6 ms·

Then most people stop writing books because they can't get paid for their time/effort and ~every child will be stuck with outdated knowledge within a decade.

by 698969 3y ago

DennisP 3y ago
Or maybe we could figure out a new economic model, instead of blindly sticking with one based on the limitations of the pre-digital age.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  How about you go figure out this new economic model, and come back when it's ready. Until then, the existing model will persist, thank you
  - leereeves 3y ago
    First change the incentives, then everyone will work on finding a new economic model.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      This makes even less sense than the previous guy. When you've figured out how the world will work without people incentivized by money and power, get back to the rest of us
      - leereeves 3y ago
        Suing people for reading a book is one of the ways the poor are kept poor. The world will work just fine without ceding control to people who seek money and power, because most people aren't like that. The question is how to prevent the few who are from oppressing the rest of us. That is quite a challenge, but haven't you ever created something just for the fun of it?
        lotsoweiners 3y ago
        > Suing people for reading a book is one of the ways the poor are kept poor. Who is suing anyone for reading a book? > The world will work just fine without ceding control to people who seek money and power, because most people aren't like that. The question is how to prevent the few who are from oppressing the rest of us. Please get me in contact with your dealer because apparently the “legal” stuff I’ve been getting is not as potent as I thought. > That is quite a challenge, but haven't you ever created something just for the fun of it? Sure I’ve painted things that are on my wall and created lots of utility apps that I use personally but I keep them to myself. If I thought they were something that could get me some extra pocket money or better then I would be looking for ways to monetize. I have zero interest in sharing my potential intellectual property for free.
        listenallyall 3y ago
        > Suing people for reading a book is one of the ways the poor are kept poor. Please cite a single lawsuit. > The world will work just fine without ceding control to people who seek money and power, because most people aren't like that. Virtually everybody is "like that." The world works well because tons of people are working hard, toiling in difficult, dirty, boring, frustrating, or tedious jobs (or all of the above) behind the scenes to make it so. What are municipal waste workers seeking, if not money? Bus drivers? Construction workers? Police officers? > That is quite a challenge, but haven't you ever created something just for the fun of it? Any author or songwriter or photographer can proclaim his work to be freely copyable, just like programmers release code under MIT licenses. The fact that so few actually do, should clue you in on their incentives.
        squeaky-clean 3y ago
        Making it so you can't write for a living is one way to make sure only the rich can spread knowledge.
  - hedora 3y ago
    Mandatory licensing seems fine. The government charges a tax on everyone. Revenue is handed to authors based on how many times the work is used. There are some questions around how to weigh things like societal importance of the work. (“Not melting down nuclear reactors for dummies” seems like it should get more money per view than “poodles in outer space vol XXXII”, despite likely having lower readership)
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      Isn't this the opposite of what the people against copyright are seeking? They want more art to be unprotected, instead, in the public domain, free to use for all. You're making things even more restrictive financially by attaching a tax to all books/songs/movies etc, plus creating a government-controlled, universal monitoring and enforcement system.
  - TheGigaChad 3y ago
    [dead]
  - GeoAtreides 3y ago
    Oh boy, do I have good news for you! There are already many writers making thousands of dollars a month by publishing free serialized web novels, via Patreon. Some are using their own websites, but most are on Royal Road (or scribblehub, webnovel, wattpad, AO3). A random example from Royal Road[1], the author makes $12065/month. Mind you, the text is not gated, it's free to read, the patreon only offers early access... [1] https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/63759/super-supportive https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/63759/super-supportive [2] https://www.patreon.com/Sleyca https://www.patreon.com/Sleyca
    - Name_Chawps 3y ago
      Your "random" example is currently the #2 ongoing fiction on there, and was #1 until a couple days ago when the guy who wrote Mother of Learning released his new fiction.
      - GeoAtreides 3y ago
        It was random in the sense I clicked on trending and then clicked on the first thing I saw. Sure, the amount is an outlier, but there are more that are making over 500 or 1000/month, that's not unusual. Most authors are not making any money, of course, just like in the current system.
    - edanm 3y ago
      What do you think authors feel about this? Despite many people on this site thinking we're the first generation with new technology, the issue of copyright, and technolgie's impact on it, has been discussed for centuries. The "patronage" model is great (and I personally am a Patreon supporter of lots of creatives). But it also has a lot of flaws in it, both for the author and the public. Most authors will be happy to tell you both the good and bad of the model, in my experience. The biggest flaw for the public, btw, is that this model only supports art that "rich people" find worth supporting. This is bad, both because sometimes art isn't "deemed worthy" immediately, and because art for non-"rich" people is also very valuable.
      - 3y ago
- didntcheck 3y ago
  How does the digital age change things? Copyright was invented when copying became easy, and hence arrived due to the printing press. A book is no different to a digital download in that the cost to produce it is tiny, and you're paying for the intellectual property, not the physical production of it
CaptainFever 3y ago
> The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich (usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’), and if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!” This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise. > I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another formulation of the argument. > This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two outcomes—proprietary software versus no software—and assuming there are no other possibilities. This, but with creative works instead. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
Zambyte 3y ago
Copyright is much newer than books.
- amf12 3y ago
  So is internet and rapid copy-sharing of books. I personally feel our copyright laws are too rigid, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist. After x years, any book should be free to read, after y years, it should be free to be incorporated into AI models, after z years it should be in the public domain.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > So is internet and rapid copy-sharing of books. I don't get your point. Because we can, we shouldn't...?
  - zugi 3y ago
    That's already the case, but x = z = 120 years (and y = 0 or 120, depending on who you ask...) The first U.S. copyright law set x = z = 14 years. That's why many people think copyright law is out of control.
nyolfen 3y ago
so why haven't they already stopped if it is already trivial to download nearly any new piece of media?
- didntcheck 3y ago
  Because it's not. It is trivial to buy a book on the Kindle store, and while it may be trivial to us here to go and pirate a azw3 and transfer it, it's not to most people People always forget the pareto principle when it comes to anti-piracy. No, they don't stop everyone, but a minor hurdle stops a hell of a lot of "ordinary" people
  - nyolfen 3y ago
    annas-archive.org, search and download, open it on your computer. functionally as trivial as purchasing a book on amazon. reading on a kindle is a niche case.
ericd 3y ago
The existence of Wikipedia seems to be a pretty strong counterargument to this.
mitchdoogle 3y ago
There's an obvious middle ground here. 15-20 years seems about right

Then most people stop writing books because they can't get paid for their time/effort and ~every child will be stuck with outdated knowledge within a decade.

by 698969 3y ago

Then most people stop writing books because they can't get paid for their time/effort and ~every child will be stuck with outdated knowledge within a decade.

DennisP 3y ago

Or maybe we could figure out a new economic model, instead of blindly sticking with one based on the limitations of the pre-digital age.

listenallyall 3y ago
How about you go figure out this new economic model, and come back when it's ready. Until then, the existing model will persist, thank you
- leereeves 3y ago
  First change the incentives, then everyone will work on finding a new economic model.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    This makes even less sense than the previous guy. When you've figured out how the world will work without people incentivized by money and power, get back to the rest of us
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Suing people for reading a book is one of the ways the poor are kept poor. The world will work just fine without ceding control to people who seek money and power, because most people aren't like that. The question is how to prevent the few who are from oppressing the rest of us. That is quite a challenge, but haven't you ever created something just for the fun of it?
      - lotsoweiners 3y ago
        > Suing people for reading a book is one of the ways the poor are kept poor. Who is suing anyone for reading a book? > The world will work just fine without ceding control to people who seek money and power, because most people aren't like that. The question is how to prevent the few who are from oppressing the rest of us. Please get me in contact with your dealer because apparently the “legal” stuff I’ve been getting is not as potent as I thought. > That is quite a challenge, but haven't you ever created something just for the fun of it? Sure I’ve painted things that are on my wall and created lots of utility apps that I use personally but I keep them to myself. If I thought they were something that could get me some extra pocket money or better then I would be looking for ways to monetize. I have zero interest in sharing my potential intellectual property for free.
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        > Suing people for reading a book is one of the ways the poor are kept poor. Please cite a single lawsuit. > The world will work just fine without ceding control to people who seek money and power, because most people aren't like that. Virtually everybody is "like that." The world works well because tons of people are working hard, toiling in difficult, dirty, boring, frustrating, or tedious jobs (or all of the above) behind the scenes to make it so. What are municipal waste workers seeking, if not money? Bus drivers? Construction workers? Police officers? > That is quite a challenge, but haven't you ever created something just for the fun of it? Any author or songwriter or photographer can proclaim his work to be freely copyable, just like programmers release code under MIT licenses. The fact that so few actually do, should clue you in on their incentives.
      - squeaky-clean 3y ago
        Making it so you can't write for a living is one way to make sure only the rich can spread knowledge.
- hedora 3y ago
  Mandatory licensing seems fine. The government charges a tax on everyone. Revenue is handed to authors based on how many times the work is used. There are some questions around how to weigh things like societal importance of the work. (“Not melting down nuclear reactors for dummies” seems like it should get more money per view than “poodles in outer space vol XXXII”, despite likely having lower readership)
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Isn't this the opposite of what the people against copyright are seeking? They want more art to be unprotected, instead, in the public domain, free to use for all. You're making things even more restrictive financially by attaching a tax to all books/songs/movies etc, plus creating a government-controlled, universal monitoring and enforcement system.
- TheGigaChad 3y ago
  [dead]
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  Oh boy, do I have good news for you! There are already many writers making thousands of dollars a month by publishing free serialized web novels, via Patreon. Some are using their own websites, but most are on Royal Road (or scribblehub, webnovel, wattpad, AO3). A random example from Royal Road[1], the author makes $12065/month. Mind you, the text is not gated, it's free to read, the patreon only offers early access... [1] https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/63759/super-supportive https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/63759/super-supportive [2] https://www.patreon.com/Sleyca https://www.patreon.com/Sleyca
  - Name_Chawps 3y ago
    Your "random" example is currently the #2 ongoing fiction on there, and was #1 until a couple days ago when the guy who wrote Mother of Learning released his new fiction.
    - GeoAtreides 3y ago
      It was random in the sense I clicked on trending and then clicked on the first thing I saw. Sure, the amount is an outlier, but there are more that are making over 500 or 1000/month, that's not unusual. Most authors are not making any money, of course, just like in the current system.
  - edanm 3y ago
    What do you think authors feel about this? Despite many people on this site thinking we're the first generation with new technology, the issue of copyright, and technolgie's impact on it, has been discussed for centuries. The "patronage" model is great (and I personally am a Patreon supporter of lots of creatives). But it also has a lot of flaws in it, both for the author and the public. Most authors will be happy to tell you both the good and bad of the model, in my experience. The biggest flaw for the public, btw, is that this model only supports art that "rich people" find worth supporting. This is bad, both because sometimes art isn't "deemed worthy" immediately, and because art for non-"rich" people is also very valuable.
    - 3y ago
didntcheck 3y ago
How does the digital age change things? Copyright was invented when copying became easy, and hence arrived due to the printing press. A book is no different to a digital download in that the cost to produce it is tiny, and you're paying for the intellectual property, not the physical production of it

CaptainFever 3y ago

> The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich (usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’), and if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!” This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise. > I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another formulation of the argument. > This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two outcomes—proprietary software versus no software—and assuming there are no other possibilities. This, but with creative works instead. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

Zambyte 3y ago

amf12 3y ago
So is internet and rapid copy-sharing of books. I personally feel our copyright laws are too rigid, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist. After x years, any book should be free to read, after y years, it should be free to be incorporated into AI models, after z years it should be in the public domain.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > So is internet and rapid copy-sharing of books. I don't get your point. Because we can, we shouldn't...?
- zugi 3y ago
  That's already the case, but x = z = 120 years (and y = 0 or 120, depending on who you ask...) The first U.S. copyright law set x = z = 14 years. That's why many people think copyright law is out of control.

nyolfen 3y ago

so why haven't they already stopped if it is already trivial to download nearly any new piece of media?

didntcheck 3y ago
Because it's not. It is trivial to buy a book on the Kindle store, and while it may be trivial to us here to go and pirate a azw3 and transfer it, it's not to most people People always forget the pareto principle when it comes to anti-piracy. No, they don't stop everyone, but a minor hurdle stops a hell of a lot of "ordinary" people
- nyolfen 3y ago
  annas-archive.org, search and download, open it on your computer. functionally as trivial as purchasing a book on amazon. reading on a kindle is a niche case.

ericd 3y ago

The existence of Wikipedia seems to be a pretty strong counterargument to this.

mitchdoogle 3y ago

There's an obvious middle ground here. 15-20 years seems about right