4 ms·
Who cares? Nearly two hundred years ago one man warned everyone this would happen. Nobody listened. These are the consequences. https://www.thepublicdomain.or
by matheusmoreira 2y ago
Who cares?
Nearly two hundred years ago one man warned everyone this would happen. Nobody listened. These are the consequences.
https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyright/ https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr...
It is good that authors should be remunerated;
and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them
is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil.
For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil;
but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is
necessary for the purpose of securing the good.
The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers
for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is
an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most
innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never
let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a
premium on vicious pleasures.
I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty
to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty,
I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax.
Nay, I am ready to increase the tax, if it can be shown
that by so doing I should proportionally increase the
bounty.
My complaint is, that my honorable and learned friend
doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax, and makes scarcely
any perceptible addition to the bounty.
Just as the absurd Acts which prohibited the sale of game
were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd
revenue Acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler,
so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers.
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side.
Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out
of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them
restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains.
No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful
transactions.
Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end.
Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers
will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital
will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art
will be employed to evade legal pursuit;
and the whole nation will be in the plot.
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong
and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say
where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions.
The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace
and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create.
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints
on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent,
annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding
the living.
"This law" would extend copyright beyond the lifetime of the author. It's now life plus 70 years. Possibly more, who even knows or cares. We're all gonna be long dead before our culture enters the public domain.
Balance? Compromise? We don't want to hear it. The time for compromise has long since passed. These monopolies have become intolerable. Only thing we care about is their end.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoI literally said right in my comment that you replied to that I thought copyright terms were too long. But if you're going to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and insist copyright shouldn't exist, you should at least be honest about what the consequences of that would be, and again I never see that sort of honest assessment from the "knowledge should be free" crowd. Heck, even arguing about overly-long copyrights seems disingenuous in this case. This wasn't an article about Mickey Mouse. I wasn't previously familiar with Libgen, but given its focus, I would assume most of the pirated material has living authors.
- matheusmoreira 2y agoI am being honest with the consequences. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated: and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright. You cannot depend for literary instruction and amusement on the leisure of men occupied in the pursuits of active life. Such men may occasionally produce compositions of great merit. But you must not look to such men for works which require deep meditation and long research. Works of that kind you can expect only from persons who make literature the business of their lives. Men who make authorship the business of their lives. We shall have less of them. I accept these consequences. Let it be. It's the future they chose. I do have one hope though. Later in the text, he expresses a rather low opinion of patronage. And he isn't wrong: patronage by governments, churches and moneyed elites obviously distorted the creativity of authors and that is not at all desirable. That's why copyright is advanced as the least bad solution. However, modern technology has changed patronage. It's now possible for wide audiences to subsidize the work of their favorite creators. It does not require artificial scarcity. They are rewarded for the act of creating, not the final product. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only way forward. Because enforcing copyright in the 21st century will require tyranny the likes of which should give pause to everyone who posts on Hacker News. It will literally destroy computing freedom as we know it today. And that's a consequence I don't accept. I'd sooner see creators find another job.
- idunnoman1222 2y agoWell, since you don’t know anything, let me tell you we’ve been able to get any book we’ve wanted for the last 15 years and the sky hasn’t fallen when I want to support an author, I buy their book, this as a sort of patronage