4 ms·

> 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 copyri

> 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.
hakfoo 3y ago
The question is whether any players actually need copyright as we know it, or if it's a convenience. There are definitely some creative types who have optimized their business around the affordances copyright has provided. But can they pivot to a less copyright-dependent model? Maybe the musicians who just do studio work have to start touring instead.
- bardan 3y ago
  > Maybe the musicians who just do studio work have to start touring instead. No more value in composition, only in live performance? What if you're a great composer but not much of a performer? Most people remember The Beatles for their studio work.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    How about contractual work? Say that you'll make a new song/album if people pay you a certain amount of money. As a bonus, this system would encourage artists to actually produce new music instead of milking a dead cow.

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.

hakfoo 3y ago

The question is whether any players actually need copyright as we know it, or if it's a convenience. There are definitely some creative types who have optimized their business around the affordances copyright has provided. But can they pivot to a less copyright-dependent model? Maybe the musicians who just do studio work have to start touring instead.

bardan 3y ago
> Maybe the musicians who just do studio work have to start touring instead. No more value in composition, only in live performance? What if you're a great composer but not much of a performer? Most people remember The Beatles for their studio work.
- xigoi 3y ago
  How about contractual work? Say that you'll make a new song/album if people pay you a certain amount of money. As a bonus, this system would encourage artists to actually produce new music instead of milking a dead cow.