3 ms·

To those that believe copyright should be limited to a decade or two, what is your answer to Donald Knuth’s The Art of Computer Programming? It has been around

To those that believe copyright should be limited to a decade or two, what is your answer to Donald Knuth’s The Art of Computer Programming? It has been around since 1962, and yes has had new volumes added over time. Should Donald have been forced to give up his copyright and revenue stream in the 80s for a book that is still popular today? The book is reasonably priced at around $60. 1. https://www.informit.com/promotions/art-of-computer-programming-books-and-ebooks-140521 https://www.informit.com/promotions/art-of-computer-programm...

ddevault 4y ago
TAOCP is not a single entity; each volume has its own copyright term. The original purpose of copyright is not to enable rent seeking, but to encourage artists to keep making new works. So as old volumes of TAOCP fall out of copyright, it incentivizes Knuth to write new volumes. It would be the system working as designed.
- yardstick 4y ago
  Would you agree with: post copyright expiration, no one, original author or otherwise, should be able to profit from it? Ie if I were to sell TAOCP after the copyright expired, can I sell it at a price above the costs of printing, distribution, etc? Because any profit would be rent-seeking.
  - ddevault 4y ago
    No, I don't agree with that. In fact I'm a copyright abolitionist.
    - yardstick 4y ago
      Isn’t copyright abolitionist the most rent-seeking position? Obtaining wealth without any part in its creation.
      - ddevault 4y ago
        That's not how rent seeking works. Rent seeking requires exclusive access to a resource, i.e. an apartment in the original metaphor. Nothing prevents the author from monetizing it, too, and they get first-mover advantage and other legs up besides.
        yardstick 4y ago
        First line of Wikipedia (and OED) on rent seeking: “Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth without creating new wealth by manipulating the social or political environment.” Describes copyright abolishment quite aptly.
        nathanh4903 4y ago
        if I printed book XYZ that is written by someone else, I'm creating value by creating the copy and enabling people to read it. Would you consider companies that sell bottled water as rent seeking? (assuming that natural fresh water is abundant in that area and free for all)
        yardstick 4y ago
        > if I printed book XYZ that is written by someone else, I'm creating value by creating the copy and enabling people to read it. You have created value by stealing someone else’s wealth. If bottled water companies were selling my water or my ideas without paying me, that would also be theft.
        ddevault 4y ago
        Intellectual property is intangible and cannot be stolen. Copying is not stealing; the original does not go away. https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-post-copyright.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-po...
        4y ago
e-v 4y ago
Donald Knuth is (fortunately) still alive.
- yardstick 4y ago
  Sure, but this is for those arguing for copyright from date of issue + X years, irrespective of the author being alive still or not.
taink 4y ago
I don't see how his work should be an exception to what people are saying otherwise. Since it is popular, as you say, it should all the more be freed of copyrights. Given Knuth's prolific bibliography, he has other revenue streams from more recent publications (including more recently published volumes). His name remains on the cover of the work, so he still gets social benefits from having written a deeply influential book (which will be even more accessible once freed of copyright!). I also don't see how $60 for a single volume seems reasonable -- most books aren't that expensive and this price point constitutes a big barrier to entry.
bnj 4y ago
First, even if the book lost copyright protection people would still be free to support the author by buying copies, Second, if the book lost copyright protection wouldn’t Donald, losing that revenue stream, then be motivated to replace it by writing a follow up book? Artists should be able to benefit from their works, but your question implies (to me) that because a work is popular artists have a right to continue to profit. You ask if they should be “forced” to “give up their copyright”. I think it’s good to keep in mind that anything copyrighted is being withheld from society at large; that we collectively pay a tax to authors in the form of giving up our collective right to remix and recombine works and profit from them in turn. Particularly in the modern world of effortless free duplication and distribution, that’s a heavy burden to pay and it makes no sense to me that we would collectively agree to pay it for many decades even after the original author is dead.
- yardstick 4y ago
  > First, even if the book lost copyright protection people would still be free to support the author by buying copies, This would pale in comparison to the status quo. There’s just too many people who don’t pay to support free things. Just look at how open source projects often struggle to find funding, or relicense to non-open licenses. Or how often the open source project isn’t the persons full time job. > Second, if the book lost copyright protection wouldn’t Donald, losing that revenue stream, then be motivated to replace it by writing a follow up book? I can’t speak to anyone else’s motivations but my own, but for me, no, I wouldn’t even bother writing the first book. > that because a work is popular artists have a right to continue to profit. Authors like Knuth should benefit from the wealth they helped others created. TAOCP provides a wealth of knowledge the reader can use to improve the quality of their work product. This is still a benefit long past a few decades. > I think it’s good to keep in mind that anything copyrighted is being withheld from society at large; It was not societies property in the first place.

ddevault 4y ago

TAOCP is not a single entity; each volume has its own copyright term. The original purpose of copyright is not to enable rent seeking, but to encourage artists to keep making new works. So as old volumes of TAOCP fall out of copyright, it incentivizes Knuth to write new volumes. It would be the system working as designed.

yardstick 4y ago
Would you agree with: post copyright expiration, no one, original author or otherwise, should be able to profit from it? Ie if I were to sell TAOCP after the copyright expired, can I sell it at a price above the costs of printing, distribution, etc? Because any profit would be rent-seeking.
- ddevault 4y ago
  No, I don't agree with that. In fact I'm a copyright abolitionist.
  - yardstick 4y ago
    Isn’t copyright abolitionist the most rent-seeking position? Obtaining wealth without any part in its creation.
    - ddevault 4y ago
      That's not how rent seeking works. Rent seeking requires exclusive access to a resource, i.e. an apartment in the original metaphor. Nothing prevents the author from monetizing it, too, and they get first-mover advantage and other legs up besides.
      - yardstick 4y ago
        First line of Wikipedia (and OED) on rent seeking: “Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth without creating new wealth by manipulating the social or political environment.” Describes copyright abolishment quite aptly.
        nathanh4903 4y ago
        if I printed book XYZ that is written by someone else, I'm creating value by creating the copy and enabling people to read it. Would you consider companies that sell bottled water as rent seeking? (assuming that natural fresh water is abundant in that area and free for all)
        yardstick 4y ago
        > if I printed book XYZ that is written by someone else, I'm creating value by creating the copy and enabling people to read it. You have created value by stealing someone else’s wealth. If bottled water companies were selling my water or my ideas without paying me, that would also be theft.
        ddevault 4y ago
        Intellectual property is intangible and cannot be stolen. Copying is not stealing; the original does not go away. https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-post-copyright.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-po...
        4y ago

e-v 4y ago

Donald Knuth is (fortunately) still alive.

yardstick 4y ago
Sure, but this is for those arguing for copyright from date of issue + X years, irrespective of the author being alive still or not.

taink 4y ago

I don't see how his work should be an exception to what people are saying otherwise. Since it is popular, as you say, it should all the more be freed of copyrights. Given Knuth's prolific bibliography, he has other revenue streams from more recent publications (including more recently published volumes). His name remains on the cover of the work, so he still gets social benefits from having written a deeply influential book (which will be even more accessible once freed of copyright!). I also don't see how $60 for a single volume seems reasonable -- most books aren't that expensive and this price point constitutes a big barrier to entry.

bnj 4y ago

First, even if the book lost copyright protection people would still be free to support the author by buying copies, Second, if the book lost copyright protection wouldn’t Donald, losing that revenue stream, then be motivated to replace it by writing a follow up book? Artists should be able to benefit from their works, but your question implies (to me) that because a work is popular artists have a right to continue to profit. You ask if they should be “forced” to “give up their copyright”. I think it’s good to keep in mind that anything copyrighted is being withheld from society at large; that we collectively pay a tax to authors in the form of giving up our collective right to remix and recombine works and profit from them in turn. Particularly in the modern world of effortless free duplication and distribution, that’s a heavy burden to pay and it makes no sense to me that we would collectively agree to pay it for many decades even after the original author is dead.

yardstick 4y ago
> First, even if the book lost copyright protection people would still be free to support the author by buying copies, This would pale in comparison to the status quo. There’s just too many people who don’t pay to support free things. Just look at how open source projects often struggle to find funding, or relicense to non-open licenses. Or how often the open source project isn’t the persons full time job. > Second, if the book lost copyright protection wouldn’t Donald, losing that revenue stream, then be motivated to replace it by writing a follow up book? I can’t speak to anyone else’s motivations but my own, but for me, no, I wouldn’t even bother writing the first book. > that because a work is popular artists have a right to continue to profit. Authors like Knuth should benefit from the wealth they helped others created. TAOCP provides a wealth of knowledge the reader can use to improve the quality of their work product. This is still a benefit long past a few decades. > I think it’s good to keep in mind that anything copyrighted is being withheld from society at large; It was not societies property in the first place.