3 ms·

Many have done so, and will continue to do. No one has to be persuaded if they have thoughts on their mind. Compensation is the side-effect. [0]: https://monos

Many have done so, and will continue to do. No one has to be persuaded if they have thoughts on their mind. Compensation is the side-effect. [0]: https://monoskop.org https://monoskop.org [1]: https://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/ https://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/ [2]: https://computerhistory.org/collections/ https://computerhistory.org/collections/ [3]: https://oapen.org/ https://oapen.org/

yreg 2y ago
I dislike copyright as much as the next guy, but the people who want to write and share free books can (and do) do that now as well.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
So, that creates a world (not too dissimilar to our own, but notably so) where only the independently wealthy can ever afford to produce art full time. Can you see any downsides to that world?
- pksebben 2y ago
  I'd be more on board with this take if it were artists engaging in these lawsuits. Elsevier doesn't elicit the same sympathy, though. 'Stealing' from a company with 2B in profit (much from publicly funded research), LibGen is looking a lot like Robin Hood to Elsevier's Prince John.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It's the same issue. If writers could meaningfully get an audience who buys their work independently, they wouldn't need a publisher. Publishers offer support and printing, but ultimately an author needs a publisher to spread reach (i won't say "make money", because authors sure won't make much). Becsuse it's all about being loud and publishers have resources to be loud. Much better odds compared to a grassroots community paying a fair price when the author is ready to release.
    - rudnevr 2y ago
      The problem is that publishers, being the middleman, take over authors the same way the supermarket network takes over the food producers. Publishers own the shelf and a price label, and being less numerous and more organized, they can effectively own the audience's attention. They can help, they can also shut author down. They're not ultimately interested in maximizing availability, because they profit directly from the gap. That's why they need restrictions and ways around them.
  - Hunpeter 2y ago
    Maybe a billion-dollar company has more money to spend on lawsuits than artists do? Doesn't make them the good guys, but I'm not surprised that it's them doing it.
- ursuscamp 2y ago
  The greatest and most lasting art in human history was created by artists who were sponsored by the wealthy as their only source of income.
  - dansitu 2y ago
    This is survivorship bias: art owned and protected by wealthy sponsors has a much higher chance of making it through the years. Most art is folk art, and has been lost to the centuries.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      The did say "longest lasting art". It feels more survivor bias to mention the Picasso's of history over the many more wealthy who spent their time in the craft. It's not fair, but it makes sense. And sure the most well known art is not the best art. But a place like this should know the best tech is rarely the most popular product.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    So you don't think there's a downside to the wealthy having a defacto monopoly on what art gets created?
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Being paid and knowing they can spend their livelihood writing while paying rent is about the best persuasion you can have. Aside from the wealthy who don't need to worry about that.

yreg 2y ago

I dislike copyright as much as the next guy, but the people who want to write and share free books can (and do) do that now as well.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

So, that creates a world (not too dissimilar to our own, but notably so) where only the independently wealthy can ever afford to produce art full time. Can you see any downsides to that world?

pksebben 2y ago
I'd be more on board with this take if it were artists engaging in these lawsuits. Elsevier doesn't elicit the same sympathy, though. 'Stealing' from a company with 2B in profit (much from publicly funded research), LibGen is looking a lot like Robin Hood to Elsevier's Prince John.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  It's the same issue. If writers could meaningfully get an audience who buys their work independently, they wouldn't need a publisher. Publishers offer support and printing, but ultimately an author needs a publisher to spread reach (i won't say "make money", because authors sure won't make much). Becsuse it's all about being loud and publishers have resources to be loud. Much better odds compared to a grassroots community paying a fair price when the author is ready to release.
  - rudnevr 2y ago
    The problem is that publishers, being the middleman, take over authors the same way the supermarket network takes over the food producers. Publishers own the shelf and a price label, and being less numerous and more organized, they can effectively own the audience's attention. They can help, they can also shut author down. They're not ultimately interested in maximizing availability, because they profit directly from the gap. That's why they need restrictions and ways around them.
- Hunpeter 2y ago
  Maybe a billion-dollar company has more money to spend on lawsuits than artists do? Doesn't make them the good guys, but I'm not surprised that it's them doing it.
ursuscamp 2y ago
The greatest and most lasting art in human history was created by artists who were sponsored by the wealthy as their only source of income.
- dansitu 2y ago
  This is survivorship bias: art owned and protected by wealthy sponsors has a much higher chance of making it through the years. Most art is folk art, and has been lost to the centuries.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The did say "longest lasting art". It feels more survivor bias to mention the Picasso's of history over the many more wealthy who spent their time in the craft. It's not fair, but it makes sense. And sure the most well known art is not the best art. But a place like this should know the best tech is rarely the most popular product.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  So you don't think there's a downside to the wealthy having a defacto monopoly on what art gets created?

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Being paid and knowing they can spend their livelihood writing while paying rent is about the best persuasion you can have. Aside from the wealthy who don't need to worry about that.