Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdowling | Hacker News Reader

It’s fine that society should benefit, but why should the publishers who pay the author nothing benefit the most?

(Edit: Not just republishers of the original work, but also those making derivatives like translations, sequels, or movie/TV adaptations.)

View on HN

> but why should the publishers who pay the author nothing benefit the most?

How do the publishers benefit from a work that enters the public domain? They have no more right to use the work than anyone else. I think the margins for publishers would be very low after a work enters the public domain.

Derivative works like translations, sequels, TV/movie adaptations, etc.

Why are they making derivatives of a work that nobody cared about? If someone else comes along and makes a profitable derivative, seems like they have added something that the original author just didn't have (Better story, Better marketing, etc)

Actually, without copyright the publishers will be getting almost nothing as with everyone being able to publish the price will quickly go down to printing and postage.

Makers of derivative works such as foreign language translations, sequels, and movie adaptations could presumably hold monopolies on those.

I'm sure they could release those things, but how could they hold a monopoly when everyone is allowed to do their own translations, sequels, and movie adaptations? Maybe there would be some big successful publishers with that business model, but that seems like a good thing if they produce good content.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com