4 ms·

So you do mean "I am happy to steal from living authors who would like to be paid for their work, this is my excuse du jour". Hey, how do you make a living, ja

So you do mean "I am happy to steal from living authors who would like to be paid for their work, this is my excuse du jour". Hey, how do you make a living, jampekka?

jampekka 2y ago
> Hey, how do you make a living, jampekka? Currently doing research. I've also done software development and some of our household's income comes from literature copyright royalties, though it's largely a pittance. I would download, and upload, a car.
mlyle 2y ago
We're supposed to discuss better than that here -- to discuss the actual disagreement in good faith. People who create stuff should have an exclusive right to publish their work-- for awhile. But not forever; our culture should not end up locked behind a paywall. And even in the shorter term, we shouldn't have a reigning oligopoly involved in distribution of cultural artifacts.
- jampekka 2y ago
  > People who create stuff should have an exclusive right to publish their work-- for awhile. Or there should be some other ways of providing livelihood for people who create stuff. Preferably something that doesn't artificially limit the availability of their work. E.g. in Finland authors can get more income from library loans (paid from public funds) than what pittance the publishers allow for them from sales. Such system could be quite easily extended. But in any case, very few authors really make a living from book proceedings. "Think of the authors" is mostly a narrative pushed by the industry that does their best to exploit the authors and minimize their share of the income.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    > very few authors really make a living from book proceedings. Sure, but there's very few notable authors, too. > industry that does their best to exploit the authors Granted. There's a lot of creative works that are very, very expensive to make (feature films, AAA video games, etc). Paying for them from proceeds makes sense-- hence the Constitution didn't really get it wrong with "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." Likewise, writing a book takes a great degree of personal time and effort at risk. > some other ways of providing livelihood for people who create stuff. I do think that, even if we don't go all the way to a full basic income, it would still be good to have policy that somewhat lowers personal risk in creative, entrepreneurial, and inventive pursuits, as well as career changes. But still, that's not going to get the job done on its own.
- rodgerd 2y ago
  If the discussion leads with the idea that we're entitled to question whether authors and editors deserve to make a living for their work, why should anyone else be immune?
  - mlyle 2y ago
    The discussion here is leading with the idea that there is collusion and monopolization of publishing marketplaces that, in practice, screw consumers and most authors. I do not see anything that "question[s] whether authors and editors deserve to make a living for their work." I am unsure whether you misread the thread we're in or are deliberately mischaracterizing what was said. You might think that following policies they advocate will put authors in an even worse position. That would be a worthy point of discussion-- in good faith, instead of deliberately misreading and trolling.

So you do mean "I am happy to steal from living authors who would like to be paid for their work, this is my excuse du jour". Hey, how do you make a living, jampekka?

jampekka 2y ago

> Hey, how do you make a living, jampekka? Currently doing research. I've also done software development and some of our household's income comes from literature copyright royalties, though it's largely a pittance. I would download, and upload, a car.

mlyle 2y ago

We're supposed to discuss better than that here -- to discuss the actual disagreement in good faith. People who create stuff should have an exclusive right to publish their work-- for awhile. But not forever; our culture should not end up locked behind a paywall. And even in the shorter term, we shouldn't have a reigning oligopoly involved in distribution of cultural artifacts.

jampekka 2y ago
> People who create stuff should have an exclusive right to publish their work-- for awhile. Or there should be some other ways of providing livelihood for people who create stuff. Preferably something that doesn't artificially limit the availability of their work. E.g. in Finland authors can get more income from library loans (paid from public funds) than what pittance the publishers allow for them from sales. Such system could be quite easily extended. But in any case, very few authors really make a living from book proceedings. "Think of the authors" is mostly a narrative pushed by the industry that does their best to exploit the authors and minimize their share of the income.
- mlyle 2y ago
  > very few authors really make a living from book proceedings. Sure, but there's very few notable authors, too. > industry that does their best to exploit the authors Granted. There's a lot of creative works that are very, very expensive to make (feature films, AAA video games, etc). Paying for them from proceeds makes sense-- hence the Constitution didn't really get it wrong with "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." Likewise, writing a book takes a great degree of personal time and effort at risk. > some other ways of providing livelihood for people who create stuff. I do think that, even if we don't go all the way to a full basic income, it would still be good to have policy that somewhat lowers personal risk in creative, entrepreneurial, and inventive pursuits, as well as career changes. But still, that's not going to get the job done on its own.
rodgerd 2y ago
If the discussion leads with the idea that we're entitled to question whether authors and editors deserve to make a living for their work, why should anyone else be immune?
- mlyle 2y ago
  The discussion here is leading with the idea that there is collusion and monopolization of publishing marketplaces that, in practice, screw consumers and most authors. I do not see anything that "question[s] whether authors and editors deserve to make a living for their work." I am unsure whether you misread the thread we're in or are deliberately mischaracterizing what was said. You might think that following policies they advocate will put authors in an even worse position. That would be a worthy point of discussion-- in good faith, instead of deliberately misreading and trolling.