5 ms·

> It was sad day for the free flow of information, knowledge, and culture. Quick counterpoint to this type of revolutionary rhetoric - writing a book (a good o

> It was sad day for the free flow of information, knowledge, and culture. Quick counterpoint to this type of revolutionary rhetoric - writing a book (a good one) takes a lot of time, patience, and hard work. Making it available for free, against the author's wishes, while very easy in the digital age and obviously great for readers, is robbing from the author (if they're still alive). It devalues the craft of writing and makes it even more un-viable as a profession. This may be inevitable, and it has mostly happened with music, journalism, etc., but by putting energy into this kind of project you're only furthering its death along, and perhaps furthering the death of society and culture a little by taking away a lot of the incentive to write anything of value. Pirate away if you want, but thinking this is some kind of virtuous revolutionary act is narcissistic BS.

js8 4y ago
I think you should read https://lessig.org/product/free-culture/ https://lessig.org/product/free-culture/, maybe you will change your mind.
- criddell 4y ago
  Do you see any irony that you are pointing to what is basically an ad for a non-free book?
  - hbbio 4y ago
    On March 25, 2004, Professor Lessig released a PDF version of this book under a Creative Commons license. This HTML version, produced by José Menéndez, is released under the same license. https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Lessig/Free_Culture/Free%20Culture.htm https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Lessig/Free_Culture/Free%20Cu...
- dudul 4y ago
  I'm surprised I need to pay to read this book :)
enriquto 4y ago
Just don't read Kafka then.
waboremo 4y ago
Were you paid for this comment? Or did you write it out of your own desire to convey what you are thinking? I wonder if the answer to these questions also resolves the unfounded idea that writers will stop writing when capitalism ceases to exist.
- QuadrupleA 4y ago
  So writing an HN comment and writing a good book are the same level of effort? And I just wrote two books? Basically you're saying authors should be forced to work for free, with day jobs to pay the bills, and writing on nights and weekends, rather than having their craft be a viable profession. Fine, and it's probably where things are going, but kinda sad in my opinion. And the hypocrisy of book stealers thinking they're some kind of Che Guevara is pretty silly.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    This entire line of reasoning is predicated on the fact that there is no public funding of such things. If there were a way to make a living creating works without relying on selling them, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead of talking about why sharing is bad, why don't we talk about how to publicly support creation?
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >the unfounded idea that writers will stop writing when capitalism ceases to exist. Where did GP make that claim? Closest I found was that copyright violation is "taking away a lot of the incentive to write anything of value." That may or may not be true but they certainly did not say that "writers will stop writing when capitalism ceases to exist."
- IanCal 4y ago
  I don't think you reading their comment without paying them was against their wishes, was it?
z3c0 4y ago
> This may be inevitable, and it has mostly happened with music, journalism, etc., What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression.
- QuadrupleA 4y ago
  Art is made by people, who need food, housing, etc. If they can support themselves in some way through their craft, then they can spend more time at, and less washing dishes at a restuarant, and be better at it. Yes business can cheapen and corrupt, and produce commercialized crap (which apparently people like and will pay for so it's serving some need). But there are plenty of artists out there with integrity who also make a living at it.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    You're conflating demands for capital with an artist's desire to create, and most artists would do the latter regardless of the former. In fact, you even said it yourself - artists who create for capital are forced to produce more shallow art for the masses. Art is a pursuit of the divine, not capital, and pursuing one will come at the expense of the other.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression. Is this an “Artists should come from rich families“ or “Be like Picasso and Warhol. Attend the right parties with the right people and you can attract the right patrons too.”? The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
omnimus 4y ago
In reality its a lot more nuanced. Check out book Chokepoint capitalism. Authors are often robbed by the middlemen and copyright helps the middlemen.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >Authors are often robbed by the middlemen and copyright helps the middlemen. Can you explain a bit more what you mean? How does this justify copyright violation? Unless you ask the author, how do you know they would let you read the book for free? Surely they get paid more when people buy the book, right? IIRC most authors recieve royalties.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    Most authors never see a dime from royalties. Publishers pay them an advance and then use the author's royalties to pay back that advance. Royalties often come out to pannies per book. Even an advance of a few thousand dollars ends up taking tens of thousands of unit sales to cover the author's advance and have them see any direct royalty payments. Publishers also pull all sorts of shady accounting to stiff authors on royalties. They will charge them for editing or cover art against their royalties. Worst is when they charge the author if a retailer returns unsold copies. That's all besides the fact Z-Library is little different than any other library. A library will lend out a book a large number of times and only pay for it once. Most of the readers were never ever going to buy the book and only read it because it was available at a library. Very few authors ever see any money from royalties and fewer still manage to live off royalties.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      Wouldn't this long-term result in publishers offering less advance money? Also, I doubt most people pirating books care to check wether the author is getting royalties or not. >fact Z-Library is little different than any other library. The difference is that copyright does not cover benefit from a work but reproduction. Libraries would be illegal too if they involved reproduction of the work. In any case, this is all still far from the "it was sad day for the free flow of information, knowledge, and culture" argument given by the OP. Most authors really don't want their works reporduced at no cost, and this idea is basicaly a "what's yours is mine" mentality.
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
Counterpoint to your counterpoint For much of human civilization there has been an inherent social contract of sorts around communication. I can take what you tell me, mix it with other things, and retransmit it. While I love books, bits and bytes are not books. There is no physical media. Now, we are in an era of inherently zero cost redistribution, and the vast and giant fraud perpetrated on us by the cabal of distributors, publishers, authors, publishers and agents finally is seeing pushback. The vast amount of exploitation of public research, and non-value adding commercialization inherent in some of the scientific publishing and the gatekeeping boards is some of the worst of the lot. Most of all, because it actively interferes with the transfer of knowledge and serves to penalize those without means, and those in poorer countries. Considering the vastly exploitative system and the outrageous prices and robber baron profits these industries have made... I consider it my duty to accelerate its creative destruction and return the ability to recommunicate ideas back to its inherent social contract. Using your bits and bytes to store data is a revolutionary act that this vampire industry of ghouls seeks to prevent. Down with the literary Robber Barons!
- QuadrupleA 4y ago
  I agree on scientific publishing - if the research is publically funded then having a journal charge exorbitant prices for access is completely corrupt. I don't think it's the same thing for books by individual authors though. Good writing is a lot of work, whether it's bytes in a text file or ink on wood pulp. Giving authors a way to make a living at it so they don't have to wait tables the other 8 hours a day would be nice. If publishers, agents, etc. are providing a real service to the author - marketing, networking, getting good work seen - then I don't see anything wrong with them getting a cut, if the author chooses to hire them. Or if the author wants to take that on, build a social media following, beat the pavement doing book tours etc. that's fine too.
dredmorbius 4y ago
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33676788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33676788>

js8 4y ago

I think you should read https://lessig.org/product/free-culture/ https://lessig.org/product/free-culture/, maybe you will change your mind.

criddell 4y ago
Do you see any irony that you are pointing to what is basically an ad for a non-free book?
- hbbio 4y ago
  On March 25, 2004, Professor Lessig released a PDF version of this book under a Creative Commons license. This HTML version, produced by José Menéndez, is released under the same license. https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Lessig/Free_Culture/Free%20Culture.htm https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Lessig/Free_Culture/Free%20Cu...
dudul 4y ago
I'm surprised I need to pay to read this book :)

enriquto 4y ago

Just don't read Kafka then.

waboremo 4y ago

Were you paid for this comment? Or did you write it out of your own desire to convey what you are thinking? I wonder if the answer to these questions also resolves the unfounded idea that writers will stop writing when capitalism ceases to exist.

QuadrupleA 4y ago
So writing an HN comment and writing a good book are the same level of effort? And I just wrote two books? Basically you're saying authors should be forced to work for free, with day jobs to pay the bills, and writing on nights and weekends, rather than having their craft be a viable profession. Fine, and it's probably where things are going, but kinda sad in my opinion. And the hypocrisy of book stealers thinking they're some kind of Che Guevara is pretty silly.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  This entire line of reasoning is predicated on the fact that there is no public funding of such things. If there were a way to make a living creating works without relying on selling them, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead of talking about why sharing is bad, why don't we talk about how to publicly support creation?
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>the unfounded idea that writers will stop writing when capitalism ceases to exist. Where did GP make that claim? Closest I found was that copyright violation is "taking away a lot of the incentive to write anything of value." That may or may not be true but they certainly did not say that "writers will stop writing when capitalism ceases to exist."
IanCal 4y ago
I don't think you reading their comment without paying them was against their wishes, was it?

z3c0 4y ago

> This may be inevitable, and it has mostly happened with music, journalism, etc., What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression.

QuadrupleA 4y ago
Art is made by people, who need food, housing, etc. If they can support themselves in some way through their craft, then they can spend more time at, and less washing dishes at a restuarant, and be better at it. Yes business can cheapen and corrupt, and produce commercialized crap (which apparently people like and will pay for so it's serving some need). But there are plenty of artists out there with integrity who also make a living at it.
- z3c0 4y ago
  You're conflating demands for capital with an artist's desire to create, and most artists would do the latter regardless of the former. In fact, you even said it yourself - artists who create for capital are forced to produce more shallow art for the masses. Art is a pursuit of the divine, not capital, and pursuing one will come at the expense of the other.
barry-cotter 4y ago
> What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression. Is this an “Artists should come from rich families“ or “Be like Picasso and Warhol. Attend the right parties with the right people and you can attract the right patrons too.”? The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty.
- zozbot234 4y ago

omnimus 4y ago

In reality its a lot more nuanced. Check out book Chokepoint capitalism. Authors are often robbed by the middlemen and copyright helps the middlemen.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>Authors are often robbed by the middlemen and copyright helps the middlemen. Can you explain a bit more what you mean? How does this justify copyright violation? Unless you ask the author, how do you know they would let you read the book for free? Surely they get paid more when people buy the book, right? IIRC most authors recieve royalties.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  Most authors never see a dime from royalties. Publishers pay them an advance and then use the author's royalties to pay back that advance. Royalties often come out to pannies per book. Even an advance of a few thousand dollars ends up taking tens of thousands of unit sales to cover the author's advance and have them see any direct royalty payments. Publishers also pull all sorts of shady accounting to stiff authors on royalties. They will charge them for editing or cover art against their royalties. Worst is when they charge the author if a retailer returns unsold copies. That's all besides the fact Z-Library is little different than any other library. A library will lend out a book a large number of times and only pay for it once. Most of the readers were never ever going to buy the book and only read it because it was available at a library. Very few authors ever see any money from royalties and fewer still manage to live off royalties.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    Wouldn't this long-term result in publishers offering less advance money? Also, I doubt most people pirating books care to check wether the author is getting royalties or not. >fact Z-Library is little different than any other library. The difference is that copyright does not cover benefit from a work but reproduction. Libraries would be illegal too if they involved reproduction of the work. In any case, this is all still far from the "it was sad day for the free flow of information, knowledge, and culture" argument given by the OP. Most authors really don't want their works reporduced at no cost, and this idea is basicaly a "what's yours is mine" mentality.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

Counterpoint to your counterpoint For much of human civilization there has been an inherent social contract of sorts around communication. I can take what you tell me, mix it with other things, and retransmit it. While I love books, bits and bytes are not books. There is no physical media. Now, we are in an era of inherently zero cost redistribution, and the vast and giant fraud perpetrated on us by the cabal of distributors, publishers, authors, publishers and agents finally is seeing pushback. The vast amount of exploitation of public research, and non-value adding commercialization inherent in some of the scientific publishing and the gatekeeping boards is some of the worst of the lot. Most of all, because it actively interferes with the transfer of knowledge and serves to penalize those without means, and those in poorer countries. Considering the vastly exploitative system and the outrageous prices and robber baron profits these industries have made... I consider it my duty to accelerate its creative destruction and return the ability to recommunicate ideas back to its inherent social contract. Using your bits and bytes to store data is a revolutionary act that this vampire industry of ghouls seeks to prevent. Down with the literary Robber Barons!

QuadrupleA 4y ago
I agree on scientific publishing - if the research is publically funded then having a journal charge exorbitant prices for access is completely corrupt. I don't think it's the same thing for books by individual authors though. Good writing is a lot of work, whether it's bytes in a text file or ink on wood pulp. Giving authors a way to make a living at it so they don't have to wait tables the other 8 hours a day would be nice. If publishers, agents, etc. are providing a real service to the author - marketing, networking, getting good work seen - then I don't see anything wrong with them getting a cut, if the author chooses to hire them. Or if the author wants to take that on, build a social media following, beat the pavement doing book tours etc. that's fine too.

dredmorbius 4y ago

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33676788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33676788>