3 ms·

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 protect

by 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.

by bnj 4y ago

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.