5 ms·

While photocopying books for distribution is against the law, I disagree that it should be against the law. If 3 people all borrow the same book sequentially t

While photocopying books for distribution is against the law, I disagree that it should be against the law. If 3 people all borrow the same book sequentially then it's fine. If one person borrow it, photocopies it twice to share with two others, then they've broken the law. And yet nobody in either case has made more or less money. I am in favor of copyright law that prevents profiting from another person's work, but not against copying. Once your idea is public knowledge, there is no reason for it not to spread freely given how easy it is to transmit information now.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
I mean it's not the best setup, but what else do you suggest? This was meant for protecting income of authors while not being too inconvenient for most users. Netflix primary model is this and it is working great for them and users. Many people do share the account but it does add some inconvenience that only some maximum number of people can watch at the same time, making people get subscription.
jdashg 6y ago
Your example is a case where piracy had no profit impact, but it's not the general case. The books are priced in part based on assumptions about how many people can read them over time. A book at a library can probably only be read by ~20 people a year. If 200 people a year want to read it, the library needs ten books. But, if we were free to post the scans online, the price per book would need to be astronomically higher. While the usual naive extrapolations of MSRP-times-pirated-copies is also wrong, allowing people to freely and at-will render others' work unprofitable is a subversion of the purpose of copyright: To ensure that the creation of works is be profitable enough to pursue. If someone wanted their work to be in the public domain, they could so choose.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  > render others' work unprofitable Can you support the claim that creative work becomes unprofitable when copies are made freely available, but the option to support the creator still exists?
reggieband 6y ago
> Once your idea is public knowledge, there is no reason for it not to spread freely given how easy it is to transmit information now. This treads into territory I feel is grey. I imagine the complex case where I sell some creative content (e.g. a pdf, audio file or video). You pay me for access to this content and download it. I grant that you ought to be able to retain a local copy of that content for so long as you wish. Then you create freecontent.com and publish it. You don't put ads on it, you don't sell it - you simply make it available for free at some URL without my express permission. In a world where that is legal, I feel it would materially harm my ability to earn from content I create. I have a hard time supporting that even though I am sympathetic to the idea that information ought to spread freely.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  > I feel it would materially harm my ability to earn from content I create Got any data to back up this feeling? I've seen plenty of cases when content creators have had big breaks due to their content being made freely available. If people love the work, they'll support the creator. This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work is an inversion of what has happened in history, to our detriment.
  - reggieband 6y ago
    > This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work How modern do you mean? It seems to me that I pay for a movie ticket before I sit down in the theatre and watch it (trailer not withstanding). Same is true for plays and operas which preceded that. I would pay for a book before reading it (cover excerpt not withstanding). In fact, I'm trying to think of any media that I would consume before I paid. > Got any data to back up this feeling? Meh, we're only going to throw anecdotes back and forth. I recall bands like Radiohead and comedians like Luis C.K. experimenting with "pay what you want" ideas. I would suppose the fact that didn't catch on (outside of humble bundle charity type things) would be evidence that it didn't work for a large enough segment of creators. Also, it isn't like RIAA members are allergic to money. I mean, if there was any reasonable evidence that free sharing of content resulted in profits that are equal or greater (or even viable) rationality suggests that they would embrace it.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago

I mean it's not the best setup, but what else do you suggest? This was meant for protecting income of authors while not being too inconvenient for most users. Netflix primary model is this and it is working great for them and users. Many people do share the account but it does add some inconvenience that only some maximum number of people can watch at the same time, making people get subscription.

jdashg 6y ago

Your example is a case where piracy had no profit impact, but it's not the general case. The books are priced in part based on assumptions about how many people can read them over time. A book at a library can probably only be read by ~20 people a year. If 200 people a year want to read it, the library needs ten books. But, if we were free to post the scans online, the price per book would need to be astronomically higher. While the usual naive extrapolations of MSRP-times-pirated-copies is also wrong, allowing people to freely and at-will render others' work unprofitable is a subversion of the purpose of copyright: To ensure that the creation of works is be profitable enough to pursue. If someone wanted their work to be in the public domain, they could so choose.

Thorentis 6y ago
> render others' work unprofitable Can you support the claim that creative work becomes unprofitable when copies are made freely available, but the option to support the creator still exists?

reggieband 6y ago

> Once your idea is public knowledge, there is no reason for it not to spread freely given how easy it is to transmit information now. This treads into territory I feel is grey. I imagine the complex case where I sell some creative content (e.g. a pdf, audio file or video). You pay me for access to this content and download it. I grant that you ought to be able to retain a local copy of that content for so long as you wish. Then you create freecontent.com and publish it. You don't put ads on it, you don't sell it - you simply make it available for free at some URL without my express permission. In a world where that is legal, I feel it would materially harm my ability to earn from content I create. I have a hard time supporting that even though I am sympathetic to the idea that information ought to spread freely.

Thorentis 6y ago
> I feel it would materially harm my ability to earn from content I create Got any data to back up this feeling? I've seen plenty of cases when content creators have had big breaks due to their content being made freely available. If people love the work, they'll support the creator. This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work is an inversion of what has happened in history, to our detriment.
- reggieband 6y ago
  > This modern trend of needing to pay before you even know if you love the work How modern do you mean? It seems to me that I pay for a movie ticket before I sit down in the theatre and watch it (trailer not withstanding). Same is true for plays and operas which preceded that. I would pay for a book before reading it (cover excerpt not withstanding). In fact, I'm trying to think of any media that I would consume before I paid. > Got any data to back up this feeling? Meh, we're only going to throw anecdotes back and forth. I recall bands like Radiohead and comedians like Luis C.K. experimenting with "pay what you want" ideas. I would suppose the fact that didn't catch on (outside of humble bundle charity type things) would be evidence that it didn't work for a large enough segment of creators. Also, it isn't like RIAA members are allergic to money. I mean, if there was any reasonable evidence that free sharing of content resulted in profits that are equal or greater (or even viable) rationality suggests that they would embrace it.