Hacker News Reader

Comment by ROTMetro | Hacker News Reader

So, you mean, the current copyright solution? That has seen creation of works skyrocket? Or do you mean a system where people can steal what they want because 'reasons' and 'they want to pay less because xyz'? Do you propose a system that takes ownership from authors and redistributes their works maybe? Why shouldn't owners get to set the pricing? Just because people want to steal doesn't mean it's ok to. Just because people don't like the price doesn't mean they should get to set it. The current system not working would look something like no works being released (because the author felt it wasn't worth it). The fact that people put in so much effort to steal these works shows the current system is in fact working. People wanting to steal does not equal not working. Authors can set their prices to free, but funny, they choose not to (as is their right).

View on HN

For production the current copyright system kind of works (except the whole debate on remixes) I'll give you that but for keeping older content...

Try to find some lesser known book or newspaper from the 80s in epub legally or non-top films from the 90s and you'll see what I'm saying.

Everything is trashed just after it's being produced. The uncomfortable truth for those large copyright conglomerates is that right now it's the piracy scene which keeps most of the content alive, to the point they even have to pirate their own content to release it again sometimes.

And then there's the whole debate on the length of copyright itself, there's no conceivable damage in any shape or form of pirating the Beatles.

How about a system that - when the author / rights holder "abandons" a work by no longer actively publishing it, it automatically falls into public domain after 5 years? 70+ years after the author's death is literally a lifetime of people who may be unable to access copyrighted but abandoned work. This benefits no one.

Too many works are currently unavailable commercially/legally.

   > Or do you mean a system where people can steal what they want because 'reasons' and 'they want to pay less because xyz'?

If you have a copy of something, and I make a copy of it, and you still have your copy of it, what was stolen? If I find a book in the library and take pictures of each page, is that also theft? What if I write all the words down? What if I use a hand scanner and OCR to copy and transcribe it, is that theft?

The obvious response is that you stole the author's income, by obtaining a copy of their work without compensating them for it.

So the obvious retort is that you may not have bothered to purchase the author's work, forgoing your opportunity to read it, thus the author did not lose their sale.

The conversation will then turn to defending the existence of copyright as an incentivization to produce valuable works worth reading, and then to how the publishing industry eats those incentives anyway.

In the end, no one will exit the conversation having gained any insight.

    > So the obvious retort is that you may not have bothered to purchase the author's work, forgoing your opportunity to read it, thus the author did not lose their sale.

I can't speak for all pirates, but I will pirate things I want to sample and then often buy it if it's what I was looking for. At least with books. I haven't bought music in 20 years.

> The obvious response is that you stole the author's income, by obtaining a copy of their work without compensating them for it.

Given that I (as an European) pay extra fees for copyright management companies for each photography-enabled device, each memory device, each scanner and each printer, I should be enabled to make as many copies of any copyright-protected work as I want.

Which is incidentally how it works over here. What gets you in trouble is making works accessible to copiers, not owning copies.

These fees are an even worse solution than the current maze of DRMs and walled gardens.

Maybe they were an acceptable compromise in a time before e-books and e-readers, but they are neither fair to users, nor do they seem high enough to fairly compensate content creators without their normal revenue channels.

If the intention behind it is a kind of public subsidy for content creation: Sure, there are much worse things to spend tax money on.

But please do it properly then, i.e. something like a "public Spotify/Netflix" for books and films that correctly attributes view counts, rather than just handing money almost exclusively to already popular/financially stable creators as measured by past sales records.

Not an author, are you. Not a lawyer either. When you have spent years honing your craft and spent many months creating a work so that you can buy what you need to live and can't afford to support your self and your family without that income and then YOU give that work away - then I may find some value in your self serving questions. By the way, the answer to your questions is yes.

   > By the way, the answer to your questions is yes.

You say it's theft to take pictures of the pages of a library book? I would need you to cite your sources please.

If it matters, I recently ordered 6 hardcovers from an author who's book that I downloaded from libgen was so impressively written, well sourced and thought provoking that I just had to put his best works (the book I "stole" by downloading, and 5 of his other works) in my physical library.

On the flipside, I recently wanted to read a book (different author) so badly but it wasn't available anywhere for less than $100 since it's out of print, so I downloaded it and don't feel bad at all. I haven't read that one yet, and if I love it I might spend the money for a physical copy, but it wouldn't matter since it's out of print and used and wouldn't make a difference to the author (also, he's dead).

Germany has a system where the books purchased by libraries and also printers and scanners contain a fee that contributes to a fund for reimbursing copyright holders (Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort, cf. https://www.vgwort.de/startseite.html ). Very fast copiers/scanners are more expensive - inter alia - for that reason, according to a colleague of mine (I'm not an expert in this).

So you copying one page from a book in a library would still lead to some form of compensation, although one could debate whether it is fair or not, whereas using a P2P search engine to locate an online copy of a PDF would not.

Also, IMHO, the discussion of such online libraries should separate the topic of fair compensation of authors (I believe Norway or Finnland have "author stipends" paid by the government that one can apply) and the topic of locating and researching whether a book is what one needs or to one's liking.

I would imagine authors get compensation from their books purchased by US libraries too. But it's not going to scale with how many times a book is checked out, or even prevent it from being copied after checkout.

imagine if you built a building and then someone purchased it... and everyone that visited it also had to also pay you.... thats a bit like how copyright is today...

But what is even worst is that they are trying to make you pay them forever (subscriptions).

Then how do you propose that creatives make a living? Come on, no dawdling!

'Creatives' who hold back free flow of knowledge can get a real job :)

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33698018>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com