2 ms·

You have said it was originally to help out the market, and you have said copying information is now nearly free, but you forgot to say how or why the first par

You have said it was originally to help out the market, and you have said copying information is now nearly free, but you forgot to say how or why the first part is incongruous with the second. Why does it make less sense than it used to? Which of our new capabilities could be leveraged by a new system?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
You used to have to recoup the costs of publishing as well as fund the author. Binding books was and is not free, but copying bits effectively is.
- pie_flavor 5y ago
  You still didn't answer the question. Copyright was introduced because it was amazingly cheap to copy as opposed to create. If it's gotten even cheaper, that means it's more relevant, not less. So, again, how does the first part connect to the second? Explain fully why the current system isn't relevant, because there's clearly something obvious to you that isn't obvious to me.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    What I'm saying is, the motivation to print pirated copies of books was to sell them to people for profit because as cheap as it was to copy books compared to writing them, it was still quite a bit above 0. However, copying cost today is effectively 0. No one would pay money for a pirated copy of an ebook. One could (somewhat pedantically) say that this means the creator's 'exclusive right to profit' from their work is not violated because no one profits in this way from piracy[0], but that's not the point. the point is that the concept barely even made sense the first time around, but allowed a creator who didn't own a giant expensive distribution mechanism the leverage to negotiate compensation. Now the distribution is about as free as it is ever likely to get. [0] or at least they wouldn't if it weren't for laws creating barriers that allow people to profit by providing mechanisms around said barriers.

2 ms·

You have said it was originally to help out the market, and you have said copying information is now nearly free, but you forgot to say how or why the first par

by pie_flavor 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
You used to have to recoup the costs of publishing as well as fund the author. Binding books was and is not free, but copying bits effectively is.
- pie_flavor 5y ago
  You still didn't answer the question. Copyright was introduced because it was amazingly cheap to copy as opposed to create. If it's gotten even cheaper, that means it's more relevant, not less. So, again, how does the first part connect to the second? Explain fully why the current system isn't relevant, because there's clearly something obvious to you that isn't obvious to me.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    What I'm saying is, the motivation to print pirated copies of books was to sell them to people for profit because as cheap as it was to copy books compared to writing them, it was still quite a bit above 0. However, copying cost today is effectively 0. No one would pay money for a pirated copy of an ebook. One could (somewhat pedantically) say that this means the creator's 'exclusive right to profit' from their work is not violated because no one profits in this way from piracy[0], but that's not the point. the point is that the concept barely even made sense the first time around, but allowed a creator who didn't own a giant expensive distribution mechanism the leverage to negotiate compensation. Now the distribution is about as free as it is ever likely to get. [0] or at least they wouldn't if it weren't for laws creating barriers that allow people to profit by providing mechanisms around said barriers.