5 ms·
Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright. Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it,
by vundercind 3y ago
Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright.
Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it, and not a lot more make beer money. It’s a pursuit that barely pays as it is, yet many books are written.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIt will pay less without copyright.
- cess11 3y agoKinda weird to be arguing for monopolies. Ultimately, do you prefer them to be in the state or a privatised oligarchy?
- robertlagrant 3y agoI'm not arguing for monopolies.
- Zigurd 3y agoPatents and copyright are a government granted right to a limited term monopoly, which is unique in that it is a right that had to be explicitly granted, because it was not assumed to be an unenumerated right, and the authors of the US constitution were generally opposed to government granted monopolies. It is also unique in that mere legislation could reduce the term of this right to an arbitrarily short duration. That's not how any other right works. Also unique is that other rights can't expire in your lifetime, and that the right is assignable.
- robertlagrant 3y agoOwnership of a work and monopoly are not the same thing. Monopoly implies control of an industry or a class of goods. Owning the rights to one book doesn't mean I own all books (which would be a monopoly on books), any more than owning a house gives me a monopoly on housing.
- Zigurd 3y agoCopyright empowers Congress to make a law giving you a limited term monopoly on your words or other creations. Patents do a similar for an invention. Both expire. Until they expire you can buy and sell or rent (license) these rights, and you can bring a civil case to enforce them. Neither are like, say, a monopoly on a commodity like milk, which can be illegal or against regulations. Search for "patent" and "monopoly" and you will find innumerable actual lawyers explaining the monopoly nature of patents better than I can.
- robertlagrant 3y agoCould you find a good example, as I don't know what I'm looking for. On "copyright" and "monopoly", presumably, not "patent". Patents could legitimately create a monopoly on a good, if there's no other way to make that good.
- cess11 3y ago'Legal monopoly'.
- cess11 3y agoOK, sorry, I thought you were arguing for copyright.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIt's pretty tiring to pretend two different things are the same without explaining yourself.
- cess11 3y agoI'm not the one pretending though. Copyright is a monopoly on material expressions of ideas, based on the firm belief that there is a spirit world and spiritual labour and the owning of spirit stuff. That's a lot of pretending.