4 ms·
> None of those authors are surviving and making money because someone can't copy their work and distribute it. I tend to agree with your sentiment but this li
by nucleogenesis 1mo ago
> None of those authors are surviving and making money because someone can't copy their work and distribute it.
I tend to agree with your sentiment but this line made me think you’re underestimating the degree to which the law stops the powerful from doing evil. They see the law as a hassle to be calculated against and if there is no legal friction to stealing and using others’ creations they just will.
So it’s not that Amazon would take your novel, short story, etc and redistribute it. It’s that they’d make a whole series of movies or TV series using your creations and give you nothing and have to give you nothing.
Copyright being eliminated is among my more “idealistically anarchistic” wishes I think but so long as we’re in a society as legalistic and with such an imbalance of power generally, copyright protects more than it hurts I think.
- rpdillon 1mo agoYes, I agree with this. I think your correct to point out that the leverage a legitimate corporation has to push ripped-off works far exceeds what the piracy community's ability to do so when it is infringement. That said, I increasingly see writers making money directly from their audience not because the audience is not allowed to make a copy of their work, but because they treat the writers writing as a service and they want to get updates every week and so they subscribe. I think copyright was created for a less connected world where it was much more natural to print them in bulk and then sell copies.