3 ms·

"Tolkien deserves much more of my money than the author of the cookbook..." Perhaps so but why? Tolkien was educated at mainly public expense and his wherewit

"Tolkien deserves much more of my money than the author of the cookbook..." Perhaps so but why? Tolkien was educated at mainly public expense and his wherewithal and worldliness that enabled him to write his novels came from the society in which he lived. That is, he was intimately coupled to his society without which he would not have been able to write his books. He owes society some payback for what it gave him. Tolkien has rights that need protection but they are not exclusive morally speaking. That the law gives him full and exclusive rights is an unfortunate product of history when Victor Hugo and cronies forced the Berne Convention in the days before the reading public had any idea that it was about to be shafted. That unfair treaty has to be made fair despite protestations from greedy publishers. If not, they will eventually lose out because every new computer technology only makes it easier to copy works. Even now it's a cinch, in 20 years it'll be so easy that if any text or video has any public exposure it'll be copied by consumers as a matter of course—copyright holders bedamed. (Think Google Glass—like tech that captures everything a human sees in high definition. If a human sees it then it will be copied automatically. Right, copyright is on the wall without major reform.) What we are witnessing from these greedy publishing bastards are the last gasps of the old elitist copyright order. If they were smart they would realize that they need to be much more reasonable and consolatory to even survive.

spacebanana7 4y ago
> Perhaps so but why? So that economic resources get directed towards creating books that people actually read and enjoy enough to keep reading. At present, writers and authors are incentivised to merely sell as many copies as possible because that's how they get paid. If they were directly incentivised to create books people enjoy reading we might have more books that are enjoyable to read. > Tolkien was educated at mainly public expense and his wherewithal and worldliness that enabled him to write his novels came from the society in which he lived. That can be addressed by using the tax system to pay back society from his wealth, but it's a separate discussion. > That the law gives him full and exclusive rights is an unfortunate product of history when Victor Hugo and cronies forced the Berne Convention in the days before the reading public had any idea that it was about to be shafted. I'd also prefer a world where books were more open because I reckon the increase in creativity from millions of people modifying stories would outweigh the loss of economic incentives for original authors. But that's not the world we live in. To the extend that hard copyrights exist that force us to pay to read we might as well structure the payments in a way that motivates the authors to write in a way that is more beneficial to us.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Fine. With copyright being in such a dysfunctional state at present something will have to give. I don't know what the final outcome will be but there's little doubt the middlemen will have a far lesser role to play in the future. Policing copyright in its current form will become such a burden that it will force change, and with coming AI advances even publisher's editors will become redundant. Technology will make publishers much less important. Authors ought to see the writing on the wall and start planning to deal directly with their readers. As you say, that would aid in creating books that people want to read. My personal opinion is that authors will have more to fear from AI than copyright violations. I'm not against writers being given their fair dues but I am against unfair copyright laws. What concerns me most is that if we're not careful we'll end up reading books and viewing videos created by AI—and I don't want that nor would author/creators. I'm defending human creators here, I don't want them replaced by machines. That's why it's more important than ever that authors and readers have a more solid and direct relationship—one that's much more than just a monetary alliance.
dbsmith83 4y ago
> Even now it's a cinch, in 20 years it'll be so easy that if any text or video has any public exposure it'll be copied by consumers as a matter of course—copyright holders bedamed. (Think Google Glass—like tech that captures everything a human sees in high definition. If a human sees it then it will be copied automatically. Right, copyright is on the wall without major reform.) That is, until your phone apps start scanning works automatically to detect copyrighted material before allowing you to store it on their cloud-storage
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Come on, cloud storage? Why bother with cloud storage when one will have pentabytes in a thumbnail-sized chip? I would never use cloud storage in a pink fit. Trust Microsoft, Google, et al with my data. Not likely. And why use a phone and locked-in apps? I suggest you read how I use my phone now, in 20 years I'll have even more control over my data: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=35243759 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=35243759 Also check my comment underneath in reply to a commentator. You're obviously of the smartphone generation, I'm pre that so I think outside that box. In 20 years things will be very different and that doesn't necessarily mean that Big Tech will still rule the roost.

spacebanana7 4y ago

> Perhaps so but why? So that economic resources get directed towards creating books that people actually read and enjoy enough to keep reading. At present, writers and authors are incentivised to merely sell as many copies as possible because that's how they get paid. If they were directly incentivised to create books people enjoy reading we might have more books that are enjoyable to read. > Tolkien was educated at mainly public expense and his wherewithal and worldliness that enabled him to write his novels came from the society in which he lived. That can be addressed by using the tax system to pay back society from his wealth, but it's a separate discussion. > That the law gives him full and exclusive rights is an unfortunate product of history when Victor Hugo and cronies forced the Berne Convention in the days before the reading public had any idea that it was about to be shafted. I'd also prefer a world where books were more open because I reckon the increase in creativity from millions of people modifying stories would outweigh the loss of economic incentives for original authors. But that's not the world we live in. To the extend that hard copyrights exist that force us to pay to read we might as well structure the payments in a way that motivates the authors to write in a way that is more beneficial to us.

hilbert42 4y ago
Fine. With copyright being in such a dysfunctional state at present something will have to give. I don't know what the final outcome will be but there's little doubt the middlemen will have a far lesser role to play in the future. Policing copyright in its current form will become such a burden that it will force change, and with coming AI advances even publisher's editors will become redundant. Technology will make publishers much less important. Authors ought to see the writing on the wall and start planning to deal directly with their readers. As you say, that would aid in creating books that people want to read. My personal opinion is that authors will have more to fear from AI than copyright violations. I'm not against writers being given their fair dues but I am against unfair copyright laws. What concerns me most is that if we're not careful we'll end up reading books and viewing videos created by AI—and I don't want that nor would author/creators. I'm defending human creators here, I don't want them replaced by machines. That's why it's more important than ever that authors and readers have a more solid and direct relationship—one that's much more than just a monetary alliance.

dbsmith83 4y ago

> Even now it's a cinch, in 20 years it'll be so easy that if any text or video has any public exposure it'll be copied by consumers as a matter of course—copyright holders bedamed. (Think Google Glass—like tech that captures everything a human sees in high definition. If a human sees it then it will be copied automatically. Right, copyright is on the wall without major reform.) That is, until your phone apps start scanning works automatically to detect copyrighted material before allowing you to store it on their cloud-storage

hilbert42 4y ago
Come on, cloud storage? Why bother with cloud storage when one will have pentabytes in a thumbnail-sized chip? I would never use cloud storage in a pink fit. Trust Microsoft, Google, et al with my data. Not likely. And why use a phone and locked-in apps? I suggest you read how I use my phone now, in 20 years I'll have even more control over my data: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=35243759 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=35243759 Also check my comment underneath in reply to a commentator. You're obviously of the smartphone generation, I'm pre that so I think outside that box. In 20 years things will be very different and that doesn't necessarily mean that Big Tech will still rule the roost.