They aren’t?
That's exactly what you should do. You should have been adequately compensated for the time and effort required to write your book. Instead, your publisher decided to require you to put the work in first and then offer you the chance to get compensated afterwards based on how well your book sold. The expected results didn't materialize because the market conditions that enabled those sales no longer exist.
The world has changed. We're living in the 21st century. It costs $0 to make and distribute copies of information. Only the costs associated with creating the first copy must be paid for. Blaming consumers for this reality isn't going to make it go away. Insisting on copyright doesn't seem to be working either. The sooner people accept this, the sooner we can start working towards alternative business models that don't depend on creating artificial scarcity in the age of free information.
Creators are scarce. Intellectual works, once created, are not. Therefore we must somehow compensate creators for the act of creating and not for the sale of the resulting work.
Same thing occurs in the OSS world. Unless a project is lucky to fall under the umbrella of a big company that sees value in investing in contributing to OSS, there is no $ to pay creators. Yet, again, people expect free software and assume someone, somewhere, has a magical money tree from which they can fairly compensate producers.
To be honest, I solved it my way: took all of my articles offline, stopped a second book project, and stopped contributing to OSS. I assume some optimistic younger creator will fill the void, until one day they too wake up and say “shit - this isn’t fair”, and will also move on. The changed world you speak of certainly is here - it seems to basically prey upon the endless pipeline of those who have yet to figure out that they deserve to be compensated for their efforts, and just sucks them dry and burns them out until they realize they’re being exploited.
I was wondering if someone was going to make this argument.
1. Why is it fine?
2. How is "Actually, it's okay if there are fewer books in the world" a defense of "Internet Archive was in the right to give people access to books, because it's very important that people have access to books"?
If the world doesn't actually need people to write books unless they can afford to do so for free (or via crowdfunding/patronage), why did Internet Archive need to do anything at all, besides say "Authors, please make your books available for free if you can"? What was so important about the rest of the books?
And why abolish copyright? Is the world improved if we go from a small number of books available for free and several available under copyright to only a small number of books available for free?
> Why is it fine?
> And why abolish copyright?
Because these days a world without copyright is how things are in practice. Copyright infringement is trivial. People do it even unintentionally. Might as well stop pretending and just accept the consequences. We just can't go back to how things were before computers and the internet. If the result is less creation overall, then we must accept that.
Enforcing copyright in the 21st century requires sacrificing computing freedom as we know it today. Computers would only execute approved "lawful" software. Subversive programs which do things like play movies without consulting the rights holders first would be banned. That would surely mean the end of playful hacking and the free and open source software community. I don't think anyone here wants that outcome. I certainly don't. So I defend the end of copyright.
I've been warned before about ideological discussion on HN so I will refrain from elaborating further. I apologize.
>Enforcing copyright in the 21st century requires sacrificing computing freedom as we know it today. Computers would only execute approved "lawful" software.
License keys are a simple and effective solution that works 99% of the time
>Subversive programs which do things like play movies without consulting the rights holders first would be banned. That would surely mean the end of playful hacking and the free and open source software community.
How does the second part follow the first? 100% freedom in all forms is not a pre-requisite for opensource software. There are plenty of things you can't and shouldn't be able to do. I think this is a false dichotomy.
It's not just DRM. There are plenty of software that can be used for good and bad and in many cases the line is blurry. Their use would be prevented just because someone might misuse them.
File sharing, software development tools, debuggers, reverse engineering tools, network analysis tools, penetration testing software... All of these and more are likely to be banned from the computers of mere consumers. Computers would become mere media consumption machines just like modern locked down video game consoles.
> How does the second part follow the first?
Respect for the user is a basic principle of free and open source software. This means the software is supposed to do what the user wants, not what society wants. The only way to perfectly align the two is to stop unauthorized software from running on the user's machine. Society must the computer away from the user. It's not the user's machine anymore, society is just letting them use it and only on society's terms.
Do you want a world where only licensed programmers can develop software? A world where only software developed by these people will ever run?
> 100% freedom in all forms is not a pre-requisite for opensource software.
It is a prerequisite for software freedom. What good is open source software if you can't run it on your machine?
>Do you want a world where only licensed programmers can develop software? A world where only software developed by these people will ever run?
While I think conclusion is absurd, I would prefer it to one where content creators have no rights.
That's not really a change. Previously, the physical costs of copying were higher (paper, ink, labor, etc.), but none of that was a royalty to the author.
For an expensive textbook, it was always cheaper to print a pirated copy of the book than to pay for a legal one, because most of the cost of that expensive textbook was profit/royalties, not the physical cost of production.
It's true that it's now very easy to produce copies of e-books for $0, but there was no technical reason in the past why a bookstore with a printing press couldn't have sold $100 books for $10 - only copyright. I'm not sure why the ability to sell $100 books for $0 (or even $10 books for $0) is a qualitative change and not merely a quantitative one.
The difference is the sheer scale of it.
Printing presses are expensive, purpose built hardware. People who had access to one were part of the industry. Enforcing copyright is much easier when infringement is centralized like this. So copyright infringement at scale wasn't that common. Also, since the books were physical copies there are natural limits to how many can be made and their widespread distribution is a hard logistical problem.
Compare that to the 21st century. Almost everyone has a computer which can create a virtually unbounded number of copies of any file. These computers are also connected to a global network which makes it trivial to distribute these copies to anyone who wants them. In the 21st century, anyone can easily infringe copyright at massive scales and it's impossible to enforce copyright in any meaningful way because infringement is decentralized among the general world population.