3 ms·
it makes sense. Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Of course it will suck when everyone realises that but that doesn't me
by timwaagh 4y ago
it makes sense. Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Of course it will suck when everyone realises that but that doesn't mean it's not true. I'm making a game. Perhaps it will be bought by a library and that could be the only copy I sell. Now that's just me getting screwed. But what if you are a publisher with 1000s of authors, many employees and everyone's pension depending on you?
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago> Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Libraries as a repository of knowledge and prose as a concept have existed for millennia. Copyright is a modern device that was originally designed to protect authors, not publishers. Copyright law being expanded over and over again for the benefit of the publishers, long after the death of the author is far more out of whack, philosophically, than libraries having a few copies of a book on the shelf (IMO).
- timwaagh 4y agoCopyright is also old. Not as old as the library of Alexandria but old. public libraries seemb to be at best a few centuries older than copyright.
- AlexandrB 4y agoI like this perspective. The idea that Copyright is some kind of natural law or is inherently good needs to die. Copyright is a compromise between the goals of society and the need of authors to eat, but business models like "books as a service" maybe mean we should re-visit the compromise so commercial interests don't supersede those of human progress and well-being.