2 ms·

> The primary reason, it is argued, that fakes and copying hurts consumers is because it’s a drain on the economic incentives for creative and productive people

> The primary reason, it is argued, that fakes and copying hurts consumers is because it’s a drain on the economic incentives for creative and productive people to author new works. And this is kind of stupid because authors that can live on their book earnings are very rare indeed. In fact, you can blame communism for a lot of things, but it certainly produced a lot of books, which would seem to indicate that should it become possible in the US survive on the promise to make a book, while making zero profit of the actual book, many more books would be produced. Economic incentives incentivise publishers, not authors. That has never really been different. That business model can't really exist without copyright. Authors very much can.

dahart 3y ago
I guess I still don’t understand your question/point. Yes if we had a hypothetically different economy in the US I suppose maybe more independent authors could get by on writing alone. They need to make a living somehow, someone needs to pay. UBI might produce more authors… I’m not really sure why it matters how common it is for writers to make full time living on their work. What does that have to do with whether other people should be allowed to copy it without permission and get all the money for it? Copyright law does not depend on whether people can make a living creating something, it always applies, and gives authors enough time to make money, recoup costs, or sit on it, or do whatever they want (or more than enough time, as the case may be). Personally, I don’t buy into the idea that someone should be able to publish my work and make money off it just because its unavailable, for example, there should be other better reasons. BTW, China and Russia are both party to the Berne Convention, so regardless of how authors make money, even communists believe writers and musicians and all creative people should be protected from copy theft, just like the capitalists and socialists do. > Economic incentives incentivize publishers, not authors. Naw, not true. Lots of people who create believe their work might make a lot of money, even if it never does. (Just like everyone who plays the lottery believes they have a chance to win.) Plus lots of people are okay with making small amounts of money, and never intended to make a full time living.

dahart 3y ago

I guess I still don’t understand your question/point. Yes if we had a hypothetically different economy in the US I suppose maybe more independent authors could get by on writing alone. They need to make a living somehow, someone needs to pay. UBI might produce more authors… I’m not really sure why it matters how common it is for writers to make full time living on their work. What does that have to do with whether other people should be allowed to copy it without permission and get all the money for it? Copyright law does not depend on whether people can make a living creating something, it always applies, and gives authors enough time to make money, recoup costs, or sit on it, or do whatever they want (or more than enough time, as the case may be). Personally, I don’t buy into the idea that someone should be able to publish my work and make money off it just because its unavailable, for example, there should be other better reasons. BTW, China and Russia are both party to the Berne Convention, so regardless of how authors make money, even communists believe writers and musicians and all creative people should be protected from copy theft, just like the capitalists and socialists do. > Economic incentives incentivize publishers, not authors. Naw, not true. Lots of people who create believe their work might make a lot of money, even if it never does. (Just like everyone who plays the lottery believes they have a chance to win.) Plus lots of people are okay with making small amounts of money, and never intended to make a full time living.