because they could not survive on their writing during their lifetimes. And that's exactly the system you're arguing for.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      History is filled with many people, authors and otherwise, who died young and penniless because they could not survive on the fraction of the value of their work that was economically capturable by them personally. > And [authors dying young and penniless]'s exactly the system you're arguing for. Bullshit. Your system is the one that produces that (see also fanfiction authors, who I'm sure aren't true Scotsmen to you). As I said: > > What you have there is a argument for basic income, not a argument for copyright.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        Bullshit. Your system is the one that produces that (see also fanfiction authors, who I'm sure aren't true Scotsmen to you). As I said: My system is the system that has enabled hundreds of thousands of artists and other creators to survive on their own without needing publishers or other entities to sell their work for them and pay them a pittance. Basic income is a separate discussion. It would mean that artists wouldn't die, but it would also mean that corporations would get to exploit artists worse than they ever have before. You really need to think of the consequences of your suggestions before you suggest altering other people's livelihoods for your own momentary convenience.
Silhouette 6y ago
There was a time before copyright existed, and we got pretty nice books from it. Sure. But it was a long period of time, and the number of pretty nice books produced during that time was relatively low, and the number of people they reached was also relatively low. I'm no fan of content farms and their clickbait ad-spam, but there is still plenty of content written for love around if you step away from sources like Facebook and Google. However, much of it isn't edited or illustrated to professional standards, or covering subjects comprehensively, or accompanied by exercises, or based on years of demanding research and fieldwork. Commercial support can provide these benefits in a way that most people writing purely for fun as a hobby can't or won't.
- account42 6y ago
  > and the number of people they reached was also relatively low. And that is because lack of copyright?
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    To some extent, yes, because a lot of works were never distributed at all.

by sildur 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

Yes, and all of those works that you're thinking of were written either by individuals from wealthy families (today we would call them trust fund babies), royalty, clergyman, or artists funded by patrons from one of the first 3 groups. I disagree about the "less books, more quality" argument. Today, we have more books, more quality. Sure, there are lots of bad books today, but the volume of high-quality works today so far exceeds the volume of any books (good or bad) produced during the patronage era that it's like comparing a nuclear bomb to a match.

a1369209993 6y ago
> individuals from wealthy families (today we would call them trust fund babies), royalty, clergyman, None of whom got their money from exorting readers of their books. What you have there is a argument for basic income, not a argument for copyright.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Crucially, other than the artists receiving patronage, none of them were paid for writing their books at all. History is filled with many authors who died young and penniless because they could not survive on their writing during their lifetimes. And that's exactly the system you're arguing for.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    History is filled with many people, authors and otherwise, who died young and penniless because they could not survive on the fraction of the value of their work that was economically capturable by them personally. > And [authors dying young and penniless]'s exactly the system you're arguing for. Bullshit. Your system is the one that produces that (see also fanfiction authors, who I'm sure aren't true Scotsmen to you). As I said: > > What you have there is a argument for basic income, not a argument for copyright.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Bullshit. Your system is the one that produces that (see also fanfiction authors, who I'm sure aren't true Scotsmen to you). As I said: My system is the system that has enabled hundreds of thousands of artists and other creators to survive on their own without needing publishers or other entities to sell their work for them and pay them a pittance. Basic income is a separate discussion. It would mean that artists wouldn't die, but it would also mean that corporations would get to exploit artists worse than they ever have before. You really need to think of the consequences of your suggestions before you suggest altering other people's livelihoods for your own momentary convenience.

Silhouette 6y ago

There was a time before copyright existed, and we got pretty nice books from it. Sure. But it was a long period of time, and the number of pretty nice books produced during that time was relatively low, and the number of people they reached was also relatively low. I'm no fan of content farms and their clickbait ad-spam, but there is still plenty of content written for love around if you step away from sources like Facebook and Google. However, much of it isn't edited or illustrated to professional standards, or covering subjects comprehensively, or accompanied by exercises, or based on years of demanding research and fieldwork. Commercial support can provide these benefits in a way that most people writing purely for fun as a hobby can't or won't.

account42 6y ago
> and the number of people they reached was also relatively low. And that is because lack of copyright?
- Silhouette 6y ago
  To some extent, yes, because a lot of works were never distributed at all.