11 ms·

There are already many more public domain books than people are inclined to read: https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://librivox.org/

There are already many more public domain books than people are inclined to read: https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://www.gutenberg.org/ https://librivox.org/ https://librivox.org/ many of which form the basis for an education: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34630153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34630153 And most of which, when in copyright, paid their authors quite handsomely in terms of royalties. If you believe that books should exist without copyright, then one has to ask --- how many books have you written which you have explicitly placed in the public domain? Or, how many authors have you patronized so as to fund their writing so that they can publish their works freely? Or, if neither of these applies, how do you propose to compensate authors for the efforts and labours of writing?

djaouen 3y ago
>If you believe that books should exist without copyright, then one has to ask --- how many books have you written which you have explicitly placed in the public domain? Or, how many authors have you patronized so as to fund their writing so that they can publish their works freely? Lol Edit: I should probably clarify here. While I can’t speak for OP, I can say that, for some reason, I am sure there are people who have done both lol
- WillAdams 3y ago
  I've authored quite a bit of book-like content which has been made freely available: - the Shapeoko wiki (still available on archive.org) - a couple of articles for TUGboat - edited a couple of texts on wikibooks trying to make them better - currently working on https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/ https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/ The Venn diagram of folks who don't believe in copyright and those who have actually produced something other folks want to read is quite sparse, excepting the odd manifesto.
thrixton 3y ago
I’d more ask what the cost vs benefits are of keeping the existing scheme, it’s not free to run all these DRM services, prosecute offenders etc… Not to say I support no copyright…
- WillAdams 3y ago
  The benefit of the existing scheme is that new works get created, and some of them are even copy-edited and published. How many texts are created which are explicitly placed in the public domain and from which the authors have made a conscious decision not to profit thereby?
  - Zuiii 3y ago
    > The benefit of the existing scheme is that new works get created, and some of them are even copy-edited and published. How do you know that this benefit wouldn't exist in other schemes? Look at permissive open source software which is essentially public domain + shield from liability. No copyright does not mean no compensation. It just means different compensation that doesn't deprave other people of their right to share information. Unlike GP, I support the complete abolishment of Copyright. Society needs to find another scheme to reward work. Perhaps kickstarter-style firms that direct oversight over funded projects or some other scheme that doesn't cause so much harm.
    - WillAdams 3y ago
      And for folks who want to create such works, they are welcome to --- as noted else thread, I've put a fair bit of effort into permissively licensed texts --- but I haven't seen a workable method put forth, nor a rational justification for destroying the value of works recently created under the current system. I still don't see how a person having copyright over the work which they have created and the ability to license it to their best profit is a harm.
    - didntcheck 3y ago
      > Look at permissive open source software ... No copyright does not mean no compensation From everything I've heard it kinda does. If you're writing something valuable then maybe a company will employ you to keep working on it, and the portfolio can certainly help in interviews (to write other software), but getting non-negligible compensation for the use of the software itself is rare. Even those projects that are well funded, like the Linux kernel, are done so not out of goodness of heart, but due to companies realising it's in their rational interest to have a common standard base of sorts In terms of written works, the best comparison we have is Wikipedia, and while the foundation does receive funding from companies who realise how useful of an integration it can be for their products, the writers themselves do not get paid afaik (and when they do, it's rarely a good thing). But if you just wrote an open source textbook, I doubt you'll manage to make much money off it, and the prospects for fiction look even worse > Perhaps kickstarter-style firms that direct oversight over funded projects Sounds like a return to rich patrons and needing to flatter them to get grants. Luckily with the modern internet we do now have democratised layman patronage, but why the need to force everyone into that model? Also note that almost all successful Patreon artists do have perks for paying, even if it's just early access, and afaik make a lot of their money off commissions. Those who just post art for free, with no paid comms, and just have a "tip jar" make relatively little from what I hear
pallas_athena 3y ago
I just want to add https://standardebooks.org/ebooks https://standardebooks.org/ebooks to the list
derangedHorse 3y ago
The good public domain books are typically outdated in both content and language. This makes it hard for those with less resources to stay competitive and makes the task of understanding unnecessarily hard. The link you posted that you say used public works to form a “basis for an education” uses Aristotle as an author for example, and seem to be taught in the context of an instructor-led class (where an expert can discriminate what’s still relevant today and help decipher the language)
- comfypotato 3y ago
  The notion that you need cutting edge books to educate yourself is poorly informed. There are countless well written resources for every aspect of a good education available for free online. They are often not as easy to find as their well-advertised modern equivalents. Saying there aren’t good free textbooks is like saying there aren’t good free classics on Project Gutenberg. It’s ignorant.
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  The problem with your reasoning is similar to coming with the highest possible number. When you figure out a number, someone will say "that plus one!". Whatever standard of free service you establish, someone with resources can surpass, but needs to be motivated to do it by the perspective of a return of the resources spent. So either hinder development by forbidding the commercial stuff altogether, or tax all people and then finance authors from public money, but hopefully I don't have to explain how wherever this model is tested, the society degrades towards famine.
randombits0 3y ago
People keep forgetting the purpose of copyright. It’s easy to find, it’s in the Constitution! “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” If the current copyright scheme does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it is not performing as intended. All these copyright extensions do little to promote progress!
- throw10920 3y ago
  > If the current copyright scheme does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it is not performing as intended. All these copyright extensions do little to promote progress! This is a strawman argument - the parent poster that you're replying to is defending copyright as a concept, while the one that they're replying to is attacking it - you're instead making an argument about specific lengths that hasn't come up yet, and nobody is defending. Very few people (and I am not one of them) think that the "Mickey Mouse curve" style of copyright extension is genuinely useful to anyone except Disney, but holmesworcester is arguing that copyright should be abolished entirely, which contradicts the section of the Constitution that you quoted.

djaouen 3y ago

>If you believe that books should exist without copyright, then one has to ask --- how many books have you written which you have explicitly placed in the public domain? Or, how many authors have you patronized so as to fund their writing so that they can publish their works freely? Lol Edit: I should probably clarify here. While I can’t speak for OP, I can say that, for some reason, I am sure there are people who have done both lol

WillAdams 3y ago
I've authored quite a bit of book-like content which has been made freely available: - the Shapeoko wiki (still available on archive.org) - a couple of articles for TUGboat - edited a couple of texts on wikibooks trying to make them better - currently working on https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/ https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/ The Venn diagram of folks who don't believe in copyright and those who have actually produced something other folks want to read is quite sparse, excepting the odd manifesto.

thrixton 3y ago

I’d more ask what the cost vs benefits are of keeping the existing scheme, it’s not free to run all these DRM services, prosecute offenders etc… Not to say I support no copyright…

WillAdams 3y ago
The benefit of the existing scheme is that new works get created, and some of them are even copy-edited and published. How many texts are created which are explicitly placed in the public domain and from which the authors have made a conscious decision not to profit thereby?
- Zuiii 3y ago
  > The benefit of the existing scheme is that new works get created, and some of them are even copy-edited and published. How do you know that this benefit wouldn't exist in other schemes? Look at permissive open source software which is essentially public domain + shield from liability. No copyright does not mean no compensation. It just means different compensation that doesn't deprave other people of their right to share information. Unlike GP, I support the complete abolishment of Copyright. Society needs to find another scheme to reward work. Perhaps kickstarter-style firms that direct oversight over funded projects or some other scheme that doesn't cause so much harm.
  - WillAdams 3y ago
    And for folks who want to create such works, they are welcome to --- as noted else thread, I've put a fair bit of effort into permissively licensed texts --- but I haven't seen a workable method put forth, nor a rational justification for destroying the value of works recently created under the current system. I still don't see how a person having copyright over the work which they have created and the ability to license it to their best profit is a harm.
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    > Look at permissive open source software ... No copyright does not mean no compensation From everything I've heard it kinda does. If you're writing something valuable then maybe a company will employ you to keep working on it, and the portfolio can certainly help in interviews (to write other software), but getting non-negligible compensation for the use of the software itself is rare. Even those projects that are well funded, like the Linux kernel, are done so not out of goodness of heart, but due to companies realising it's in their rational interest to have a common standard base of sorts In terms of written works, the best comparison we have is Wikipedia, and while the foundation does receive funding from companies who realise how useful of an integration it can be for their products, the writers themselves do not get paid afaik (and when they do, it's rarely a good thing). But if you just wrote an open source textbook, I doubt you'll manage to make much money off it, and the prospects for fiction look even worse > Perhaps kickstarter-style firms that direct oversight over funded projects Sounds like a return to rich patrons and needing to flatter them to get grants. Luckily with the modern internet we do now have democratised layman patronage, but why the need to force everyone into that model? Also note that almost all successful Patreon artists do have perks for paying, even if it's just early access, and afaik make a lot of their money off commissions. Those who just post art for free, with no paid comms, and just have a "tip jar" make relatively little from what I hear

pallas_athena 3y ago

I just want to add https://standardebooks.org/ebooks https://standardebooks.org/ebooks to the list

derangedHorse 3y ago

The good public domain books are typically outdated in both content and language. This makes it hard for those with less resources to stay competitive and makes the task of understanding unnecessarily hard. The link you posted that you say used public works to form a “basis for an education” uses Aristotle as an author for example, and seem to be taught in the context of an instructor-led class (where an expert can discriminate what’s still relevant today and help decipher the language)

comfypotato 3y ago
The notion that you need cutting edge books to educate yourself is poorly informed. There are countless well written resources for every aspect of a good education available for free online. They are often not as easy to find as their well-advertised modern equivalents. Saying there aren’t good free textbooks is like saying there aren’t good free classics on Project Gutenberg. It’s ignorant.
Etherlord87 3y ago
The problem with your reasoning is similar to coming with the highest possible number. When you figure out a number, someone will say "that plus one!". Whatever standard of free service you establish, someone with resources can surpass, but needs to be motivated to do it by the perspective of a return of the resources spent. So either hinder development by forbidding the commercial stuff altogether, or tax all people and then finance authors from public money, but hopefully I don't have to explain how wherever this model is tested, the society degrades towards famine.

randombits0 3y ago

People keep forgetting the purpose of copyright. It’s easy to find, it’s in the Constitution! “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” If the current copyright scheme does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it is not performing as intended. All these copyright extensions do little to promote progress!

throw10920 3y ago
> If the current copyright scheme does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it is not performing as intended. All these copyright extensions do little to promote progress! This is a strawman argument - the parent poster that you're replying to is defending copyright as a concept, while the one that they're replying to is attacking it - you're instead making an argument about specific lengths that hasn't come up yet, and nobody is defending. Very few people (and I am not one of them) think that the "Mickey Mouse curve" style of copyright extension is genuinely useful to anyone except Disney, but holmesworcester is arguing that copyright should be abolished entirely, which contradicts the section of the Constitution that you quoted.