5 ms·
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
by 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 agoWould 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 agoNo, I don't agree with that. In fact I'm a copyright abolitionist.
- yardstick 4y agoIsn’t copyright abolitionist the most rent-seeking position? Obtaining wealth without any part in its creation.
- ddevault 4y agoThat'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 agoFirst 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 agoif 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 agoIntellectual 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...
- yardstick 4y agoYou at nitpicking definitions. From your blog: > Assume that we address both of these problems: we create an empathetic system which never denies a human being of their fundamental right to live, and we eliminate copyright. So basically you advise solving world hunger and resource scarcity as necessary to avoid the need for copyright. That is literally impossible, there will always be someone who wants more than they have, who feels what a socialism-based society believes is sufficient is really not, and who are we as a society to judge the perceived needs of each individual? No thanks, I’ll take capitalism any day.
- ddevault 4y agoI advocate for democratic socialism, which is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Socialism for humanity's basic needs, capitalism for the wants. Yes, it is possible.