4 ms·
How many times were hugely popular books rejected before a publisher decided they were worthy? Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don
by Lerc 3mo ago
How many times were hugely popular books rejected before a publisher decided they were worthy?
Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don't need to sell your book, they just need to own the book that people are buying right now. Giving your book a chance to sell would dectract from those sales.
If there were no copyright anyone trying to sell the book $1 cheaper would be undercut by someone selling $1 cheaper them them, and so on. The financial incentive to do that goes away. People then choose to distribute based on different incentives, like the fact that they have seen something worthy that others should see. We have almost completely lost that today because the financial incentive doesn't care what it is as long as you buy it. That might lead to a world dominated by an optimisation for whatever it takes to get you engaged, or worse, addicted. That world might really suck.
There needs to be a way to support the creation of art. Copyright lets a few corporations decide the subset of available art is seen enough and available to pay for (in the hope that maybe some of the patment gets to the creator). It is not a system that works in the modern world.
- freejazz 3mo agoWell, there is nothing to distribute if the author is not incentivized to write... which you seemed to skip past.
- Lerc 3mo agoIndeed, perhaps I should have said There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
- deaton 3mo agoGreat, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange for that right; what economists refer to as "selling".
- satvikpendem 3mo agoPeople have been paid artists before copyright even existed, what some might call patronage.
- freejazz 3mo agoAnd?
- satvikpendem 3mo agoTherefore copyright is not necessary.
- freejazz 3mo agoThat's a big leap
- Lerc 3mo agoFor strict definitiond of necessary (see also sufficient) this is correct. A is not necessary for B if a single instance of B exists without A. In colloquial terms it is frequently used to suggest a recommendation with an imperitive need. Different things for the same word. Only the former can be used to determine if something is necessary, the latter is a subjective assertion and can have no proof either way.
- satvikpendem 3mo agoIt worked before so why would copyright be in any way necessary?
- freejazz 3mo agoThe idea that art was made at all contradicts a premise offered by no one
- 3mo ago
- freejazz 3mo ago>There needs to be a way to support the creation of art. Yeah, it's called "copyright."
- joquarky 3mo agoIf money is the only incentive, then it's not a product of artistic work. Also current copyright laws only exists to fulfill the constitutional mandate to promote the progress of science and useful arts. There are a lot of alternative ways to fulfill that mandate that don't include a lot of the baggage we have presently in copyright law which is now slowing down progress.
- freejazz 3mo ago>If money is the only incentive, then it's not a product of artistic work. This is just bullshit and no one said it's the only incentive. > There are a lot of alternative ways to fulfill that mandate that don't include a lot of the baggage we have presently in copyright law which is now slowing down progress. such as??
- account42 3mo agoI hope you're not implying that post-hoc commercial exploitation via copyright is the only incentive for authors to write. Because we have a whole history worth of evidence to the contrary.
- freejazz 3mo agoI guess you'd prefer to enjoy significantly fewer works mainly consisting of stories told through oral tradition. Some of us like movies!