7 ms·

I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. It was technically pretty difficult and needed a lot of background knowledge.

I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. It was technically pretty difficult and needed a lot of background knowledge. Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? I partly get where you stand but if I was in a society that you seem to endorse my first question would be, other than for the love of doing it, why sink so much effort into a thing only to get nothing back. It almost is the opposite of a meritocracy.

cookiengineer 4y ago
If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources. Note that if you don't defend it in court, our justice system thinks it is less valueable to protect. Which in itself is kind of ridiculous. Also, right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?
  - sgift 4y ago
    > There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be reevaluated.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      At least a mirror won't tell me "you're fucked, give up now". In that sense, I can expect a less enervating response.
      - krageon 4y ago
        That's not what they said. They said "the power distribution is so skewed against actual people the current system must be destroyed as a matter of principle". What about that is hopeless? It offers a clear escape and very little ambiguity. If anything, it should be energising to a casual reader.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        He said "If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources" IOW he didn't say what you claim. Plus he gave no way forward to achieve his goals, and am I not in any position right now to Bring Down The Man, much as The Man may need it, so it was just a hopeless valueless post.
        krageon 4y ago
        Within the larger context of this thread, the intent was clear. You yourself were responding to a post that gives this necessary context: Intellectual property is absurd and evil. The poster you reply to tells you why it is absurd and evil. Those two things together lead you naturally to the conclusion that it must be abolished. As such, I would say what they said is absolutely what I claimed. I just explained it in plainer terms and without requiring you to (re)read the rest of the thread. Edit: The fact that you summarised "this system must be destroyed" as "hopeless" says something about your own fundamental hopelessness and despair. Which you kind of ironically attributed to someone else.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
- catchclose8919 4y ago
  The solution is simple: ONLY private persons should own patents, and it should be illegal even for employers or institutions (academic, research) to own patents of people employed to do research. At most companies and istitutions should be allowed to add a clause of "perpetual-free-usage of any patents of employees resulting from direct work" - but an employee or group-of-employees holdig a patent should still be able to license it to other companies too. If businesses are hurt, that's GOOD, most should not exist as coagulated entities. We're not gonna have proper freedom preserving capitalism ultil we properly decentralize: we all work like swarms of 1-person-companies / solopreneurs contracting between eachother. (No, not the gig-economy, in that distopia we're all still slaves that can't band together to fight the masters.) Legislation will automatically have to be refacored to make this work. With some exceptions, only human individuals should hold most property, not companies and not institutions. Groups/collectives only when the group members directly worked together and know eachother. And Intellectual Property would just "click in" in in such context. IP sounds hellish and disfunctional because our own practically techno-communist society (yeah, even USA is practically "communist" nowadays in a way - newsflash: "the reds" have won! even the f symbolism is there, "the red pill" is the good one now... all's backwards) is messed up. It makes perfect sense in a hyper-decentralized hyper-individualistic REALLY democratic and REALLY capitalist society.
atoav 4y ago
As a musician and filmmaker I see it like this: once my work is published I stop to be in total control of it. That means I cannot control (or sometimes even know) what paths my works will take, how it is being understood, who will do what with it etc. Of course I like to be credited for my work — but some fan adding my work to a pirate page would not be a concern but rather a bit flattering. What would anger me would be someone claiming credit for themselves, some rich company taking the material without paying me, things of that sort.
- freetanga 4y ago
  You can always publish it under a free license. Your choice, previous post can choose differently and charge. Nothing wrong with expecting to get paid for your work. If as a consumer you don’t want to pay, stick to open source and freely licensed media.
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  You're being short-sighted if you think you're going to be able to sell material in the future if the recording company or studio goes out of business. The only reason they have money to support you is because the public supports them.
  - atoav 4y ago
    Huh? I do sell material right now without any recording company or studio in the loop. Why would that change if they go bust? If anything the demand for people like me would increase. There are quite some hoops small self publishers have to jump through to get their music sold in a way it can actually interfere with the big corps in that space. These hoops are all there to make the market entrance harder, they are not there to protect artists.
    - crtasm 4y ago
      Before refreshing the thread I wondered if I was overlooking something in your earlier post, it feels so strange to me to assume a record company/studio are involved!
enasterosophes 4y ago
>Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? No one said anything about disallowing you from doing anything. >my first question would be, other than for the love of doing it, why sink so much effort into a thing only to get nothing back. Is it wise to sink your time into something you don't really like doing?
- unglaublich 4y ago
  > Is it wise to sink your time into something you don't really like doing? If it pays your bills and gives you spare time to do what you like, then often yes.
  - enasterosophes 4y ago
    So you're betting your rent money on future royalties which might never appear even if piracy were impossible?
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      > which might never appear or it might. Your own answer acknowledges that with the 'might'. So yes, you measure the odds then throw the dice.
    - plater 4y ago
      That's how businesses are created.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  But I loved creating it - I said so! But that alone would not drive me to do it nearly as much as getting a more tangible benefit.
  - enasterosophes 4y ago
    There are other business models than waiting on possible royalties, if you feel the need for additional incentives. People use patreon, eg.
einpoklum 4y ago
> Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? I believe you are mis-phrasing the question. What you're actually asking is: > Should the state criminalize and punish people who make copies of my work, to facilitate my commercial activity with it? And our answer is "No". You can go ahead and engage in whatever commercial activity you like, based on open access to your work.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  That's a constructive answer, so thanks, although I have to ask your view of how BSD was used by apple to build a massive fortune but without paying significantly back to the BSD community. Overheard from an IP lawyer I stood near to once - something about f/oss software being incorporated into commercial products being a big issue (for the free stuff, not the company doing the 'stealing' of it). Your view?
  - rakoo 4y ago
    This is the exact reason why copyleft licenses are important: you can reuse (A)GPL content, but if you do so the result must be given back to the community. If you're not going to pay anything, at least your product benefits everyone
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      The point is the licenses are irrelevant: The IP lawyer said they take quietly, they incorporate it into their products which they sell. the licences are being ignored. It's what she said.
      - rakoo 4y ago
        BSD content can be taken without contributing back, it's in the license. Copyleft content cannot. That's the main difference, and even Google doesn't want to touch copyleft content with a 10-foot pole because of the fear they'd have to share their internal sauce, so I presume companies still take licenses into account.
ahmadmijot 4y ago
I'm also write technical writing (including academic publications) and I do feel like I need to get monetary gains from all my works. But I also believe that copyright law is too restricted and too long (15 years after the death of original author/artist/writer/etc should be enough)
- alexb_ 4y ago
  15 years period should be enough. If you haven't contributed anything to society within the past 15 years, why should you get to live off the 1 thing you did? Shouldn't you be incentivized to be productive? That's the point of copyright law in the first place after all.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    It's extremely easy to say what you say without having written a book. Harry Potter into public domain I'm prob OK with but some people put years of their life into technical books. My father did. EDIT: ach, didn't read your post propely - first line says " I'm also write technical writing (including academic publications)" so you have a strong position to hold your view - sorry (deleted)
    - klez 4y ago
      > Harry Potter into public domain I'm prob OK with but some people put years of their life into technical books. My father did. So did JK Rowling. So what's the difference?
      - zasdffaa 4y ago
        Yep, very good point. I take it back.
    - account42 4y ago
      Some people put years of their life into fixing plumbing, should they and their heirs also profit from that plumbing? I'm all for finding ways to reward people for creating things but that should not include restricting what others can create.
hansel_der 4y ago
> Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? ofc not but since noone can ever prove that his was the first incarnation of an idea, nobody can be criminalized for also doing things in a certain way. the concept of protecting invention for some time to facilitate reward is not without merit, but the implementation of IP law and practise has gone so far astray that it's overdue to rethink the whole thing.
andrepd 4y ago
Surely there is a middle ground between zero rights and early 1900s works coming into public domain in the 2050s.
MYEUHD 4y ago
You could offer a PDF version for free. And charge money for a printed version. It would probably result in more sales. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23073126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23073126
scoot 4y ago
> I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. With grammar like that, it's probably just as well.
xhkkffbf 4y ago
Exactly. I'm in complete agreement. If someone else wants to give away their work for free, that's fine with me. But if I want to charge, I should be able to charge for my labor just like the farmer or the baker. Certainly they'll charge me for bread. Writing is hard work. Writing books and getting them technically correct is expensive. This is very short-sighted.

cookiengineer 4y ago

If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources. Note that if you don't defend it in court, our justice system thinks it is less valueable to protect. Which in itself is kind of ridiculous. Also, right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property.

zasdffaa 4y ago
> If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?
- sgift 4y ago
  > There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be reevaluated.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    At least a mirror won't tell me "you're fucked, give up now". In that sense, I can expect a less enervating response.
    - krageon 4y ago
      That's not what they said. They said "the power distribution is so skewed against actual people the current system must be destroyed as a matter of principle". What about that is hopeless? It offers a clear escape and very little ambiguity. If anything, it should be energising to a casual reader.
      - zasdffaa 4y ago
        He said "If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources" IOW he didn't say what you claim. Plus he gave no way forward to achieve his goals, and am I not in any position right now to Bring Down The Man, much as The Man may need it, so it was just a hopeless valueless post.
        krageon 4y ago
        Within the larger context of this thread, the intent was clear. You yourself were responding to a post that gives this necessary context: Intellectual property is absurd and evil. The poster you reply to tells you why it is absurd and evil. Those two things together lead you naturally to the conclusion that it must be abolished. As such, I would say what they said is absolutely what I claimed. I just explained it in plainer terms and without requiring you to (re)read the rest of the thread. Edit: The fact that you summarised "this system must be destroyed" as "hopeless" says something about your own fundamental hopelessness and despair. Which you kind of ironically attributed to someone else.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
catchclose8919 4y ago
The solution is simple: ONLY private persons should own patents, and it should be illegal even for employers or institutions (academic, research) to own patents of people employed to do research. At most companies and istitutions should be allowed to add a clause of "perpetual-free-usage of any patents of employees resulting from direct work" - but an employee or group-of-employees holdig a patent should still be able to license it to other companies too. If businesses are hurt, that's GOOD, most should not exist as coagulated entities. We're not gonna have proper freedom preserving capitalism ultil we properly decentralize: we all work like swarms of 1-person-companies / solopreneurs contracting between eachother. (No, not the gig-economy, in that distopia we're all still slaves that can't band together to fight the masters.) Legislation will automatically have to be refacored to make this work. With some exceptions, only human individuals should hold most property, not companies and not institutions. Groups/collectives only when the group members directly worked together and know eachother. And Intellectual Property would just "click in" in in such context. IP sounds hellish and disfunctional because our own practically techno-communist society (yeah, even USA is practically "communist" nowadays in a way - newsflash: "the reds" have won! even the f symbolism is there, "the red pill" is the good one now... all's backwards) is messed up. It makes perfect sense in a hyper-decentralized hyper-individualistic REALLY democratic and REALLY capitalist society.

atoav 4y ago

As a musician and filmmaker I see it like this: once my work is published I stop to be in total control of it. That means I cannot control (or sometimes even know) what paths my works will take, how it is being understood, who will do what with it etc. Of course I like to be credited for my work — but some fan adding my work to a pirate page would not be a concern but rather a bit flattering. What would anger me would be someone claiming credit for themselves, some rich company taking the material without paying me, things of that sort.

freetanga 4y ago
You can always publish it under a free license. Your choice, previous post can choose differently and charge. Nothing wrong with expecting to get paid for your work. If as a consumer you don’t want to pay, stick to open source and freely licensed media.
xhkkffbf 4y ago
You're being short-sighted if you think you're going to be able to sell material in the future if the recording company or studio goes out of business. The only reason they have money to support you is because the public supports them.
- atoav 4y ago
  Huh? I do sell material right now without any recording company or studio in the loop. Why would that change if they go bust? If anything the demand for people like me would increase. There are quite some hoops small self publishers have to jump through to get their music sold in a way it can actually interfere with the big corps in that space. These hoops are all there to make the market entrance harder, they are not there to protect artists.
  - crtasm 4y ago
    Before refreshing the thread I wondered if I was overlooking something in your earlier post, it feels so strange to me to assume a record company/studio are involved!

enasterosophes 4y ago

>Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? No one said anything about disallowing you from doing anything. >my first question would be, other than for the love of doing it, why sink so much effort into a thing only to get nothing back. Is it wise to sink your time into something you don't really like doing?

unglaublich 4y ago
> Is it wise to sink your time into something you don't really like doing? If it pays your bills and gives you spare time to do what you like, then often yes.
- enasterosophes 4y ago
  So you're betting your rent money on future royalties which might never appear even if piracy were impossible?
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    > which might never appear or it might. Your own answer acknowledges that with the 'might'. So yes, you measure the odds then throw the dice.
  - plater 4y ago
    That's how businesses are created.
zasdffaa 4y ago
But I loved creating it - I said so! But that alone would not drive me to do it nearly as much as getting a more tangible benefit.
- enasterosophes 4y ago
  There are other business models than waiting on possible royalties, if you feel the need for additional incentives. People use patreon, eg.

einpoklum 4y ago

> Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? I believe you are mis-phrasing the question. What you're actually asking is: > Should the state criminalize and punish people who make copies of my work, to facilitate my commercial activity with it? And our answer is "No". You can go ahead and engage in whatever commercial activity you like, based on open access to your work.

zasdffaa 4y ago
That's a constructive answer, so thanks, although I have to ask your view of how BSD was used by apple to build a massive fortune but without paying significantly back to the BSD community. Overheard from an IP lawyer I stood near to once - something about f/oss software being incorporated into commercial products being a big issue (for the free stuff, not the company doing the 'stealing' of it). Your view?
- rakoo 4y ago
  This is the exact reason why copyleft licenses are important: you can reuse (A)GPL content, but if you do so the result must be given back to the community. If you're not going to pay anything, at least your product benefits everyone
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    The point is the licenses are irrelevant: The IP lawyer said they take quietly, they incorporate it into their products which they sell. the licences are being ignored. It's what she said.
    - rakoo 4y ago
      BSD content can be taken without contributing back, it's in the license. Copyleft content cannot. That's the main difference, and even Google doesn't want to touch copyleft content with a 10-foot pole because of the fear they'd have to share their internal sauce, so I presume companies still take licenses into account.

ahmadmijot 4y ago

I'm also write technical writing (including academic publications) and I do feel like I need to get monetary gains from all my works. But I also believe that copyright law is too restricted and too long (15 years after the death of original author/artist/writer/etc should be enough)

alexb_ 4y ago
15 years period should be enough. If you haven't contributed anything to society within the past 15 years, why should you get to live off the 1 thing you did? Shouldn't you be incentivized to be productive? That's the point of copyright law in the first place after all.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  It's extremely easy to say what you say without having written a book. Harry Potter into public domain I'm prob OK with but some people put years of their life into technical books. My father did. EDIT: ach, didn't read your post propely - first line says " I'm also write technical writing (including academic publications)" so you have a strong position to hold your view - sorry (deleted)
  - klez 4y ago
    > Harry Potter into public domain I'm prob OK with but some people put years of their life into technical books. My father did. So did JK Rowling. So what's the difference?
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      Yep, very good point. I take it back.
  - account42 4y ago
    Some people put years of their life into fixing plumbing, should they and their heirs also profit from that plumbing? I'm all for finding ways to reward people for creating things but that should not include restricting what others can create.

hansel_der 4y ago

> Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? ofc not but since noone can ever prove that his was the first incarnation of an idea, nobody can be criminalized for also doing things in a certain way. the concept of protecting invention for some time to facilitate reward is not without merit, but the implementation of IP law and practise has gone so far astray that it's overdue to rethink the whole thing.

andrepd 4y ago

Surely there is a middle ground between zero rights and early 1900s works coming into public domain in the 2050s.

MYEUHD 4y ago

You could offer a PDF version for free. And charge money for a printed version. It would probably result in more sales. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23073126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23073126

scoot 4y ago

> I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. With grammar like that, it's probably just as well.

xhkkffbf 4y ago

Exactly. I'm in complete agreement. If someone else wants to give away their work for free, that's fine with me. But if I want to charge, I should be able to charge for my labor just like the farmer or the baker. Certainly they'll charge me for bread. Writing is hard work. Writing books and getting them technically correct is expensive. This is very short-sighted.