The good news is: public domain products are strictly superior: https://breckyunits.com/how-the-public-domain-can-win.html
Amendment to abolish copyright: https://breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendment.h...
Here you go, get the full site without hitting my web server: `git clone https://github.com/breck7/breckyunits.com`
> just answer the question
>> So if you write a book, and sell it for $20, and I make a copy of your book and sell it for $10, you are ok with this?
If I make a hammer, and sell it for $20, and the person I sell it to uses it to make more hammers that he sells for $10, are you okay with this?
Your question shows a shallowness of thinking. What is a book? Did you come up with 100% of the words in the book? If not, are you tracking down and compensating all the people who invented the words you used (or their ancestors?). What about the letters? Let's talk about the machinery you used to print the book. Are you providing a "royalty" to the printing press manufacturer?
The problem with me wasting my time is that your question is so basic and shows such lack of thought that I can't distinguish whether you are being genuine or are a paid shill by the (c)opywrong regime out there muddying the waters. And yes, there are a tremendous amount of paid shills out there spreading false and dishonest information about (c)opywrongs.
Back to digital books: how does an author get paid for writing when there’s no legal protection for his work? It costs nothing for any customer to forward along copies. Without laws to allow a temporary monopoly, the author might see a few sales. Pricing one’s time for so few sales (ergo higher prices) will inevitably encourage further free copying. In a society of capitalism, where would the motivation to create (and iterate, and hone) come from without a monopoly on copying?
If the naysayers of IP laws want to advocate for a different, non-capitalist paradigm, that’s fine. But the lack of intellectual rigor behind the “eliminate IP laws” argument isn’t everyone else’s fault when they fail to make it convincing.
How do cotton farm owners make money if they have to pay their employees? Saying we need (c)opywrong laws to have creative content is like saying we need slavery to have cotton. It's just completely false and absurd.
So how does this apply to creative digital artists? Are you suggesting that they all need to be employed by someone else? How does THAT person make money on the digital product?
Seems to me you don't have a completely formed thought around this entire concept and therefore can't explain.
The United States government employs more knowledge workers than all other companies (see NIH, DoD, CDC, NASA, NOAA, NWS, et cetera). Everything they produce is public domain, by law. And yet, they still get paid!
You are arguing for slavery on behalf of slaveowners. We don't need slavery. We still have cotton even after the 13th Amendment (we actually have more and better cotton now), and we will still have creative works after the passing of the Intellectual Freedom Amendment (we actually will have more and better creative works). You are on the wrong side of history.
I’ve argued for nothing more than you to produce an argument. And yet you still haven’t.
Not a satisfactory answer. Delivery to whom? Once the creator has “delivered” a digital creation to a paying customer, all other customers can take “delivery” from previous customers and never pay the creator again.
So the question still stands: how does a creator of works (especially digital works) actually get paid for their work without temporary legal monopoly on their creation?
How do cotton farms still make money even after slavery was abolished in the United States? They found a way! Turns out, you don't need slavery. But I understand, those who have a lot of slaves do not want to give up their power.
The question I think is interesting here is: can you still be an author without being lucky enough to gain celebrity that you can slurp value out of (e.g. endorsements, etc.)? Certainly there would be plenty of freeloading. I don't think there would be much reselling, except for extremely low margin stuff on the level of print-on-demand, because it would be easy enough for buyers to just get the content for free. But there would also certainly be social pressure to compensate creators for their work.
What I wonder is how that balances out when CC-BY is the norm and not some weird thing that most consumers are learning about for the first time when they see a donate link.
(That might sound snarky but I don't mean it that way.)
- - - -
It seems to me that we will see a kind of memetic evolution: some folks will develop a culture of giving credit and money to original authors, while others will develop a culture of free-for-all. Often you'll have different standards for different realms or subjects. E.g. I pay for books often and gladly, but software seldom and then only if I truly can't find a FOSS solution (has never yet happened BTW.)
- - - -
Really it's kinda regressive to try to make money selling hardcopies of books: it makes way more economic sense to let the books go where they will and then trade on your fame to sell t-shirts or whatever. ("10k rabid fans" and all that.)
Ah yes, they appeared out of thin air and no one had to create them or fight to keep them (Haben Sie bemerkt, dass wir Englisch und nicht Deutsch sprechen?).
> only to find someone used it without your consent
My consent? What are you talking about? Do you think I own slaves? No, I do not. I think slavery is abhorrent. I guess you support slavery though, and like to control other people even when they are in their own homes. So we will disagree. You support slavery. I do not.
"Ah yes, they appeared out of thin air and no one had to create them or fight to keep them (Haben Sie bemerkt, dass wir Englisch und nicht Deutsch sprechen?)."
Hu ?! I think you have a misconception of what creating something is :D Words and letters are human common heritage, it’s so old that no one knows who to credit for their creation :D There is a reason why copyright for original creation last 70 years, then fall into public domain : https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html Although details changes countries to countries… Making an original creation is putting the letters and words together, in original and unique form, like for example poets or writers do... see ? Say for example you're a rockstar, and a orange haired politician uses your best songs for his meetings without asking kindly, would you like it ?... (Et oui, je sais que l’on écrit en anglais, et ça n'a aucun rapport…)
> only to find someone used it without your consent
"My consent? What are you talking about? Do you think I own slaves? No, I do not. I think slavery is abhorrent. I guess you support slavery though, and like to control other people even when they are in their own homes. So we will disagree. You support slavery. I do not."
What ? WTF slaves and slavery as to do with creation and having a say on your original creation ?! Anyway yes… I support slavery, matter of fact I got 20 slaves very cheap at the market yesterday, have to train them to post on HN. You obviously have no idea what copyright is. Too bad, your posts are very creative and original. You own them (true), you should use more of that talent to write longer funny things… Cheers.
See also: Pyramids, Sixteenth chapel, Rambrandt paintings, computers
How do you explain World wide web and sqlite? They are 100% public domain.