4 ms·

I don't see how you can possibly say that the exclusive right to sell a work doesn't have monetary value, AKA benefit for whoever holds it. I give my stuff awa

by beej71 3y ago

I don't see how you can possibly say that the exclusive right to sell a work doesn't have monetary value, AKA benefit for whoever holds it. I give my stuff away for free online, but I don't want O'Reilly or whomever selling it for money. (I sell print copies for money.) I have no mechanism to stop that other than copyright law. I do think the copyright term should be a maximum of 20 years from the publishing date, though (which would put some earlier versions of my works into the public domain). About the only useful thing copyright does anymore is protect the little guy, contrary to this argument. I am one of those little guys! I can't tell if the author has written any books, but I'd be happy to put them up for sale on Amazon if he does, assuming he has no problem with me pocketing the proceeds.

contravariant 3y ago
A point I've always found interesting is how the advent of the printing press was initially a massive boon to writers in the absence of copyright as books didn't keep their value for long so publishers need quite a large supply of new books to make a profit (some details listed in [1], ignore the NFT crap). I suppose this may no longer hold in a world where illegal copies can now spread in a matter of hours, if not minutes, but it's worth thinking about how copyright helps the publisher more than the creator of a work. [1]: https://virginica.substack.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-and-the-end https://virginica.substack.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-and...
rainsford 3y ago
> I see no justification for copyright. I am effectively a writer: I write lecture notes, research articles and blog posts. I get paid without relying on copyright. From the article. It seems like the author's position is that because his job as a professor means he gets paid independent of the distribution of the things he produces, copyright is irrelevant. Not so much that exclusive right to sell a work doesn't have monetary value, but that this guy makes money without having to take advantage of that value, so obviously nobody needs it. I'm generally a believer in copyright reform and against bashing academics as out-of-touch, but people like this person make holding either position a real challenge sometimes.
- endo_bunker 3y ago
  He goes on to describe ways in which non-professors can be paid for their creative work without relying on copyright.
  - shagie 3y ago
    If I read that right, it's grant writing, patronage and kickstarter. > When authors do get paid, a natural model is patronage. That is the model used by most scientists. Copyright is of no help whatsoever to mathematicians. > “But, Daniel, you are delusional! Not every writer can find a patron.” Am I? I have funded several book projects myself. For example, a lady called Kio Stark got $38,928 from us to write a handbook on alternatives to schooling. > Several authors get funded on kickstarter: > ... > In fact, if you think about it for a minute, whenever you buy a book or a movie, you are being a patron to this project. So all work is the result of patronage. Cory Doctorow makes all his novels available for free from his web site. He happens to be one of the most successful writer of his generation. You can be confident that he is doing well financially. It works for him because people are willing to support him: his paying readers are his patrons. (Note https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Studies/Cory_Doctorow https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Studies/Cory_Doct... ) > Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons Atrribution NonCommercial ShareAlike or Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives. His latest work, Little Brother, has spent 4 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list and is released as BY-NC-SA. Consider the question "without copyright, how could he enforce the NonCommercial NoDerivatives clauses? And related: https://doctorow.medium.com/why-none-of-my-books-are-available-on-audible-83cb182f2f91 https://doctorow.medium.com/why-none-of-my-books-are-availab... > ACX has some nominal checks to ensure that the audiobooks that land on its platform are duly licensed from their rightsholders, but these are trivial to circumvent. Here’s how I know that: on multiple occasions, I’ve discovered that my own books have been turned into unauthorized audiobooks over ACX. > Scammers claiming to have the rights to my books commission narrators to record them on the cheap, with the promise of a royalty split when they are live. Inexperienced narrators, excited at the prospect of recording a major book by a bestselling author, put long, grueling hours into recording them. Then the book goes live, and I discover it, and have it taken down. The scammer disappears with the profits from the sales in the interim, and the narrator is screwed. > As am I. > Because these illegal ACX audiobooks compete with my own, self-produced editions, for which I pay narrators, directors and editors a fair wage for their creative labor. These unauthorized ACX audiobooks show up in searches for my name on Audible and Amazon, where my own (vastly superior, authorized) DRM-free audiobooks are not allowed. And while he does have an issue with scammers and mandatory DRM on audible, if there wasn't any copyrights on them, would he have any case at all? --- And so, I don't agree with TFA on how regular people can get paid for their creative works without relying on copyright.
ipaddr 3y ago
The endless content O'Reilly can provide is worth the tradeoff of letting someone else make money off of my content where I cannot make a sense. Preventing O'Reilly is a net negative to me
ofalkaed 3y ago
>I do think the copyright term should be a maximum of 20 years In nonfiction where things get dated fairly quickly 20 years is plenty, few non-fiction books make any money after 20 year, but in the fiction world most books are not an instant success and the author only sees money from them decades down the line when they have established their reputation and their early works get reprinted. A 20 year copyright would make an already difficult area to make a living in nearly impossible for anyone but those with aspirations towards the best seller lists and pandering to the current trends. Same goes for the arts in general. A 20 year copyright would cater to a short sighted view.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  They could update their old books periodically. So the latest and greatest version of the first book in the series will still be under copyright.
- austhrow743 3y ago
  Are writers really taking up writing in the hope that in 20 years the writing will finally start paying something?
  - Nzen 3y ago
    An author of fiction may sometimes retain copyright for some forms of derived works, ex "movie rights" [0], with the expectation that they aren't worth much until the original literary work has drawn a significant audience. [0] https://youtu.be/Rjv1NlMiUyI?t=65 https://youtu.be/Rjv1NlMiUyI?t=65
  - ofalkaed 3y ago
    If they have done any research into it or have a halfway decent agent, yes. A book that sells well is probably not going to set you up for life and at best will just cover the next year or two, only a tiny minority of writers get that massive best seller and movie deal that sets them up for life.
- csnover 3y ago
  It seems to me like you are describing an unlikely situation where a lot of conditions would need to be true for >20 year copyright to make sense: 1. Many artists are commercial failures for over two decades, but eventually succeed; 2. These artists’ newer successful works don’t result in income equivalent to working a full-time non-creative job for that time; 3. Fans will not pay them for the old works without the threat of legal action; 4. There is no other way to monetise the old works by e.g. recording a commentary, audiobook, screenplay adaptation, manuscripts, compilations, special editions, etc.; 5. Artists don’t pander to current trends only because they know they might be able to make some money over 20 years later; 6. The money they will get paid in royalties under a contract where they sold the rights to a publisher when they were an unknown nobody is greater than the amount of money they would make selling it directly in the public domain after becoming commercially successful.
rectang 3y ago
> beej71 Folks, this is that beej. https://beej.us/guide/bgnet/ https://beej.us/guide/bgnet/ > I give my stuff away for free online, but I don't want O'Reilly or whomever selling it for money. (I sell print copies for money.) I have no mechanism to stop that other than copyright law. I for one am grateful that you remain the steward of your work.
cute_boi 3y ago
> I can't tell if the author has written any books, but I'd be happy to put them up for sale on Amazon if he does I think it was mentioned somewhere that this would be count as outright fraud. So, may be copyright isn't needed in such case. I am thankful for your networking books, helped me a lot.
- TylerE 3y ago
  How would it be fraud? Do you understand what not having copyright means?
  - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
    Not having copyright would not mean the ability to lie about the authorship of public domain content without repercussions.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      No one said anything about changing authorship; the poster farther up the thread could certainly make money selling those books up on Amazon with the original author's name intact. Regardless, though, what repercussions are you referring to? There are no legal repercussions for taking public domain works and pretending you created them. Sure, there are potential social repercussions, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
    - chr86 3y ago
      Note what beej said, he didn't say anything about putting his own name on the books. Only that he'd sell them and pocket the money
    - beej71 3y ago
      Certainly there would be repercussions in terms of credibility, but what legal repercussions could be brought to bear? Non-copyright is public domain--it belongs to you and me to do with as we please, including putting another name on it. Try printing Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ by MacsHeadroom and no one will stop you. (For the record, I would never sell another author's copyrighted work without permission. And I'd certainly never stick my name on something I didn't write because I value my reputation. But just because _I_ wouldn't doesn't mean people wouldn't. I'd bet plenty of money that they most certainly would.)
WalterBright 3y ago
> I don't want O'Reilly or whomever selling it for money O'Reilly is free to sell D compilers if they want to, for as much as they want to.
slim 3y ago
what if they are free to sell it, but you get (automatically, non negociable) 20% on every sale ?

by beej71 3y ago

contravariant 3y ago

A point I've always found interesting is how the advent of the printing press was initially a massive boon to writers in the absence of copyright as books didn't keep their value for long so publishers need quite a large supply of new books to make a profit (some details listed in [1], ignore the NFT crap). I suppose this may no longer hold in a world where illegal copies can now spread in a matter of hours, if not minutes, but it's worth thinking about how copyright helps the publisher more than the creator of a work. [1]: https://virginica.substack.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-and-the-end https://virginica.substack.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-and...

rainsford 3y ago

> I see no justification for copyright. I am effectively a writer: I write lecture notes, research articles and blog posts. I get paid without relying on copyright. From the article. It seems like the author's position is that because his job as a professor means he gets paid independent of the distribution of the things he produces, copyright is irrelevant. Not so much that exclusive right to sell a work doesn't have monetary value, but that this guy makes money without having to take advantage of that value, so obviously nobody needs it. I'm generally a believer in copyright reform and against bashing academics as out-of-touch, but people like this person make holding either position a real challenge sometimes.

endo_bunker 3y ago
He goes on to describe ways in which non-professors can be paid for their creative work without relying on copyright.
- shagie 3y ago
  If I read that right, it's grant writing, patronage and kickstarter. > When authors do get paid, a natural model is patronage. That is the model used by most scientists. Copyright is of no help whatsoever to mathematicians. > “But, Daniel, you are delusional! Not every writer can find a patron.” Am I? I have funded several book projects myself. For example, a lady called Kio Stark got $38,928 from us to write a handbook on alternatives to schooling. > Several authors get funded on kickstarter: > ... > In fact, if you think about it for a minute, whenever you buy a book or a movie, you are being a patron to this project. So all work is the result of patronage. Cory Doctorow makes all his novels available for free from his web site. He happens to be one of the most successful writer of his generation. You can be confident that he is doing well financially. It works for him because people are willing to support him: his paying readers are his patrons. (Note https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Studies/Cory_Doctorow https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Studies/Cory_Doct... ) > Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons Atrribution NonCommercial ShareAlike or Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives. His latest work, Little Brother, has spent 4 weeks on the NYTimes bestseller list and is released as BY-NC-SA. Consider the question "without copyright, how could he enforce the NonCommercial NoDerivatives clauses? And related: https://doctorow.medium.com/why-none-of-my-books-are-available-on-audible-83cb182f2f91 https://doctorow.medium.com/why-none-of-my-books-are-availab... > ACX has some nominal checks to ensure that the audiobooks that land on its platform are duly licensed from their rightsholders, but these are trivial to circumvent. Here’s how I know that: on multiple occasions, I’ve discovered that my own books have been turned into unauthorized audiobooks over ACX. > Scammers claiming to have the rights to my books commission narrators to record them on the cheap, with the promise of a royalty split when they are live. Inexperienced narrators, excited at the prospect of recording a major book by a bestselling author, put long, grueling hours into recording them. Then the book goes live, and I discover it, and have it taken down. The scammer disappears with the profits from the sales in the interim, and the narrator is screwed. > As am I. > Because these illegal ACX audiobooks compete with my own, self-produced editions, for which I pay narrators, directors and editors a fair wage for their creative labor. These unauthorized ACX audiobooks show up in searches for my name on Audible and Amazon, where my own (vastly superior, authorized) DRM-free audiobooks are not allowed. And while he does have an issue with scammers and mandatory DRM on audible, if there wasn't any copyrights on them, would he have any case at all? --- And so, I don't agree with TFA on how regular people can get paid for their creative works without relying on copyright.

ipaddr 3y ago

The endless content O'Reilly can provide is worth the tradeoff of letting someone else make money off of my content where I cannot make a sense. Preventing O'Reilly is a net negative to me

ofalkaed 3y ago

>I do think the copyright term should be a maximum of 20 years In nonfiction where things get dated fairly quickly 20 years is plenty, few non-fiction books make any money after 20 year, but in the fiction world most books are not an instant success and the author only sees money from them decades down the line when they have established their reputation and their early works get reprinted. A 20 year copyright would make an already difficult area to make a living in nearly impossible for anyone but those with aspirations towards the best seller lists and pandering to the current trends. Same goes for the arts in general. A 20 year copyright would cater to a short sighted view.

charcircuit 3y ago
They could update their old books periodically. So the latest and greatest version of the first book in the series will still be under copyright.
austhrow743 3y ago
Are writers really taking up writing in the hope that in 20 years the writing will finally start paying something?
- Nzen 3y ago
  An author of fiction may sometimes retain copyright for some forms of derived works, ex "movie rights" [0], with the expectation that they aren't worth much until the original literary work has drawn a significant audience. [0] https://youtu.be/Rjv1NlMiUyI?t=65 https://youtu.be/Rjv1NlMiUyI?t=65
- ofalkaed 3y ago
  If they have done any research into it or have a halfway decent agent, yes. A book that sells well is probably not going to set you up for life and at best will just cover the next year or two, only a tiny minority of writers get that massive best seller and movie deal that sets them up for life.
csnover 3y ago
It seems to me like you are describing an unlikely situation where a lot of conditions would need to be true for >20 year copyright to make sense: 1. Many artists are commercial failures for over two decades, but eventually succeed; 2. These artists’ newer successful works don’t result in income equivalent to working a full-time non-creative job for that time; 3. Fans will not pay them for the old works without the threat of legal action; 4. There is no other way to monetise the old works by e.g. recording a commentary, audiobook, screenplay adaptation, manuscripts, compilations, special editions, etc.; 5. Artists don’t pander to current trends only because they know they might be able to make some money over 20 years later; 6. The money they will get paid in royalties under a contract where they sold the rights to a publisher when they were an unknown nobody is greater than the amount of money they would make selling it directly in the public domain after becoming commercially successful.

rectang 3y ago

> beej71 Folks, this is that beej. https://beej.us/guide/bgnet/ https://beej.us/guide/bgnet/ > I give my stuff away for free online, but I don't want O'Reilly or whomever selling it for money. (I sell print copies for money.) I have no mechanism to stop that other than copyright law. I for one am grateful that you remain the steward of your work.

cute_boi 3y ago

> I can't tell if the author has written any books, but I'd be happy to put them up for sale on Amazon if he does I think it was mentioned somewhere that this would be count as outright fraud. So, may be copyright isn't needed in such case. I am thankful for your networking books, helped me a lot.

TylerE 3y ago
How would it be fraud? Do you understand what not having copyright means?
- MacsHeadroom 3y ago
  Not having copyright would not mean the ability to lie about the authorship of public domain content without repercussions.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    No one said anything about changing authorship; the poster farther up the thread could certainly make money selling those books up on Amazon with the original author's name intact. Regardless, though, what repercussions are you referring to? There are no legal repercussions for taking public domain works and pretending you created them. Sure, there are potential social repercussions, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
  - chr86 3y ago
    Note what beej said, he didn't say anything about putting his own name on the books. Only that he'd sell them and pocket the money
  - beej71 3y ago
    Certainly there would be repercussions in terms of credibility, but what legal repercussions could be brought to bear? Non-copyright is public domain--it belongs to you and me to do with as we please, including putting another name on it. Try printing Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ by MacsHeadroom and no one will stop you. (For the record, I would never sell another author's copyrighted work without permission. And I'd certainly never stick my name on something I didn't write because I value my reputation. But just because _I_ wouldn't doesn't mean people wouldn't. I'd bet plenty of money that they most certainly would.)

WalterBright 3y ago

> I don't want O'Reilly or whomever selling it for money O'Reilly is free to sell D compilers if they want to, for as much as they want to.

slim 3y ago

what if they are free to sell it, but you get (automatically, non negociable) 20% on every sale ?