Hacker News Reader

Comment by dleeftink | Hacker News Reader

Many have done so, and will continue to do. No one has to be persuaded if they have thoughts on their mind. Compensation is the side-effect.

[0]: https://monoskop.org

[1]: https://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/

[2]: https://computerhistory.org/collections/

[3]: https://oapen.org/

View on HN

So, that creates a world (not too dissimilar to our own, but notably so) where only the independently wealthy can ever afford to produce art full time. Can you see any downsides to that world?

I'd be more on board with this take if it were artists engaging in these lawsuits. Elsevier doesn't elicit the same sympathy, though.

'Stealing' from a company with 2B in profit (much from publicly funded research), LibGen is looking a lot like Robin Hood to Elsevier's Prince John.

It's the same issue. If writers could meaningfully get an audience who buys their work independently, they wouldn't need a publisher.

Publishers offer support and printing, but ultimately an author needs a publisher to spread reach (i won't say "make money", because authors sure won't make much). Becsuse it's all about being loud and publishers have resources to be loud. Much better odds compared to a grassroots community paying a fair price when the author is ready to release.

The problem is that publishers, being the middleman, take over authors the same way the supermarket network takes over the food producers. Publishers own the shelf and a price label, and being less numerous and more organized, they can effectively own the audience's attention. They can help, they can also shut author down. They're not ultimately interested in maximizing availability, because they profit directly from the gap. That's why they need restrictions and ways around them.

Maybe a billion-dollar company has more money to spend on lawsuits than artists do? Doesn't make them the good guys, but I'm not surprised that it's them doing it.

The greatest and most lasting art in human history was created by artists who were sponsored by the wealthy as their only source of income.

This is survivorship bias: art owned and protected by wealthy sponsors has a much higher chance of making it through the years. Most art is folk art, and has been lost to the centuries.

The did say "longest lasting art". It feels more survivor bias to mention the Picasso's of history over the many more wealthy who spent their time in the craft.

It's not fair, but it makes sense. And sure the most well known art is not the best art. But a place like this should know the best tech is rarely the most popular product.

So you don't think there's a downside to the wealthy having a defacto monopoly on what art gets created?

I dislike copyright as much as the next guy, but the people who want to write and share free books can (and do) do that now as well.

Being paid and knowing they can spend their livelihood writing while paying rent is about the best persuasion you can have. Aside from the wealthy who don't need to worry about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com