5 ms·

Second-order effects matter, though: If everyone is allowed to steal books, what's the incentive for experts to write new ones, and for the publishers to reward

Second-order effects matter, though: If everyone is allowed to steal books, what's the incentive for experts to write new ones, and for the publishers to reward them for it? Btw, not a fan of "but what about the kids" rhetoric: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

greenie_beans 3y ago
books hardly make money, so book sales is not the top incentive for most writers. i would be willing to bet that most books pay less than minimum wage, when considering the labor hours it takes to write the book and how much a writer is ultimately paid out. if not less than minimum wage, then certainly less than the expert's typical hourly rate.
- adamc 3y ago
  I think that would wholly destroy the ability of writers to actually make a living writing novels. The fact that the living isn't great now does not justify this.
  - avidiax 3y ago
    People wrote great works before copywrite. People write for reasons other than money from the sales of the book. This accounts for most authors, who aren't famous enough to negotiate a great deal with a publisher. And we don't need to abolish copyright outright. Just require that it is continually published at a steady or decreasing price, or it becomes public domain. And put works in the public domain a little sooner.
    - adamc 3y ago
      People did write before copyright. Copyright was established to make it more likely. Yes, people write for other reasons (e.g., self-promotion). But that does not account for "most authors" I would actually want to read. I'm not against copyright being different, especially for things that are written as work-for-hire. But that's a fight with Disney. Good luck.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > People did write before copyright. Copyright was established to make it more likely. No, it was established to make investing in printing presses more profitable, which is why the rights initially attached to printers. Authors as the locus of rights were a later change.
    - goto11 3y ago
      > People wrote great works before copywrite. Yes, wealthy aristocrats wrote whatever they wanted and less wealthy authors wrote what they got paid to write by their wealthy aristocrat patrons. Copyright and the publishing industry changed that to make it possible to live by writing for ordinary people.
      - izacus 3y ago
        And now wealthy aristocrats have been replaced by staggeringly wealthy megacorporations like Disney and WB. Its disgustingly dishonest to appeal for "poor" authors where casual glance immediately proves that modern IP law exceedingly profits only a few massive corporations and their shareholders.
    - xhkkffbf 3y ago
      Yeah, these were rich people like Jane Austen and Mrs. Percy Bythe Shelley. Copyright makes it possible for the non-rich to create these works and make a living from a willing audience.
temp51723 3y ago
> If everyone is allowed to steal books Nothing was stolen- just copied.
- jdm2212 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - gs17 3y ago
    That's not really the same, you could have a copy of my credit card, but you using it to make purchases would become an issue. Regardless, that quickly steps out of the domain of intellectual property.
    - jdm2212 3y ago
      If I use your copied credit card to buy software, all that happens is (a) some bits get written to my computer's hard disk and (b) some bits get written to a Visa or Mastercard server's hard disk. Why would you get upset about that? EDIT: ok, it's fun playing obtuse, but more seriously it is also very obtuse to pretend that intellectual property is not property. I think you have to be pretty stupid to not understand why an author who spends a decade painstakingly creating a work of literature is entitled to ownership of reproductions of that work.
      - gs17 3y ago
        It is not playing obtuse to think "I also have a copy of an ebook" is different from "I have literally stolen your property".
        jdm2212 3y ago
        Unless the contents of the ebook are my property, in which case you have stolen my property.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
e-neko 3y ago
But this is clearly not "everyone". This is just one/two readers. Not even copiers, as the network does not "remember" the content of the book, at least not better than a casual reader. Infringement in this case is more like standing in a book shop reading the book for free, or loaning one in a library for a day, not actually copying for keeps.
- sysop073 3y ago
  The comment they replied to literally said "Let's take a second to remember that copyright is the reason ~every child doesn't have access to ~every book ever written."
vidarh 3y ago
The average full time author in the UK earn below minimum wage, and most authors are not full time. While removing copyright without some form of mechanism to replace it would be problematic, and I do agree there are second order effects to consider, at least for books the effect may well be less than you'd think.
tr_user 3y ago
Plenty of freely published articles and fanfics online

greenie_beans 3y ago

books hardly make money, so book sales is not the top incentive for most writers. i would be willing to bet that most books pay less than minimum wage, when considering the labor hours it takes to write the book and how much a writer is ultimately paid out. if not less than minimum wage, then certainly less than the expert's typical hourly rate.

adamc 3y ago
I think that would wholly destroy the ability of writers to actually make a living writing novels. The fact that the living isn't great now does not justify this.
- avidiax 3y ago
  People wrote great works before copywrite. People write for reasons other than money from the sales of the book. This accounts for most authors, who aren't famous enough to negotiate a great deal with a publisher. And we don't need to abolish copyright outright. Just require that it is continually published at a steady or decreasing price, or it becomes public domain. And put works in the public domain a little sooner.
  - adamc 3y ago
    People did write before copyright. Copyright was established to make it more likely. Yes, people write for other reasons (e.g., self-promotion). But that does not account for "most authors" I would actually want to read. I'm not against copyright being different, especially for things that are written as work-for-hire. But that's a fight with Disney. Good luck.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > People did write before copyright. Copyright was established to make it more likely. No, it was established to make investing in printing presses more profitable, which is why the rights initially attached to printers. Authors as the locus of rights were a later change.
  - goto11 3y ago
    > People wrote great works before copywrite. Yes, wealthy aristocrats wrote whatever they wanted and less wealthy authors wrote what they got paid to write by their wealthy aristocrat patrons. Copyright and the publishing industry changed that to make it possible to live by writing for ordinary people.
    - izacus 3y ago
      And now wealthy aristocrats have been replaced by staggeringly wealthy megacorporations like Disney and WB. Its disgustingly dishonest to appeal for "poor" authors where casual glance immediately proves that modern IP law exceedingly profits only a few massive corporations and their shareholders.
  - xhkkffbf 3y ago
    Yeah, these were rich people like Jane Austen and Mrs. Percy Bythe Shelley. Copyright makes it possible for the non-rich to create these works and make a living from a willing audience.

temp51723 3y ago

> If everyone is allowed to steal books Nothing was stolen- just copied.

jdm2212 3y ago
[flagged]
- gs17 3y ago
  That's not really the same, you could have a copy of my credit card, but you using it to make purchases would become an issue. Regardless, that quickly steps out of the domain of intellectual property.
  - jdm2212 3y ago
    If I use your copied credit card to buy software, all that happens is (a) some bits get written to my computer's hard disk and (b) some bits get written to a Visa or Mastercard server's hard disk. Why would you get upset about that? EDIT: ok, it's fun playing obtuse, but more seriously it is also very obtuse to pretend that intellectual property is not property. I think you have to be pretty stupid to not understand why an author who spends a decade painstakingly creating a work of literature is entitled to ownership of reproductions of that work.
    - gs17 3y ago
      It is not playing obtuse to think "I also have a copy of an ebook" is different from "I have literally stolen your property".
      - jdm2212 3y ago
        Unless the contents of the ebook are my property, in which case you have stolen my property.
xhkkffbf 3y ago

e-neko 3y ago

But this is clearly not "everyone". This is just one/two readers. Not even copiers, as the network does not "remember" the content of the book, at least not better than a casual reader. Infringement in this case is more like standing in a book shop reading the book for free, or loaning one in a library for a day, not actually copying for keeps.

sysop073 3y ago
The comment they replied to literally said "Let's take a second to remember that copyright is the reason ~every child doesn't have access to ~every book ever written."

vidarh 3y ago

The average full time author in the UK earn below minimum wage, and most authors are not full time. While removing copyright without some form of mechanism to replace it would be problematic, and I do agree there are second order effects to consider, at least for books the effect may well be less than you'd think.

tr_user 3y ago

Plenty of freely published articles and fanfics online