Ah, you’ve mistaken capitalism (which had been developing for centuries earlier) with 18th century liberal economic theory, which is not its foundation but instead a rough ex-post-facto rationalization for large parts of the way it had developed.
What capitalism is, though, is the systematic prioritization of the interests of the mercantile (which became, as legal property rights coalesced around their interest, capitalist) class as the organizing principle of society.
>an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market[0]
>which had been developing for centuries earlier
The use of capital has existed for thousands of years already. One could make the case that there is no such thing as capitalism but rather the desire for the realization of interests. The ruling class "before capitalism" was also capitalist: the lords' power was derived from their capital- the land. The only real difference between the mercantile class and the landed gentry was the respect they commanded when it comes down to it.
Aditionaly, I made the case that one could say there is no capitalism. Could you explain, then, what capitalism is and why it would somehow only exist from the 18th century or later?
LITERALLY NO ONE DOES, or SHOULD, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMERCE. People are always going to buy and sell things. All the other stuff is details on exactly what the rules about doing this should be.
There's no actual "free market" in the way you're thinking of. Thumbs will always be on scales.
I don't follow this argument. Principles can't be replicated perfectly in reality, therefore they don't exist? By that logic, there is no actual "copyright" as some people will be copying material and getting away with it.
>the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing.
This is proven wrong through any single example to the contrary. One example is ticketed book readings by the original author, or a ticketed concert by the original band. Many ways to capture income for generating content without copyright enforcement mechanisms.
>what's going on with Stable Diffusion and Copilot (and perhaps Spotify and Google before them) -- the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing.
Is this an argument for or against copyright? Does Google get most of its operating revenue within nations without copyright law? Or is the argument they are violating copyright law and that's why the creator isn't getting anything?
And there are counter examples, where a creator sells/relinquishes copyright (often because it's the only way for them to end up with anything) and ends up losing total access to income streams they could have had if copyright didn't exist, and the machinery owner ends up owning everything and locking the creator out through copyright law. The confusion also lies in the fact creator and copyright holder is not the same thing.
Again, for better or worse --without IP, the primary beneficiaries of "creativity" become the distributors. Opposing this is the whole point of copyright, and thus why it should defended in theory and heavily reformed in practice.
If 100 people all try to check it out, there would be a huge waiting list and the library would try to order more copies.
I pirate all my books btw, just saying if everyone did it ofc there'd be(already is) impact. Easily smartphones+kindle is worse though.
The library in the small town I grew up in is still lending lots of books and ebooks in addition to lending movies and music and providing computer access, training and other services. The library down the street from where I live now is the same. Libraries are more vibrant and active now then when I was a kid.
Where are you that libraries have become "performative"?
The relationship between physical book checkouts and author/publisher revenue is less direct, but the ebook contracts are an attempt to emulate decay and damage to physical books that require periodic repurchases. Arguably you are hastening the end of a physical book's life and its need to be repurchased, or need to stock more copies, by checking it out.
Please don't misunderstand my explanation to be an endorsement of standard ebook lending contracts.
Indeed. The publisher charges universities etc. a one time lump sum to purchase N copies of a book. The author gets next to nothing.
Source: am an author of technical books. Royalties will buy me a few cardboard boxes.
publishers, printers, yada yada must've been important to sell books 50 years ago but are they really necessary today?
Distributing and marketing a book still takes expertise.
edit:
if onlyfans can allow questionable skills be monetized and give millions to the um, performers, surely an author can find a way to sell their own books themselves
You may want to read on the economics of publishing instead of working off assumptions [1]. Scientific publishers are a scam. But trade fiction and nonfiction publishing isn’t a moneymaker.
[1] https://www.almostanauthor.com/the-economics-of-publishing/
if that is the economics, where does digital books and audibooks fare? why do you need the intermediaries in that thing? same for amazon? its not like i HAVE to pay a printer to publish a digital ebook so if that is removed from the pie, shouldn't the author "get" that portion also?
i've had a proposal. From a $100 physical book, an author makes say 5%. That is all their work as the original work and remuneration they get so if we move to digital, how about the author double or triple that to say $15. add another $5 for delivery and the same book now costs me $20 and the author gets "more" money, something they actually want and what i want, to consume the content created and support the author and be easy on the wallet. this would probably kill the paper book model overnight but i really don't have concerns about the poor publishers and printers who would go out of job
My books are both in eBook format and paperback. ~400-500 hundred pages in length. The hundreds of hours spent writing the book/taking screenshots, formatting, does not pay off, at least for technical books.
Creating technical books is purely for the notoriety, possibly job prospects, etc., IME. I've had wonderful community feedback which is certainly a self-esteem boost (maybe ego, which isn't necessarily a good thing :)), but it is only going to buy me a few cups of coffee at Starbucks.
Other people, you loan them one paperback book, and when you get it back it looks like it's been dropped off a highway overpass bridge and run over in rush-hour traffic. Look at other possessions that person has, and you'll see the same thing: they're all beat up and pieces of them are broken.
Some people are just destructive for some reason, and it's entirely from carelessness, not malice.
And then some people simply consider books as objects for use, and not sacred reliques to be touched only with glothes.
(unless we are talking about historical books)
I mean, books or rather the information in them is kind of sacred to me. But the physical objects are just paper, that can be printed out again, if it has been in too heavy use. And heavy use includes them to be in a tightly packed backpack, close to saltwater or rain, among other things. If I would treat books as fragile things, I would only read them at home, which means, I would miss out on them a lot, as I like to go outside and travel.
I'm not talking about treating things as extremely fragile, I'm just referring to being able to use and handle things without somehow destroying them in short order. The people who do this are just like you: they think it's normal and think everyone else is overly cautious, when in reality they're just a clumsy oaf. These are also the kind of people you can't lend tool to, because they'll destroy them, by doing things like using a screwdriver as a pry-bar.
Oh, of course I have done this - with an old rusty screwdriver, but not with a tool of precision.
But since you are getting personal: well then maybe you are also one of those persons who have everything as looks shiny, but when doing things in the dirt of real life, you would put absent minded a chainsaw or powerdrill on the ground? Which is something I would never do, but have witnessed a few times from the look shiny folks (where the tools get probably polished later). I just treat objects adequately. Printed out paper is printed out paper. A rusty piece of metal, is a rusty piece of metal. And a high precision machine is a high precision machine, where different standards and care apply.
edit: in case of misunderstanding: I was not saying above, that I think it is OK, to treat borrowed things badly. Only that I think it is OK to treat my books as objects for rough use.
What has this to do with tools? Or other stuff; I have pristine computers from 70s-80s, I have handhelds like the openPandora that I used 10 years daily and look brand new. Almost all (I developed software for old phones and new phones over the last 20 years so I have many of them for testing) my mobile phones I had in my life, working still or not, look new still (the few that don’t have cracked glass). One has nothing at all to do with the other.
These days you can get water resistant e-readers and phones, so now the books don’t suffer in these circumstances; if people enjoy the physical more than the elements will still mess iup these books if you don’t read them on a couch at home. Well, the dogs…
Also, stop calling people oafs. No need for personal attacks here.
There can be many reasons for being clumsy; mental (stress/burnout), neural (Parkinson/stroke/spinal damage), physiological (rheumatism/tendon damage/nerve damage) and substance abuse. And some people are just clumsy; not much they can do about it; oaf means more (in a bad way) than just clumsy.
If you lend me a paperback book, it's likely going to be dog-eared and written inside with pen; and the covers will almost certainly have creases all over. In my view, paperback books are cheap, mass-produced disposable goods that were meant to be thoughtlessly handled (e.g. reading at the beach).
If you lend me a KNIPEX plier wrench, it's likely going to be used as a hammer, for when I'm simply too lazy to go get one. It will be left out in the rain, completely uncovered. Why? Because I simply do not care. If it becomes rusted or visibly broken, I will buy a replacement -- but I will not go out of my way to treat material, unthinking, unfeeling objects with any respect or dignity.
I consider the necessity of most physical things we own an annoyance; and the responsibility of caring for them a self-imposed burden I have no interest in carrying.
Anyways the reason to treat library books reasonably nicely (not with gloves, but like a reasonable person) is not because books are sacred. Its because library books are not yours, they are something you are borrowing from someone else. Treating other people's possesions that you are borrowing with respect is just common courtsey.
Sure thing, which is why I would not do this with libary or borrowed books in general, but rather buy it cheap second hand, before I take them to the beach with me.
"Treating other people's possesions that you are borrowing with respect is just common courtsey."
Sure thing. I was refering to the general habit of rough use of books, not that it is nice or acceptable to treat borrowed things badly.
You should not touch historical books with gloves. It is generally correct to use your bare hands. The reason why you would wear gloves while handling a book is to protect you, perhaps because the book has been contaminated with hazardous chemicals or something.
Anyway.
It is also my experience that some people completely destroy their books. I don't know how it happens. I don't think of myself as careful with books. I shove them in backpacks, insert random objects to remember my place, take them outdoors, etc. Yet somehow, the books look much the same afterwards.
Part of this is just knowing how to pack books to avoid damaging them. Simple stuff like putting the spine down. If I'm going outside in the rain, keep the book out of the water. If I'm shoving something in my backpack and there's already a book inside, just check to make sure I'm not shoving something directly into the book.
Yep, this is me too, and with everything else I own too. I don't treat them like museum objects, but they generally look very good even after lots of use.
Some people just can't do this. Honestly, I don't know why. It's just how they are. Maybe they don't have an intuitive sense of how much force is really needed to handle things, and they use far too much? Much like a small child. I'm not sure. Hence my use of the term in another post, "clumsy oaf".
You can see this with some people's cars too. You get in a normal person's car that's a few years old, and it looks fine, though maybe the seating surfaces are obviously not brand-new and it's not perfectly clean. But you get in one of these oaf's cars, and even after a year, it's completely destroyed inside and the interior looks like it's decades old.
There can be many reasons for being clumsy; mental (stress/burnout), neural (Parkinson/stroke/spinal damage), physiological (rheumatism/tendon damage/nerve damage) and substance abuse. And some people are just clumsy; not much they can do about it; oaf means more (in a bad way) than just clumsy.
Seems people using objects different from how you use them triggers you. Maybe not everyone feels like washing and vacuuming their car every Saturday? Or ever? What’s it to you and how does it make them oafs?
Sure there is some normal wear and tear that isnt "breaking the book", but if you browse through your library you will find lots of books that were purchased 20-40 years ago that are still in good shape. I don't really think normal wear and tear is very significant.
Libraries argue similarly that the wear-and-tear model is miscalibrated, but they are in a weak negotiating position.
Three copies, for the a metropolis of several million. :)
It is a bit ridiculous that "buying copies" and then imposing artificial scarcity on these is the best mechanism that libraries and publishers have figured out to compensate content producers, but I'm optimistic that they'll eventually figure something out.
>I regularly lend e-books from my city's public library...
"Will you borrow me ten quid?"
"No. But I'll lend you it"
In the digital age, why not cut out the middle man? Have a publicly funded e-library that pays authors directly based on how often their content is downloaded.
You can't just arbitrarily decide that only one party "deserves" to make money from the book, and doing so would probably lead to a lawsuit.
Yes, you shouldn't arbitrarily decide anything. You can today, however, meaningfully conclude that "publishers are kind of useless, how are they still in business when much of what they do isn't necessary?" You'll find the answer is probably old law.
So, yes -- bring on the lawsuits. Let's see what happens.
For this to work what is needed is a blanket license for search and snippet use. Can't buy a whole library for such a sparse use case, ain't gonna read it in the classical sense. This approach can guarantee the generated text will not replicate the source material, just use it for reference, with citations.
- DeepMind RETRO - https://www.deepmind.com/publications/improving-language-mod...
[not related to OP] I have a similar feeling every time someone moralizes in any discussion: we could argue about morality, but we need to start with a common moral framework and define what "good" and "bad" are first. Everyone assumes these are generally agreed upon but the devil is in the details when discussing something like the OP.
Don’t outlaw libraries just because the internet now exists or legalize them but only with absurdities like fucking wait lists.
Perhaps more importantly, the cost of books in libraries is not assigned based on the number of books checked out or read. It tends to be people in lower and lower-middle economic classes who use libraries more, even while they pay less than the per-capita average cost to keep those libraries running and their shelves stocked.
Libraries are communist entities. Even worse than that, from a capitalist perspective, although checking out books requires you to be connected with the tax base or funding source for the library, you can generally go to any public or academic library and read books on-site even if you're from another country or planet and aren't entitled to check anything out.
I don't think copyright has a future, the general trend is against it. Graphical artists have already realised it only takes a second to imitate any style or content. What's the point of copyrighting a book when anyone can generate any text just for their own use, when it's so cheap and fast we throw away the result after one use?
Also, as a lawyer, couldn't you come up with some a decent counterargument re moral differences, if you had to?
I think people who know it's stealing, but are willing to download books anyway because of their personal risk/reward calculation (or perhaps they dislike the author and don't mind stealing from him!), have an intact moral compass: They know right from wrong.
I wonder about people who try to rationalize the crime of book-stealing away. Do they know right from wrong?
I won't judge people who decide to steal books, but I don't like those who try to argue it's not theft.
As one example, I know a guy who pays for online streaming subscriptions, but still pirates to not be forced through a crappy experience because people are attempting to extract the last penny and get as rich as possible through spying and ads, tiers of resolution, device restrictions, etc. I see no reason why there is any moral issue with bypassing their chosen distribution monopoly, especially because they are not starving. I strongly disagree with the tenet that extreme capitalistic gain is a right, and thus cannot consider intellectual property rights as such an absolute. Now, if one is to download something that someone earning a modest living made, and which has a real material impact on them providing for a reasonably comfortable life for themselves and their family, personally I consider that a problem, but that is quite rare (not least of all because smaller content producers are usually being exploited and making very little from distribution). It's not the likely case even with just a modicum of awareness in what and when you decide to download something.
You’re denying the author income in exchange for their labor of writing the book in the first place.
> Of course, if it starts materially affecting the person's capacity to live a reasonable lifestyle
Well at least according to this: https://authorsguild.org/news/six-takeaways-from-the-authors...
> Inability to earn adequate living: indeed just 57% of full-time published authors derived 100% of their individual income from writing-related work in 2017, and much of that writing income comes from activities such as speaking engagements, the teaching of writing, editing or translating the works of other authors, ghostwriting, etc. rather from book advances and royalties. Only 21% of full-time published authors derived 100% of their individual income from book-related income.
In terms of income:
> Median incomes of all published authors who were surveyed—including part-time, full-time, traditionally published, self-published, and hybrid-published authors—for all writing-related activities[1] was $6,080, down 3% from four years ago. This is down from a $10,500 median income in 2009 according the Authors Guild’s last survey[2]. Worse still, the median income for all published authors based solely on book-related activities[3] fell from $3,900 to $3,100, down 21%, while full-time traditionally published authors earned $12,400.
So effectively, not paying for a book has a high likelihood of taking a decent percentage of a writers income.
A) I can't download book. I go see other book.
B) I can download book. I download it.
If B is the case, my ability to download book did not cause you any loss.
Stealing/theft is best thought of not as "getting a thing for free that you're not entitled to" -- it's "depriving someone of their property," which copying ain't.