There is no greater folly of contemporary human society than the purposeful restriction of such vast and easily shareable repositories of knowledge. Perhaps these schemes made sense in the past but with the advent of the internet and independent groups willing to fund all hosting fees, we should move to models of publishing that do not require this restriction of information. Library genesis exists but necessarily must hide and create some friction in the discovery process. A legally unencumbered free library of all books for all people would be the greatest achievement in all of human history. We prevent this achievement due to our attachment to a specific economic system that serves as the current means of financially supporting authors. We must build alternatives to for-profit publishing, and the only resilient and widely acceptable system I can imagine is one where every community owns and controls the means of production upon which they depend for their survival. In such an economic system, the need for automation would be obvious and once implemented, all people would receive the benefits of automation. This would include such a wide allowance for leisure and free time that authors would no longer need to restrict access to their books to extract profits from their value their shared knowledge creates. All people would be free to do what they will.
It would take great effort to build such a system, but open source and digital repositories of machine designs would ensure that efforts are not duplicated. The effort would still be substantial, but what hangs in the balance is the opportunity to assure the freedom of all people and the creation of the most significant repository of knowledge humanity has ever conceived of. If we succeed it will be our greatest achievement as a species.
I believe in hundreds, maybe thousands of years, after humanity has finally evolved past our current monkey mentality, future historians will look back at this time period in awe: "They had the technology to make the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone... And they blew it! Further, they had the means to feed everyone, clothe everyone, house everyone, but they just walked away in the other direction, purely to maintain existing economic power structures." The future historians are going to wonder how strong our ideology was that we sacrificed all of what we could have at the altar of our scarcity-based religion.
If Star Trek Replicators were invented today, we're so stupid we'd outlaw them.
You're so optimistic to think the law would even be this fair. More like limit access to corporations as "the only custodians responsible enough to wield them", while still allowing the developing world to starve and further increasing their profit margins simultaneously to decreasing working wages and employment levels.
You cannot make money off of people who are starving.
You can force starving people into unfair arrangements where the choice is between getting screwed or dying of hunger. You can use the existence of starving people as a threat to keep your work force in line. Sometimes it's not even the starving people that you're making money off of, but their minerals and land.
There are a lot of ways to profit from suffering. And sometimes it's not even about profit—it can just feel so good to have an Other to oppress.
History shows us that if you want to force starving people to work for you, you also need to shoot the people who refuse. See the Soviet gulags, and the Nazi slave labor camps.
Indeed the arrangement is violent and enforced with terrible violence, and in no way is this incompatible with profits.
I.e. it's not just about people starving, it's about forcible slave labor, forced with guns and whips.
History shows us that slave labor cannot compete with free labor. It's the reason the Confederacy seceded from the Union - to protect their slave economy which was becoming increasingly unprofitable from the competition. It's also the reason why communist forced labor failed to compete with free markets.
Ya know, employing people who hate you just isn't going to get them to work very effectively.
How does this account keep managing to make every thread on HN into 'communism bad' without getting flagged? Tell me your secrets Walter.
Only in response to posts that extol the virtues of collectivism and/or how bad freedom is. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it :-)
Too bad it seems to be a secret that free markets are far more successful. My dad was a finance professor at a college in his later years. He said students would tell him from time to time that they had never heard of a case for free markets before. Isn't that amazing for people that lived their whole life in a free market country?
I remember one person complained to me that I was "ramming freedom down his throat!" It boggles the mind.
Note that I don't attack or berate people. Only ideas.
dang knows about me. You can ask him.
I'm sure your "dirty job" makes sense to you, and it's clear you even feel very righteous about it.
Be that as it may, ideological crusades such as this are explicitly disallowed on here. "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
Dang has been very clear on that, many times - whatever he "knows about you".
You really think it's "impossible" for a corporation with Star Trek replicator tech to profit from starving people? ... And that was the right time to fight "the virtues of collectivism"? You are trampling curiousity, and have admitted as much, and now you really ought to consider giving it a rest.
That goes for both sides, every time someone repeats the meme "capitalism bad!" they are perpetuating their own crusade, at that time the gloves are off and it is free to engage with them. You can see it in this thread where people started out by trash talking capitalism, at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines even if you do it in every thread where people start attacking capitalism.
Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often, since they are almost always the instigators.
That's called 'false equivalence'. Discussions about economic systems can be had without being crusades.
No, I don't think the spirit of the guidelines is to permit "ideological battles" as long as "someone else starts it". The clear intent of the guidelines is to discourage ideological crusade altogether.
'Selective enforcement'. Your argument suggests that it's okay to defend capitalism in response to criticism, but doesn't extend the same courtesy to those criticizing capitalism.
A generalization without any evidence. Also, capitalism is currently the dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of economic systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism.
I think your comment shows severe bias and an adversarial approach to discussion. Maybe you could form an appreciation for the spirit of fostering curiosity and constructive dialogue that is promoted here.
I had no idea when I started this thread with a throwaway quip about future historians and Star Trek that (besides being one of my highest voted comments) it would veer off into this 70+ reply monstrosity about slavery and communism. HN commenters take things in wild directions, and I seem to have violated the no-flamewar rule unintentionally. For that I am sorry.
It would be nice to be able to discuss the multitude of possible economic power structures unlike the ones we have today, without someone always barreling in on a crusade against communism (which I never even mentioned nor support myself). This discussion doesn't seem possible when people insist on a false dilemma.
As an anarcho communist and prolific HN commenter I sigh every time I see his name. Sadly he doesn’t actually understand communism and seems to be stuck in 1980’s anti communist propaganda. For example the sibling comment to this one where he conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol). At least he’s getting the downvotes he deserves in this thread.
The Internet Archive was recently compelled to remove 500,000 e-books following a legal battle with major publishers. This decision came after a court ruled that the Archive's practice of lending digital copies of books, which were scanned from physical copies, violated copyright laws. The publishers argued that the Internet Archive's actions undermined their sales and intellectual property rights, leading to the court's ruling in favor of the publishers. https://cotonmode.co.uk/collections/sheets-set
As a non-usian it seems kind of weird to see someone from the US declare that using weapons to keep people working is a non-usian thing to do, when a lot of the news we get from over there is cops killing people, school shootings, stuff about school-prison pipelines, things like that.
Then there are the genocidal militias employed by US companies to keep people from unionising, the genocidal treatment of indonesians, and so on.
The Internet Archive's recent requirement to remove 500,000 books is part of an ongoing legal battle with major publishers. This situation is rooted in the Archive's practice of "controlled digital lending," which allows users to borrow digitized copies of physical books. For the latest updates and detailed information on this case, you can visit news websites https://sorecebeinfocell.net/emerson-frp-e-tools/ , legal analyses, or the Internet Archive's official communications.
History shows us that you can build Pyramids and the Chinese wall with slave labor, probably not affordable with "free labor". But maybe we should also look at "modern slavery" that is "free labor" but without any chance to get another job or get reported to the police.
Worked incredible well for Belgium, and works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa...and for us (>bloody< cheap raw-materials for our phones)
I know what you want to say with it, forcing specialized people with whips isn't going to give you good results in the long run, however if you just need their joules it's shockingly effective.
Does it?
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/were-the-egyptian-pyram...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#Great...
Yes, maybe the slaves did the less "worthy" jobs:
https://www.worldatlas.com/ancient-world/were-slaves-used-to...
Yes it does, or do you have another argument against the Chinese wall or Belgium for example? Do you really want to argue against the fact that slaves did (and do) the hardest, most back-breaking jobs?
If they're literally at the point of starvation, maybe true - though famines often happen when people simply can't get access to food, even if they have the resources to buy it. So, bringing food to a starving area is unlikely to be bad for business.
However, the more important point is that you can surely make money off of people by becoming their only source of food/money - i.e. they would starve without you, so they accept whatever trickle of resources you deign to assign. This is extraordinarily common throughout history, coupled with a threat of violence that all states use.
If you the only source, there is a reason for that, usually because you are shooting people who try to leave.
I'll cite a counter for you. The US was the first country in the world to eliminate the specter of famine (around 1800). Free labor was the distinguishing ingredient, not slave labor. (The slaves at the time were used to primarily farm cotton and tobacco.) The average height of Americans increased dramatically throughout the 19th century. Scores of millions of Americans arrived in America as paupers and moved into the middle class.
The economic machine of America was fueled by free labor, not starving people.
Slavery created the wealth that made industrialization in the north possible, and was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of.
You've reduced slavery to a parenthetical. Where do you think the cotton and tobacco went? Where do you think the money came from? Where do you think it got spent?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-ec...
Here's why that's wrong. When the Confederacy seceded, the economy of the South slid into ruin. The economy of the North thrived.
The Rebel army was barefoot, because Southern industry could not even make shoes. The reason that Lee was in Gettysburg was to loot the shoe factory at nearby Harrisburg.
Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America? Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
The Civil War destroyed what there was of the Southern wealth, literally burning it to the ground.
"made the South its most prosperous region"
That's just nonsense. Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865, and you'll see the stark difference in prosperity. Railroads latticed the North, far outstripping mileage in the South.
Do you understand the difference between starting an engine and keeping it running? I'm referring to northern wealth btw.
They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize.
The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.
Good thing we don't measure wealth by photos and paintings, and instead we have census data. Be serious, think about why an economy based on slave labor and agriculture would not build a network of railroads even if they had the money for it.
Do you really think that photos and paintings are all lies?
I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously.
Or that one. Sorry.
The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
If you recall, the original contention was that "You cannot make money off of people who are starving." Clearly you can—in the short term, and enabled by violent coercion, as you've helpfully added.
My argument summed up is that slavery was a "local maximum" that A) generated an enormous amount of wealth early on, and was thus a crucial factor in developing the American economy, even if it was no longer the main driver of wealth by the time of the civil war, and B) made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
It's clear which strategy wins long term, I don't think that's a debate. I should have phrased my earlier comment better, sorry.
In the past there was a fairly common practice to create a monopoly by outlawing people from importing food to a local economy. People may recognize the concept of mining towns, company stores, or its role in debt slavery.
The practice back in those days were to advertise inflated wages for a job in remote areas. People then traveled there, only to find out that food and living costs, all under the control of the company, were also inflated to the point where even a full working day would results in debt when subtracting food and living costs. People who tried to flee was prevented from doing so under the argument that they tried to escape acquired debt. The fines for smuggling food was also extreme, since food costs was the primary way that the companies held control over their debt slaves.
This practice was so vile that many countries created laws directly targeting it, including changes to inheritance so that debt would not follow from parent to child.
This is false. You can create conditions where their only real choice is to work for you. And since they’re starving, they’ll work for very low wages. You sell the product of their labor and collect the surplus value created by their work.
Ok, cite an example where the conditions are just about starving, rather than being forced to work under the lash or at gunpoint.
Confrontation, Threats -- and a Bloodless Resolution
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/tcrr-ch...Numerous other examples in colonial history.
Note that you cite laws that restricted the Chinese workers' options. Here's one of those laws:
http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-co...
All you said was “You cannot make money off of people who are starving.”
Yes you can, by coercing them in various legal and illegal ways. Your original comment was just the one quoted sentence above. It is not correct.
It doesn’t matter, people are starving.
Capital is most valuable when demand exceeds supply (producer surplus).
Hah some Ferengi actually did this in an episode of TNG! They showed up on a random planet with a replicator and then used their ability to produce anything as a means to subjugate the population.
I believe that was Voyager and the Ferengi were stranded in the delta quadrant after the incident with the stable-on-one-end wormhole in TNG. Imo it wasn’t the worst strategy in their situation.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/False_Profits_(episode)
Fun episode title.
Oooh you’re so right thank you!
A script writer can make any fantasy appear to be workable.
Europeans and Americans are now taxing green technology, which they said in the past they want, because it is built in another country...
Because they don't want to be dependent on another country for energy infrastructure.
Especially when another country is undercutting domestic production of others in order to impose an Orwellian ideology.
I think the truth is we just failed to invest in the manufacturing tech and now they’re beating us in the market, so we’re taxing them to make it hard for them to compete. I’d way rather we just invest and outcompete them. I don’t think they’re intentionally undercutting us they just have lower costs from decades of investment that we haven’t been doing ourselves.
They're undercutting us by virtue of labor standards and other corners that we don't cut.
Honestly I know that used to be true, but how true is that today? Laborers in the USA don’t have great standards either. What proportion of the cost reduction comes from lower labor standards and what proportion comes from the fact that they absolutely have invested more in manufacturing than we have?
I order my PCBAs from JLCPCB in China and they’re about 1/10th the cost of ordering something from the USA. But you can watch a factory tour, it’s not some horrible labor conditions it’s huge highly automated machines: https://youtu.be/jTBOSob5MLg
They just invested more than we did.
So maybe their labor conditions are still worse than ours, by some amount, but it’s more than just saving on labor that got their prices low.
It can be multiple things at once. They did indeed invest a lot more into manufacturing but they are also definitely using slave labor to cut on costs (see https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/01/china-carmakers-implicat...). Who knows as well to which extent the government funds these companies and keeps them afloat.
Rhetorical question but do you really believe they would be allowed to publish anything showing a human rights violation on youtube?
To get this footage he probably had to agree that all footage has to be reviewed by the company. There is no way they green light anything that makes them look bad. I would not be shocked if a party official had to be there to make sure he only shows the great side of everything.
I’m not sharing the video as some foolish “proof” of the absence of labor violations. I’m sharing it as positive proof of the many very large highly automated high throughput machines they have! It’s clear they have invested a lot in machinery to produce their goods.
Did the Chinese government help invest in that production capacity? I don’t know probably, but I think the US should be doing that too so my point that we failed to invest still stands.
The point is, it’s not some evil communist plot to undercut us. They just actually invested in manufacturing and that’s what I’m trying to show with the video. Seriously click through it. There’s a lot of large high throughput automated machines there! There is no equivalent to that facility in the USA that I have ever heard of. Probably big companies like Intel have some impressive machinery but this is a job shop where anyone with $5 can place an order for PCBs. And I seriously doubt this is some North Korean style propaganda show where a bunch of slave labor is hidden behind a door. This factory is a state of the art PCB fabrication facility that gets cheap prices due to investment in capacity. They’re not cheating. They just actually invested and we’ve failed to catch up.
Somehow in the West it is now an ideological crime to point out the obvious: that China has high tech industries, new technology, and scientific development. These are all things that they didn't expect could appear in a country like China, so they want the evidence to be excluded from the internet and labeled as fake news or propaganda.
The USA cuts corners on labor standards for more than a century, but Europeans are Ok with that. The same logic applies, Europeans get a lot of their products and services from a country that has little to no safety nets for their workers, so by buying from USA, Europeans are funding their own demise.
The USA absolutely fucked manufacturing into the sun, but that doesn’t come back overnight, and China cheats in ways that we can’t. You have a comment below that seems to indicate you have no clue how bad they have it vs US blue collar workers. You might want to do some reading on that before pontificating on this subject.
I get what you're saying. But at the same time, the whole Boeing debacle makes me wonder how many other skeletons we're hiding.
Either way, this is the consequences of letting corporations lobby to stifle innovation. They wanted short term money and we're all paying the price.
There is no problem with the investments size, China had way less investments. The problem is in the amount of work and production regulations, which in some cases just doesn't exist in China.
In that case, Great job divesting in domestic labor in lieu of offshoring. Mission accomplished
Chinese cars? really?
They are at best a hazard.
The Chinese government dumped tons of money into every one of those cars, they are being sold at a loss. Not because it's good for any one, rather because china fucked up.
Every single one of those cars is a state funded fire hazard about to go on the road.
EDITL: cause looking up data is hard apparently:
western data:
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/electric-car-f...
The data we see from china: https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101781161/there-are-about...
The anti china reporting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKpCiDomgM
Do note, that were talking about a nation that will happily NOT report on stats like youth employment when its bad, so take what you read with more than a few grains of salt.
do you have any evidence that they're more prone to fire than any other EVs?
https://news.metal.com/newscontent/102243830/tragedy-of-elec...
The Chinese government cant even keep it under wraps with how bad it is. If you pay attention to Chinese news there's a few of them every week. And thats the ones we hear about, mostly because the were spontaneous, or in buildings/gargages, or people die.
Go look it's hard to fuckin miss.
If it was only a safety issue the governments in the US and EU would only need the existing legal infrastructure for car safety to regulate Chinese electric vehicles.
The US tariffs are not even officially claimed to have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with industrial competition.
I will take it on faith that you’ve seen loads of examples but I’d be particularly interested in statistics about the number of fires per vehicle produced compared to the same for vehicles from other companies. Obviously one article saying that an EV caught fire isn’t compelling as we have that here too. The problem was so bad with the Chevy Bolt EV that some of them caught fire while just sitting in people’s driveways and the entire fleet had to be recalled.
Without statistics I’m totally unmoved by even a long list of Chinese examples as the same can be produced here too. And Teslas have killed plenty of people due to faulty self driving software!
The problem is the wheels fall off in a fender bender and there's only a 50% chance the airbags will deploy when needed.
So its at least as good as Chrysler.
At least the steering wheel doesn’t fall off while you’re driving:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/08/tesla-under-investigation-...
Cars have gotten a lot safer over the years, so how far of a setback would this be? Are they on par with 90s cars? 80s? 50s?
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/byd/dolphin/50011 Hmm, that's a pretty good score. Is this version different?
UHH western data:
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/electric-car-f...
The data we see from china: https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101781161/there-are-about...
The anti china reporting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKpCiDomgM
Edit: it's a battery fire, so lithium, a metal. It does not go out. You just let it burn till it's done being angry. The Chinese ones are doing it at random. Sometimes with people in the car.
Personally I don’t hold this view of China. I think they invested in manufacturing while we divested and now they’re simply reaping the rewards of those investments by producing superior or soon to be superior technology.
A lot of people in the west have a vested interest in discrediting Chinese manufacturing but if we put our heads in the sand and refuse to see what is really happening they’re just going to pass us by.
Note that basically every automobile producing country puts government money in to that industry so highlighting that China is doing it is on its own meaningless.
Green technology is funded by our taxes in EU. 8000€ on photovoltaic panels per household. Made in China.
Tariffs do decrease competition and lead to higher prices for consumers....but...there are certain industries important for national security where a country may wish to subsidize an industry like building renewables or use a tariff against a country like China that is trying to corner the market through nationalized companies. Because those companies are a wing of their government (so to speak) a free market company can't compete and eventually all you have are Chinese companies for these critical industries and they can dictate policy to us.
The country that allowed replicators would be no.1 fairly quickly
No.1 in jobless, fat and addicted peoples. You need the full Star Trek experience/mindset before you introduce unlimited everything. Also the first thing that would be produced are weapons, drugs and food....and everything sex.
History shows the labor unions and leftists would also be against replicators. We see that today with how people are very against AI advancements that would put artists out of jobs, they would rather halt progress than lose their jobs.
Of course corporations that stand to lose out are also against it, but don't kid yourself labor movements are just as greedy and anti progress when progress would inconvenience them.
Only because the rich would exploit the replicators and would leave everyone else in the dust starving.
Nobody would have a problem with it, if you could survive on them.
Something like this already happens with housing and NIMBYism.
The sum of human knowledge in written form is largely available on pirate sites like scihub or libgen. And the feed clothe house stuff is coming along. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-undernouris...
Replicators can produce so much mass so quickly, they pose an existential threat to public health and safety.
It is absolutely essential that we deploy this technology safely and responsibly, with appropriate guardrails in place.
Therefore we have gated all access behind our API. You can’t sign up from a VPN, and must provide a phone number and strong identity-linked payment card to receive an API key. Anonymous use for research or controversial applications is thus impossible. Contact your sales rep for a limit increase if you find yourself regularly rate limited. Requests for all teas, including earl grey, do not count against your rate limit.
Naturally, there are certain prompts that we must prohibit, for legal or regulatory reasons. Our health and safety team has extensive documentation on the knowledge base about what is and is not permitted under our Community Guidelines, which were not created or endorsed by the community and are hard and fast rules, not guidelines at all. We reserve the right to apply these at our sole discretion, and there is no appeal.
You will receive the appropriately coded 4xx errors from the API when requesting any pharmaceuticals (speak to your doctor) or potentially poisonous flora.
Our products cannot be used to break the laws in your jurisdiction. Please do not request champagne, parmiggano-reggiano, roquefort, or any other DOP-restricted items. Attempts to circumvent this blocking via synthesizing specific aromatics or flavors may result in a protected IP strike against your account.
Placing orders for certain precursors will result in an immediate termination of services. Do not attempt to evade a ban using multiple accounts, as this may result in your IP range or country being blocked from our API.
Do not use our service to manufacture explosives, regardless of whether or not it’s legal in your jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not you are licensed to use, store, and handle explosives, regardless of whether or not they’re just sidewalk snaps for your kids. We don’t understand nuance or personal responsibility, only liability.
Personal accounts are restricted from producing liquid and solid fuels and fuel sources. Contact sales if you wish to create an organization account for your enterprise (per-user and fleet size license charges may apply).
When agreeing to our terms of service, you must waive your right to a jury trial and agree only to binding arbitration. No class actions either.
For quality and training purposes, your complete order history will be stored in our database forever. We reserve the right to use your ordering history and taste preferences to improve the service, offer you tailored experiences from us or our partners, or to disclose it for regulatory, research, law enforcement requests, or national security purposes, or to protect us from potential liability.
I believe in 5 years time, digital information will be so easily transformable, that copyright holders (and patent holders) will have a very difficult time enforcing the property rights.
When a book can be readily transformed into audiobook, or even a song, a movie and anime, a sketch, a scientific diag or anything else, how you define property in that environment? Pretty impossible.
I think a useful analogy is when we lived in caves. A cave is given as is, no way to transform it, to evolve it and optimize it. As long as we found new ways to create an enclosure, then technology advancement really took off. Houses made of rocks, clay, concrete, wood started popping off everywhere.
The same way with books. A printed book is not transformed to anything else really. As long as written words can be represented in a more flexible way, then they are on to the race for technology advancement.
We’re in the middle of “The Dark Ages II” and we don’t even know it.
I’ve been thinking for a while about how historians will view our chunk of history and it ain’t too good.
There will be some bright spots, but for the most part humans have been behaving pretty terribly, at scale, since harnessing the power of electricity.
Your idea has been tried over and over. It just makes things worse, far worse.
Why should an author be forced to give away their work for free?
They can already choose to give it away for free if they wish. We already have the Creative Commons licenses, and there are many open textbook projects.
Dead authors can't choose to give away their works, they're dead. Yet someone still owns the rights 60 years later.
If an author sells the rights and does, should the buyer automatically lose what they bought? Sounds like that would severely decrease what authors can earn, especially older ones.
There's no reason that "selling copyrights" needs to a be a thing. If the author themself wants to profit from their work, sure, but once they die, that's it, and there's no excuse for it to not be in the public domain at that point.
So the wife that supported the author can't profit off their assets? The author can't pass on this to children? Should we do the same thing for other property like land and money?
This kind of hectoring discourse is aggressive and rude. You can do better.
Authors that get paid can certainly leave the assets they received to their families. They could also transfer ownership of unpublished intangible assets. More than that sucks the general public into a quasi-contractual relationship with a posthumous person; I disclaim fiscal obligations of strangers toward ghosts.
But it's not hectoring (and was not intended to be rude). Authors build things. Just like people who build companies, houses, inventions, etc. There are a lot of theories of how ownership happen, but many (at least in the US and Europe) come from some for of the labor theory of ownership. We own the things we put labor into and create. Unless you have a competing theory of ownership that explains why other assets can benefit the family of those who create things of value after death but not works of art, music, writing, etc., you haven't really made a cogent argument. Calling me rude is just an ad hominem argument, which we shouldn't entertain as serious.
If I build a house and you build a house and we exchange houses, both of us end up with exactly one house each.
If I have an idea and you have an idea and we exchange ideas, both of us end up with two ideas each.
There may be labour in both but there's a fundamental difference between physical property and intellectual property.
If we exchange ownership of ideas, we end up with one idea each. That's different from providing usage rights to our ideas to each other.
How would that work? Given that one exposed to an idea, a person cannot exactly erase it from their mind...
I mean if I have an idea and I give it to you the idea itself is still in my mind. And in order to give it to you I have to communicate it to you, so now it is in your mind too. So innately, while physical objects are physically moved, ideas are only ever copied; the former creates a sense of ownership because when a brick is in your hand it is not in mine, whereas the latter makes this notion of ownership impossible.
Let's try anyway. If I write the idea on a piece of paper, zip it into an envelope, and give the envelope to you, not only do I still have the idea in my head but can you really claim to somehow "have" the idea too? Unless you open the envelope and you don't get to actually "have" it, you have an envelope which contains a copy of the idea that's still in my mind and not in yours. You don't even know what I've given you unless I shared the idea with you beforehand, at which point we're back to square one and the piece of paper is moot (it may carry more detail but that's immaterial to the concept of ideas fundamentally being only copied).
A person has an idea and writes it on a piece of paper, puts it in an envelope, gives it to me, the person dies, I don't ever open the envelope and then I give it to you. Did I ever "own" the idea? I don't even know what it is? A copy of the idea has disappeared when the person died, the piece of paper has a copy on it, and once you read it that idea will be in both in your mind and the paper until you burn the latter.
So maybe you're thinking, but the person of origin of the idea matters. Okay, let's go along with it. Say you and I never even remotely interacted, and I come up with a "foobarbaz" idea and you come up with a "foobarbaz" idea, and we happen to meet. We exchange ideas and realise "oh we had the same idea!"; how can the idea be "the same" if it has been independently conceived and the person of origin matters? To double down on that, after the transactional exchange, we both have one "foobarbaz" idea , not two identical ones each: the operation was a complete noop.
We could drill down further about whether any idea can ever be truly original or if it's about standing in the shoulders of giants, so a huge proportion of any idea or the process having led to is is actually not original at all but instead remixes.
All this to essentially say that "ownership of ideas" and "usage rights" are really a completely artificial construct, one that aims to replicate ownership as it is born out of physical reality.
Which brings me to TFA's situation, in which half a million books are essentially disappeared purely for the sake of pretending ideas are like bricks, as in they should be "owned" because someone could make money off of it, which is not even true because even if I wanted to throw a truckload of money at these folks they would still not allow the ideas to be accessed because they can't be bothered to republish - even though they can be bothered to sue - so the paper/bits might just as well be set on fire, which is most certainly not what the authors would have desired.
PS: Obviously authors deserve tools that help them make a living and combat plagiarism, but this situation is way beyond that and highlights how these artificial constructs are completely upended to the detriment of all.
If I sell you copyright of my code, I might still have it on my computer but I lost any rights to use it. This is a standard business arrangement that anyone on this site knows and uses. I don't think it's as complicated as you make it sound.
Just step back and think about how irrational this is. Abstract constructs like this are arbitrary.
The big difference between copyright and propery is that me owning a table doesn't stop someone else from making a similar looking table. Copyright that lasted forever would mean that new adaptations of anything could never be made without licensing from the hedge fund that had bought up the original rights from 500 years ago.
and copyright doesnt prevent you from writing a story about a boy wizard attending a school and fighting against a evil big bad. Nor does it prevent you from writing a story about a rag tag group of rebels fighting against an empire.
It's not that simple .
Copyright puts a chilling effect on making anything resembling the original work, so long as the plaintiff (usually a large corp or hedge fund) has a better team of lawyers than the defendant (new writer)
Easy. The ownership of intellectual property can indefinitely remain with the author (or be passed on to their children, spouses, etc).
We even have a great model for it now: NFTs.
The right to copy that work, however, isn't something that was either created or owned by the author. That exclusivity is a privilege granted by the state, introduced because it was believed to benefit the society overall.
You can inherit a car, but not a driver's license. The argument is that the exclusive license to copy a work of art is really more like the latter.
I think this is a specious argument. The value in intellectual property is the right to copy it. You can make a similar argument for other property: you own your car, but the right to drive it was not created by you. You own your house, but the right to occupy it and prevent others from occupying it is not created by you. It's not clear if you are arguing that there is some natural right to own and inherit a car that is granted by some authority other than the state and where that authority comes from.
People don't just write books to profit while they are alive. They write books so their families have something to pay the bills once they die as well. Books are hard enough to write and sell successfully. The few that make it are special for the families of the writers, and you want to take them.
You're free to give away your work. Stop telling others what to do with their work and that you want to take it because they died.
This sounds like an appeal to tradition.
And an appeal to putting all your eggs in one basket and then demanding that eggs remain valuable long after you're dead and replicators are invented.
Also, why does your family get to shirk their obligation to contribute to society?
I think copyright terms should be much shorter, but I do not think someone should be far worse compensated for writing a work at 85 than 25. Or suffer from oddities relating to publication time vs death.
Enough with this nonsense. A book isn't a family business, it's not the family home, it ain't the family farm, it's an artifact that you produced once, it makes no sense to inherit the right to copy it. We allow inheritance to exist because it creates social good by facilitating community continuity. And the best social good when it comes to copyright is to let it expire as soon as possible; let's be honest, "until the death of the author" is still eons longer than any author deserves. It shouldn't be more than 20 years, max.
FWIW, this is also why we have copyright. In fact, this is explicitly why we allow copyright in US.
> this is explicitly why we allow copyright in US
The founders of the US intended copyright to last for 14 years, with the ability to renew for a single extra 14-year extension. Like patents, copyright was intended to expire quickly in order to serve the good of the public. Thank Disney for fucking that up for everyone. You have refuted your own argument.
This is really the core of the issue, all the stuff about what a world without copyright would be like is navel-gazing that will never happen.
But specifically a lot of us have an issue with the fact that beginning in the 20th century, copyright durations have been increasing so quickly that it's starting to look more like copyright is becoming permanent.
The founders were well aware of the negative societal effects of monopoly. We are well aware of them and suffering under several forms of monopoly today, many of which are enforced through copyright. The founders chose to grant a LIMITED and TEMPORARY monopoly to copyright holders, not an UNLIMITED and PERMANENT one, because of this. The eminently reasonable and middle of the road position is that we should reduce the duration of copyright, restoring it to its original intent. This corrects one of the general class of pro-monopoly errors we have made which have increased wealth inequality and damaged our society.
It is truly extraordinary how much damage Disney has done (with government as a willing collaborator) against the original intent of the founders and the will of the people.
We can agree 95 years is too long and also not want to abolish the whole system and let everyone use knowledge immediately without proper compensation.
Nor encorugae assassinations by having stuff go public domain immediately upon death.
Incorrect.
We have copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
If our current implementation is not an optimal way to achieve this goal, then it needs to be re-evaluated.
A book is knowledge, knowledge can 100% be a family businesss to be continued. I don't see it as any different from a family restaurant protecting their recipes in an otherwise cutthroat industry.
The terms is too long as is, but I see no reason to not have any posthumous transfer period so the family can figure out what they want to do with their knowledge.
Family recipes are kept secret.
If you don't want to share your knowledge, the solution is simple.
Once you've put it out there, it becomes a tiny piece of human culture that can be referenced and discussed, and ultimately reproduced.
Just because an artist releases a work to the world, doesn't mean they have any natural rights to own what the culture does with it.
They certainly can. Certain assets are depreciating with time though, like copyrightable works. They only have value because of the law in the first place, and the law sets the timeline for that value to depreciate to zero.
Perhaps supporting a writer shouldn't be a career/investment opportunity though.
Like, with taxes on inheritance? We should and we do. And arguably, we don't do it enough.
The question is: are the authors that much better off from the way the laws are now? Is the society overall? If we tell the authors that, in fact, their grandchildren won't be able to profit off of their books, what kind of literature shall we lose?
We already have the answer, since the draconian copyright laws are pretty recent. Great works of literature have been written before such laws existed, and introduction of these laws hardly improved writing overall (or the plight of the author, for that matter).
If the author desires for their wife or children to inherit the results of their work, the author should keep the works private and give it to their survivors for them to release over time.
Lets change from "selling" to "assigning".
Could you assign the copyrights to a corporation (that then doesn't die). Would that prevent them from going into the public domain?
If I write some software and assign its copyright to the Apache Foundation or FSF or some other organization through a CLA, what happens to the license if I kick the bucket tomorrow?
For that matter, what happens if I don't assign its copyright to some other organization... does all the GPL software that I write suddenly become public domain?
If no, there is reason for it to remain under the GPL or Apache license so that it can continue on in the spirit of the license it was created under (which copyright enforces) ... then there is equal reason for the works of an author or photographer or singer or song writer to also remain under copyright for some duration.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
If the GPLed project lost all of its teeth upon the untimely death of a contributor, would that be a bad thing?
What do you think was the real reason for all the remakes of Disney movies that happened the last decade?
Copyright terms were running out.
Also, by your logic, every contributor of a project, contemporary or previously, must die in order for the "GPL losing its teeth".
And there is a different copyright (rather than on the text or video production) - the copyright protection for fictional characters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti...
--
For Linux, the "every contributor" might be true.
For a lot of other projects, they've got a CLA in place. https://www.mongodb.com/legal/contributor-agreement
When does MongoDB die? Jokes aside, whatever the answer is, as long as it is longer than any contributor, that's an out.Consider also the "I don't know who you cookiengineer are, therefore I assert that you're dead and the copyright on your previous comment has expired and I'll just slurp this up into an LLM training model."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302
It is certainly reasonable to argue that 95-120 years from its publication is too long, but the copyright your comments (and other works) do not require me to dox you to determine if they're expired or not.Having copyright on anonymous or psuedoanonymous or being able to assign copyright to another entity are incompatible with copyright expiring upon the death of the author.
Resetting that number back to 50 years as covered by the Berne Convention would be a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#Term_of_prote...
Having it be less than 50 years implies that the United States would be leaving the Berne Convention (signed by 181 countries) and that would put the United States in very small group of countries that do not recognize any intellectual property laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation...
Trying to change the copyright to a very short period implies that the United States would be leaving the Berne Convention and TRIPS and the WTO and would go about trying to renegotiate those treaties with about 200 countries all over again (and getting those treaties signed by congress)
So if Disney wants to make a TV show out of your novel series and you turn them down, I suppose they now have an alternative way of making the problem disappear and getting the outcome they wanted...
Joking aside, this idea really seems to create a perverse incentive to make authors die sooner.
I mean, I know a bunch of authors. All of them wrote because they needed to write (even the textbook authors). And almost none of them earned much of anything from it (even the textbook authors). One English prof told me that he received almost enough for his morning coffee for about three years. Then he didn't. And he drank just plain coffee.
"The problem for most artists isn't piracy, it's obscurity." "Less copyright" != "piracy", but I think it has the same effect in this case (theoretically less value placed on the work of an author, but not practically).
Also, this might be coincidence, but copyright has gotten extended at the same time as most authors have received less from publishing.
All that said, I want society as a whole to be better, people to have more opportunities to grow, good ideas more of a chance to flourish. I think that overly strong copyright fights against that. And IME (ok, secondhand experience) that 99.9% of the profits added by strong copyright goes to the publishers, not the authors.
yeah, everybody arguing in here like writers are making a living off their books
I'm 100% on board with giving publishers and huge boot and making sure their labor is properly compensated. Sadly these discussions here always tend to turn into "copyright as a concept is BS, I want to utilize knowledge immediately with no restraint".
A reverse motte and Bailey, if you will. There's a perfectly objectionable issue that we can band together to solve, ignored in liue of the extreme argument that'd take decades in court to resolve.
Not sure this argument works unless you are willing to give away the other property on death like houses, stocks, farms, etc. Maybe 60 years is too long, but that doesn't seem to be your argument.
Genuine question since I don’t know much about inheritance. Don’t things like houses, stocks, etc get taxed in certain places? Whereas I don’t think copyright does? In a way, that is similar to having to give property away upon death (can’t pay the tax, forced to get rid of it).
Income is taxed, obviously.
Copyright is taken away, originally after 14 years, now 70(?) years. After the death of the creator
its necessary to make sure dead authors have an incentive to keep on writing great books
The usual steelman I hear is that Ulysses S. Grant wrote his memoirs on his deathbed because he knew the royalties after he died would take care of his family. I grant that's a marginal case but I don't know that the CBA there actually works on long copyright's side.
you dont need copyright for that. by the time he died the family could have kept the memoirs and sold the exploitation rights to whoever wanted them. contracts are a thing.
Exactly where do "exploitation rights" come from if not copyright? Anyone who is going to enter a contract for these "exploitation rights" is going to want exclusive rights so others can't just share, republish, copy, etc. This is what copyright affords those who want to sell "exploitation rights"
Taking copyright away on death is a bad method, and that's a reasonable argument against it.
It should be a fixed term that isn't very long. And if that term ends before death and they want more money then great, write something new.
I think most people objecting to copyright lasting after death are really reacting to how long it all is, and the average amount of time that is. Some of them really don't want it to go past death, but I think most of those objectors would be fine with copyright that lasts exactly 25 years no matter what.
It is amazing that modern medicine has extended authors’ afterlife by 56 years!
Originally it was 14 years plus another 14 years of the author survived that long. Copyright in the afterlife was not a thing
It was interesting from 2010 to 2015 when all of the people who died in WWII and Holocaust lost their copyrights.
It started with Freud, and ended when Adolph Hitler and Anne Frank lost copyright protection on the same day.
What if the author/copyright holder is a corporation?
People who hold copyrights for profit tend create corporations to hold the copyrights, then just pass on shares in the company to their heirs.
These shares are valued the same as any other shares for an opaque, non-public company, with a single owner, whose assets have very ambiguous and widely disparate values, and which has the ability to cease operations for long periods of time and still remain profitable.
In other words, they’re worth whatever the owner wants them to be worth.
This is just my cynical interpretation. But if you think valuing real estate is hard, try valuing copyrights.
Copyright is literally the opposite of property rights.
Just because people call it "property rights" does not make it true.
It's as false a term as calling the events of 1939-1945 "World Peace 2".
Why is that? Property rights, like copyright, is merely a societal construct that have been agreed upon (via legislative processes).
There are countries today that does not respect copyright (or impose their own copyright rules), just like they do so for property rights.
Therefore, this copyright is _exactly_ like property rights. In fact, copyright is slightly less powerful, since they have the potential to expire unlike property rights (tho of course, under US copyright rules, the expiration seems to be getting extended every time disney starts losing theirs...).
Property rights solve the problem of physical goods being rivalrous. We can't both eat the same portion of food; if one person has it another doesn't.
Information is not rivalrous in that way: an additional person having it doesn't take it away from anyone else. Many people can read the same (e-)book.
There are other reasons why societies originally granted a completely artificial temporary monopoly on information: the theory that it'll incentivize the creation of more works, which is a thing the society might want more than they want the ability to copy and modify and remix it on day one.
Emphasis on "might" want: it's not obvious that that's the correct tradeoff today, in a world in which we have not merely the printing press but digital information that can be trivially copied and modified, and a society of people who all have the tools at their fingertips to use that information to create and remix and do wondrous creative things with all of culture.
Not literally, but in every other sense, yes. It does. You make a great idea, and someone with more money, time, and resources will mass produce your product. They become ubiquitous with the product and the creator is now disincentized from sharing more potentially great ideas.We use copyright to make sure creators aren't disincentized.
The problem isn't scarcity, but falls into the same core issue. Lots of people want thing, but the owner wants either security or compensation that it's their thing.
I'd still say so. More so today than before where it's only gotten much more expensive to live. Now we go to people outcopying each other and the creator is simply homeless.
How can we be sure of this?
Some artists create art for fame, or just to be in that zen-like zone of consciousness that happens with making art
Also, why is the current model assumed to be the best, when it is based on a lot of outdated assumptions (e.g., physical copies)?
s/countries/country/
Given the variety of agreements on international intellectual property law such as the Berne Convention, WCT, TRIPS pushed through multinational organizations like the WTO, the only country in the world with 0 copyright is the Marshall Islands (excluding audio-visual media regulated by the Unauthorized Copies of Recorded Materials Act, 1991). Even North Korea has life + 50 years.
Some countries decide to leave their copyright laws unenforced (or selectively enforced if they don't like you). Not much choice for people who don't agree with copyright law itself though.
That says nothing about the living authors.
I think a lot of the problems being discussed in sibling comments can be solved to an extent if we limit copyright to its original 14 years. That number was decided in a much, much slower age (1790). In today's world, 14 years should be ample time to monetise most creative work.
Yes, this is the correct solution - reduce copyright term.
I don't know if I agree that 14 years is right, but I'm sure that pretty much everyone can agree that 1 year is too short, and 60 years is too long.
1 year is 1 year too long, but reducing to 14 years would at least be an improvement over the current effectively perpetual system..
I just don't understand this take. Why should authors not be able to reap the economic benefits from their work? Someone write a novel and everyone else should be able to copy it? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Why wouldn't this line of reasoning apply to physical property? Why can't I just go live in any house I want? Take any car I want?
Because unlike physical property, new knowledge gets absorbed into the culture and language over time, and you cannot hold everyone who expresses it to ransom perpetually. If that were the case, consider how much of today's HN home page could be read without paying royalties.
Another way to look at this: unlike physical property, what you pay for is the novelty. And that wears off.
There's a difference between perpetuality and "1 year is too long". A year may barely be enough time to get your IP to market. Meanwhile competitors will outproduce you, sit on it, and flood the market.
In my eyes, I pay to show demand to the creator to keep doing this thing. We can certainly argue if authors get enough of this, but I don't think rewarding skilled labor is a "novelty".
In my view, we don't reward labour, we reward its output. And unlike a physical object or consumable material, the utility of this type of knowledge seem to lie in its novelty (i.e. it's not already available elsewhere). Happy to be corrected.
Not novelty otherwise random text would be valuable.
Ideally, yes. In reality, far from it. Teaching and nursing are some of the easiest examples of how this structure is fundamentally broken.
Well we don't take the time to measure the long term output of knowledge. That's a fundamental problem that goes against your view. If novelty is the value and we remove that, knowledge is no longer valuable and thus, not rewarded based on its output. Your novel research on the next iteration of AGI is no more valuable than some AI slop that spits out a recipe for a cake. And incorrectly at that.
Does that sound like a structure that can support a non-post scarcity society?
Fanciful rubbish from people who have either never put in the effort to write a book, or are so rich they don't need money from them.
Only a tiny proportion of all books ever written have made a living for their authors. Most people write because they want to.
Ideally we simply give proper attribution and prestige to those sharing ideas. But if we could do that the copyright system wouldn't be needed.
Personally, I always threw around 28 + 28 in my head (given that life expectancy in the 18th century was vastly different), with a slight twist: only the original copyright author can renew the term, and the copyright ownership in this context needs to be some sufficiently small group inventors. Anything owned by a corporation larger than X people won't renew.
So any potential transferral or relinquishing of ownership needs to at the very least appease the creator(s) so these corporations can get their other 28 years of their terms.
Physical property is zero-sum. If someone else is driving your car, you can't drive it. If you copy my PDF, I still have my PDF and can use it exactly the same. I'm only deprived of a hypothetical profit I could have made by selling that PDF to you (if you would've paid for it).
Imagine I believe that depriving people of hypothetical profits is morally wrong. By the same logic, libraries are stealing from authors by depriving them of potential sales. Peaceful protesters are stealing from retail businesses by obstructing hypothetical sales. Municipal water suppliers are stealing from bottled water companies by depriving hypothetical sales.
My logic wouldn't have internal consistency with societal norms unless I accepted that creative production is somehow unique and special, and warrants special rules to protect hypothetical profits with the threat of lawyers and state-backed violence.
Still, let's assume I agree. There are many scenarios, illegal under intellectual property law, where the author/creator isn't deprived of anything, even a hypothetical profit. Consider that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. For 70 years, the author isn't deprived of even hypothetical profit, because they're already dead.
This is a deeply unserious way to frame this; it presumes the unnatural (even if useful/positive) present state of copyright as a naturally occurring thing. It ain't.
"Why should we lessen or diminish the legal right of authors to control how copies of their work are distributed; the way we've been doing it works well."
is what you SHOULD have said. Doesn't sound as sexy, but here, the accuracy matters.
I didn't say the current system worked well, but neither was the parent post critiquing just the current system, but "purposeful restriction" in general. Accuracy matters.
I'm curious about the argument that is framed with "it presumes the unnatural (even if useful/positive) present state of copyright as a naturally occurring thing."
I don't think this should be discounted so quickly. Nothing in this domain — money, private property, laws, justice — are obviously naturally occurring things. One of the great traditions in the effort to understand how rights and value come to be is the creation of narratives that connect the rights to early natural states. We see this in Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, etc. You could just ask the question of whether the current state "works well", but then you are in the wheelhouse of Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarians. Fine, but so far these kinds of arguments don't lead to worlds many of us like.
Such a system exists. You can publish a book and give it away freely.
But few do. This is book communism and fails for the same reasons as regular communism. It is in nobody’s interest to do any hard work. If you don’t reward great effort, virtually nobody provides it.
Counterpoint that is decidedly not motivated by communism:
https://dev.realworldocaml.org/
There are many books like it, comprehensive, written with great effort, and free for anyone to read.
That isn't a counterpoint, it is exactly what OP is saying–there is already a way to give away a book for free if they author/copyright holder wants to without the IA deciding what should be free.
I think it’s pretty clear I am not saying “there outta be a way to give books away” which would be a very stupid thing for me to say.
I’m saying we should legalize the giving away of all books, but must rearrange society to ensure authors and all people still have the support the previously got from the existing system.
Engaging only with the stupid point I didn’t make is a waste of time honestly and is seriously missing the point.
There’s no way to implement this without taking away the freedoms of the author to choose how to distribute the fruits of his labor. Just because you think the world would be a better place if they all did that does not mean it’s an acceptable proposition.
In practice, almost no author gets to choose how the fruits of their labor are distributed. Their rights are gobbled up immediately by one of the big publishers, who then dispose of their captive intellectual property as they see fit.
The author chooses the publisher.
In most cases this isn't accurate. The author (or, more commonly, their agent) submits the book to several publishers, who either accept or reject or refer for edits. Unless you're in the top percentile of published authors, there's very little room for negotiation. It's pretty rare for an author to have more than one "accept" on a work simultaneously, many publishers frown on multiple submission precisely because it can lead to a bidding war.
To the publisher, if copyright was to terminate upon death, would the publisher then pay less for the works from a 70 year old author compared to a 30 year old? Or one that is fighting cancer or one that has sky diving as a hobby?
Is the value of the work of the author to be measured against their remaining lifetime?
Curiously libertarian language for supporting a system built on restricting individual freedom.
Maybe the person isn't libertarian then and you just misread said libertarian undertones? I'm not sure what's the point here, he can argue for some positions that might be libertarian in isolation, without being libertarian at all.
Do you agree that humans should be free to associate with other humans for example? Does that make you a libertarian? What about cannabis prohibition?
Agreed. In a sibling comment I just shared this lecture by a libertarian capitalist at the Mises institute arguing that intellectual property restrictions hamper capitalism.
https://youtu.be/cWShFz4d2RY
Why is it a fundamental freedom of the author to restrict who gets the freedom to share their enjoyment of the author’s works with others?
First of all I’m not saying we should do this just because it’s what I believe. I’m saying we should all actually spend time considering the value of this proposal and make up our own minds. But I’m not looking for knee-jerk responses, there’s too much at stake. We seriously need to consider the implications of the current system which requires vast stores of information that are freely available to be removed from public access.
Second, the only way authors can have this “freedom” you argue for is through vast sweeping government-mandated restrictions on and punishments for the sharing of information. Authors can only have this freedom by taking away the freedom of would-be librarians like IA, and only with massive government interventions. My proposal eliminates the need for government intervention in markets.
And this isn’t strictly some lefty idea either. I’ve really enjoyed this talk by a libertarian capitalist lawyer at the Mises Institute arguing that intellectual property as a concept hampers capitalism. It’s full of a bunch of great arguments and since you seem to be interested in this subject I’d encourage you to check it out!
https://youtu.be/cWShFz4d2RY
Ehh.. by this thread and other comments I'm not sure it is very clear. It sounds like you are saying all books should be free.
I think you may be getting a little heated around some friendly discussion. You see books different than other goods–which is great–but not everyone does. We can all still converse and hopefully all grow and understand each other better. <3
Parent is also saying that virtually nobody does it. This is not true. What I linked is one example, given away for free by an engineer at a prop trading firm and a CS professor. Similar to the linked example, we have excellent books on many technical subjects, available for free. And not because the authors are communists but because they want to share the knowledge or because it helps their broader business.
Comparing number of books released for sale vs for free, is isn't unreasonable to use the phrase "virtually nobody". I would guess less than 1% of books are released free.
That's right. There are lots of free books and still almost all books are not free. That's okay, though. People can write a book and choose what to do with it. What IA tried to do removed that option.
Many many authors publish work freely, now more than ever. Without monetary reward.
Here's a tiny tip of the massive iceberg https://independentbookreview.com/2020/07/30/10-free-literar...
Many is not a number.
Is any word a number?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_(linguistics)
I'm not sure what your point was, but mine is that it doesn't necessarily represent a significant amount.
Oh, I thought you were making a non-sequitur semantic context shift, my mistake.
Four is pretty good. Same count as it is (in English). I think it's neat.
Meanwhile the publishing houses (John Wiley & Sons) are putting out LLM generated garbage: https://zbmath.org/1532.68005
Which, ironically, cannot itself be copyrighted...
I think the point the commenter was making is, why not just archive those books in that case?
Just ignore the books with authors that have released the works for monetary gain. I don't know whether or not such an archive is at all attractive to anyone? But maybe over time it might start to move the needle?
Evidently not enough for libraries to abandon books from publishers.
If they had the selection and quality people were seeking, people wouldn’t be arguing to kill copyright but rather just pointing people to free equivalents. The Internet Archive would just distribute those alternatives.
When a free equivalent does exist, that is what happens. Nobody is demanding legislation to force Oracle to lower database licence prices. We just use Postgres.
"Such a system exists. You can publish a book and give it away freely. But few do. This is book communism and fails for the same reasons as regular communism. It is in nobody’s interest to do any hard work. If you don’t reward great effort, virtually nobody provides it."
Why does open source / free software exist then?
"Nobody puts in hard word if it's not rewarded" hasnt the cURL guy been maintaining cURL/libcurl for decades and gets paid nothing?
If you replace "nobody" with "very few people" then the statement is mostly true. The vast majority of open source software is crap. Sure, a lot of it is passion projects made by enthusiasts, and there's nothing wrong with that from an artistic hobbyist standpoint, but the quality of the software is very low.
Good and successful open source software is, in terms of numbers, rare.
Furthermore, most good FLOSS has at least some companies providing financial support, if not being almost exclusively worked on by employees of a company selling non-FLOSS software to pay the salaries of those devs.
Developers putting in hard work to write quality software for free do exist, of course, and many of them are absolute gigachads, but they're dwarfed by those actually getting paid to write software.
A lot of paid software is crap too.
I didn't state otherwise, and I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point.
Indeed. But you only need one magic product to capture a market. No one's neither jumping to nor contributing to GIMP in light of all the Adobe BS, even if they should be for the betterment of all.
Open source covers a very tiny set of use cases for software. How many paid products have an open source competitor at all? How many have a credible competitor (GIMP isn’t a credible alternative to PhotoShop for the people who pay for it for example).
It is far from rendering paid software obsolete.
And not nobody. Virtually nobody. Yes open source exists. Out of the hundreds of devs I have worked with, I know one who meaningfully participates. Say 1 in 100 devs does open source. The other 99 not writing code would lead to a massive fall off in software written.
Weird take. GIMP's been good enough for professional work for more than a decade, and lots of professionals use it. I paid for Paint Shop Pro ages ago, because it was better than Photoshop for my use cases. GIMP progressed and became better than PSP for the same. I've used it ever since. It's even been used for major motion pictures.
In the same way that software is eating the world, Free and Open Source software is eating software. Every year it does more and better. If GIMP doesn't work for your use case today, it likely will tomorrow, or the day after.
Some open source tools, like Blender, like Linux, exist at the top of their respective foodchains. Proprietary tools are working to try to compete with them.
OBS is on this list, too.
I'm not sure how we could figure out the numbers, but this just doesn't feel right. A lot of important and key paid products have open source alternatives. Some examples:
* Windows/macOS -> Linux
* Microsoft Office -> LibreOffice
* Adobe Illustrator -> Inkscape
* AutoCAD -> FreeCAD
* SecureCRT -> PuTTY, Urxvt, etc.
* Maya -> Blender
* ESXi -> Proxmox
* VMWare Player -> VirtualBox
Whether they're "credible" depends on the user and their use case. I'm sure there are plenty of things the paid products do better than their open source counterparts, but at the same time, there are likely plenty of users who don't need those features and are perfectly fine with the free alternative.
I don't doubt there are more closed source projects than open source, or that there is closed software with zero open source alternatives - just that the claim that open source is a tiny set of all software use cases doesn't seem right.
In 2018, GitHub reported on their blog [0]:
I think it's safe to say there's more than virtually nobody doing hard work in the open source world and creating gratis software.
[0] https://github.blog/2018-11-08-100m-repos/
Can't agree.
Even as recent as about one decade ago, the best way to learn a programming language is often buying a book or checking out a book from the library, because that's the only high-quality source on the topic. Since then we have had people creating complete tutorials like the Rust book and distribute it on the Internet, for free.
In the US, some professors profit from selling textbooks that get updated every few years, forcing students around the around to pay hundreds of dollars to get the latest edition. (That's still the norm.) Yet we are seeing less of that in the computer science field, especially with books like Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces ( https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/OSTEP/ ) -- the professors are literally practicing communism and giving away the book for free.
Arguably, professors are paid a salary to write those books.
The point is that they could have gone the proprietary path and earn $$$ from textbook money. Instead they are getting nothing from the material.
No, that's more like potlatch. "Book communism" would be if authors owned the printing presses. (Or maybe if printing press technicians owned the printing presses.)
Well, if its an ebook and you own the server, you own the printing press and the bookshop.
Ah, no. That isn't communism.
I don't think you know what communism is.
It's a tiresome rhetorical device these days to pretend Communism only has one narrow meaning.
It's equally tiresome to pretend everything one doesn't like is communism, when communism has been operationally dead for decades.
Ahhh we forgot about the music dark ages when piracy meant artists couldn't make a living from their art and music died completely
Most musicians don't make a living from their art, they work day jobs. That doesn't mean piracy is the only factor or a strong one, but it's part of the equation.
Most musicians make music that nobody wants to hear.
Ironically, piracy can make a musician popular, and when they're popular they can make bank doing live performances.
“Every community owns and controls the means of production upon which they depend for their survival.”
Such a system does not exist.
Your obvious point, that individual authors can publish their work freely, does little to change the system that requires government enforced punishment for people who would copy and share information available to them. But it would be unethical to pull the rug out from under authors who depend on that system today, so as I see it the best course of action is to make that system unnecessary through community support of all people, and the only ethical way I see to create that is by community ownership of the means of production.
I strongly believe this is false and nonsense. This is propaganda from people who benefit from the system that rewards owners of capital who fear community ownership of the means of production.
The Capitalist System does not imply restrictions on community ownership of the means of production. And I believe you are here not trying to appeal to a system that is completely ok with community ownership, you are trying to appeal to a system that restricts or completely bans private property on the means of production.
The problems with such systems are that they always end up with Famine and Gulags - because community ownership work and managed way worse, but the government gets all the power ower the whole economy and use it to remain in the power no matter the results
Of all the things to juxtapose as a contrast to communism and the failures of an overbearing government mucking too much in natural market forces you pick copyright?!
Yeah, copyright is a government enforced monopoly. Basically the definition of socialist government intervention in the free market. IA can produce copies for much cheaper, but the government doesn’t allow them to compete, because they want publishers to operate a welfare program for writers.
Are you kidding? It's true that few people do this in the same sense that it's true that few people publish books at all, whether they give them away freely or not.
But far more people publish books and give them away freely than publish books and offer them for money. Remember Livejournal?
We are communicating on a tech stack that TBL gave away freely.
Copyright is communism, it is the exact opposite of property rights.
Don't take my word for it: do the math yourself.
Or just repeat false slogans.
"One solution to this complicated problem is to require simultaneous, complete cooperation from everyone in a way that costs everybody money! This wild solution I came up with isn't workable, therefore there is no possible solution to this problem!"
Amazing how the open source community was a total failure as predicted!
The irony is very, very few book authors make much of any money off of their books. It's much like the athlete and musician business.
You could also loan the book to people. At which point -of course- what you're doing is called a library.
Libraries have historically not been considered communistic per se (rightly or wrongly). But they have not commonly been considered a failure.
Open source?
No such system exists.
You only talked about removing money from an individual or from one activity without addressing the entire rest of the system that still decides everything with money.
Why would you propose a stupid scenario that the commenter never described?
They never said nor even implied communism either. If they had an idea what the details would be, and those details mapped to something we already have a word for, they'd has used it.
It’s interesting how this comment veers into a completely hypothetical overhaul of society in which money doesn’t matter, for reasons which of course are hand-waved away.
On one hand: Sure! Sounds great! If someone can reinvent all of society in a way that everyone is free to do whatever they want and not worry about getting paid, then by all means let’s go for it.
On the other hand: These proposals are so fanciful and far-fetched (at least in our lifetimes) that these comments read more like a tacit admission that the current system is indeed necessary.
Spotify has a free tier where you can listen to any song for free. YouTube lets you watch almost anything for free. Both of these also pay the creators. There are many more services peddling free content and even covering hosting costs.
Libraries are free.
We have plenty of completely non-hypothetical non-society-overhauling ways to access information for free. Lots of information is free, lots of it is accessible.
Not all of the current system is equally necessary. Maybe not necessary at all, it just so happens to be the system we have now. There have been plenty of radically different models of society over the years. Yea, they're gone now, but this current one isn't particularly old either.
Just to be more concrete - if you stop using and protecting your trademark, you can lose it. If you just hoard and don't use a copyright, you won't lose it. We already have systems in place that can provide similar info exchange for free.
You're comparing to the free tiers of Spotify and Youtube, which in effect is saying that we should put ads into our books.
Libraries tend not to put ads into books to fund them.
The physical restrictions in a library - ala, only 1 person could read it at a time - is what prevents publishers from trying to charge more or prevent it.
The basic issue is that if a library is filled with electronic books, the publishers will stand to lose a lot of profit. Now I'm not arguing that they deserve this profit, but there's no good model so far that both preserves the profit motive, but also make available the copyrighted material digitally and unrestrictedly.
Perhaps there could be a form of library "fee" that is funded by tax payers, in a similar way to how public radio gets funded. The state pays some amount to each published author who make their book available in the library, from a pot of money collected from taxation.
Profit they're only getting because they figured out a way to cheat the concept of ownership and get around the first sale doctrine.
Publishers hate digital lending that doesn't give them money, even when it acts just like a physical book: one person at a time, takes hours to be restocked, etc. Restrictions like that don't stop publishers from fighting back; only precedent keeps them in check.
How do you figure we get around this problem? The ability to reshare infinite electronic copies of a work does make this a legitimate issue compared to a physical good. I don't have any good answer.
I don't have a full plan, but I know exactly where I'd start:
A scheme where you lend each copy you own to one person at a time and don't use it yourself, with them deleting the loaned copy at the end, and with a reasonably large granularity like "1 day", needs to be legal. And probably disallow publishers from blocking such a scheme.
Without draconian DRM to enforce, this is only going to work in a fantasy. I mean, piracy already exists today, and this could be achieved if people voluntarily follow these rules outlined.
Nothing stops you from copying a book or a DVD from the library, but the lending process seems to work fine for those.
The problem here isn't that we need to find a way to compensate authors for their work, it's that people can't survive without compensation, so writing for the sake of writing, without compensation, often isn't viable.
If we had some form of universal income, or other form of distribution of goods such that people didn't need to labor for a living (at least not with the current US norm of 40-50 hours a week), then it would be much more practical to say that all books are free for mass consumption. Then authors can write not for compensation, but for the pleasure of writing and knowing their works will be appreciated. And writers with a famous profile, who want the spoils of compensation, can be sponsored/patronized, like artists in the Renaissance.
They do not, they are government funded. But to say they are funded insufficiently as is (without this advent of better electronic resources) is under selling the issue.
If your local, that's called taxes. And people reaction to paying more taxes is pretty much why corporations always win. We'd rather sacrifice time with intrusive ads than pay more for a community effort.
The majority in the west value their time as basically zero. They’d rather watch 20 minutes of adverts an hour than pay a couple of dollars.
The cost of advertising on the Super Bowl is about $8/hour, so not only are people selling g their time for $8 an hour, they are then paying more than that on top in extra costs in buying things (the only reason someone advertises is because they make more profit then by not advertising, the expected return on an hour of Super Bowl adverts is more than $8 per viewer)
Adverts are a cancer on society, one we love.
I thought the same but imagine we put books in our ads(!) The newspaper is a pretty low effort barely useful thing. We could chop a book by its charters, put ads on every other page and stuff the 20 chapters into peoples mailbox. One per week. They are more likely to go on shelves than the current product has odds for eyeballs before bedding the litterbox.
An idea so terrible it might just work.
This is more amusing than anything: https://lithub.com/the-time-terry-pratchetts-german-publishe...
Just to be fair, Spotify's free teir has changed significantly and no longer let's you play a specific song anymore.
The US book market is 0.5% of the GDP. The government could subside every author with the same salary they make today and it would only be a small fraction of the amount we spend on the military.
The US subsidizing the book market would be an incredible waste of my taxes, given that the majority of published works are fiction, political drivel, and non-fiction memoirs that provide near-zero value to "humanity" that the root poster is clutching pearls about.
The IA's collection of books they had to remove almost certainly has the same composition, and therefore the same loss in value (roughly zero) after being made inaccessible.
Give people a book coupon? Then they can chose what they think important?
There's no need.
Memoirs, political books, fiction - no need for the taxpayer to subsidize, people can buy themselves.
Actually useful technical material: already available for free on the internet.
Poor people are not dying on the streets because they can't read the autobiography of the latest president. Tax dollars going to that instead of climate change or cancer research or something similar is incredibly immoral.
There were a vast number of technical books on the internet archive, that was mostly what I used it for. They’re not easily accessible elsewhere, maybe pirated from random torrent sites but they’re not discoverable or easily searched.
1. Not a fan of privation fallacy
2. Your view on books and by extension, long term education is well, short term. A classic issue used to defund libraries. You don't give proper resources and knowledge to get the homeless today off thr street. It's to ensure much less of the next generation isn't also on the street.
Oh, yes. Great idea. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/citizen-coup...
This is true of many, many careers: if you take that career in isolation, you could fund just the people in that career at their current salaries, for a tiny fraction of GDP. That doesn't scale to the entire populace, and there's no good justification for subsidizing this group and not others.
UBI, on the other hand, is entirely feasible, not least of which because it ditches the completely infeasible "at their current salary" in favor of "enough to live, not enough that most people won't want more". And you'd create substantial growth via startups and other creative endeavors. UBI gives everyone the option to try experiments that might not pay off right away.
A reason for subsiding this group but not others is that our economic system is so bad at utilizing the potential of their work.
It's literally free to distribute all books/newspapers/magazines to all people in the world. Why aren't we?
It's common to have state intervention in markets that are unable to utilize resources efficiently on their own.
About UBI, sure! The point of my comment was that this isn't a "fanciful overhaul of society" but a real possibility that could be implemented given some though and political will. UBI also fits that category, but is probably a bit more expensive and disruptive than financing authors.
How would you determine if someone qualifies as an author deserving full salary? Can I become an author by simply meeting a word count quota? What prevents a large portion of the population from quitting their jobs and becoming authors instead?
My understanding is that most bands make more on merch than the actual distribution of their music, because fans always want more and are willing to pay them directly to encourage more works.
There has to be a better way than the model we have now where everything is so tightly controlled.
You could have some kind of peer review process, or base it on popularity, or some other system.
I'm not saying it's a solved question, I'm just saying it wouldn't be that expensive relative to other public expenditure.
I'm glad that the wages for teachers come from the government. Imagine a world with only private schools.
Same with books. Easy access to books was a huge contributor to the industrial revolution and especially Germany profited from weak copyright laws. Would you rather insist on your rights for a few coins more - or transform an entire generation?
Why should we turn information into a "product", introducing scarcity where none is required? It's just a misguided attempted to force every part of society into a capitalist system, regardless of whether it makes any sense. It will probably fail in the long run anyway, since who wants to pay for something that they can get for free, even it involves circumventing the rules. How many here would pay $30 to take a casual look at a journal article, when they could get it from Sci-Hub?
If we are sticking with a mostly capitalist system so that money is so important to get things created, then a government can provide some for this purpose (and they often do already). It's not like they don't borrow or print money in whatever quantity is needed.
I suspect that it's the same issue that has led certain neoliberals and libertarians to denying that various forms of pollution are a problem. There's just no way that it can be fixed within capitalism, so better just deny that there's any problem at all.
Because expert information comes from experts who are paid a lot to do stuff not involving the authoring of their ideas. And we need to incentivize them to get said valuable information. How many people here have some novel expertise in their fields? How many would help produce technical articles pro Bono? Or for pay but end up mass pirated?
I 1000% agree the publishers themselves take way too much off the top of these authors, but the concept of "just provide knowledge out of thr good of your heart" doesn't work at scale.
Which runs into all the problems we all know too well. Something something politics, something something taxes, something something lobbying.
On top of all that, the government just simply doesn't compensate as well as the private sector. I'm not sure if this will ever change.
Are we sure about this? It seems to me that a lot of those experts become experts despite the incentive structures that they are in. And, there are those to-be experts who had to quit, because they didn't have enough resources to fight the established “incentive” structures. Maybe if we could let people do what they could become an expert in, we would all be better off.
There will always be nigh-altruistic people, but I'm talking more in tiers than absolute:
1. How many people can and do become experts?
2. How many of those experts interact at all outside of their career? Even just posting about work rants on social media?
3. Of 2), how many take the time to author any sort of content on the side? From an unknown blog to a conference talk to podcasts, contributing to open source,, etc. we can break this down further to those who do it outside of the company sponsoring them to do so.
4. Of 3), how many go on to extensively share knowledge? In things like journals or technical deep dives or books? Things that take months of the writing process to formalize
5. And lastly how many of 4) would happen without any sort of incentive structure? No grants, no compensation, no time off work to do this, etc.
I'm mostly talking about group 5 here, and then dividing it into 6) how many of those would then be okay with people (mostly other companies) immediately implementing those ideas, potentially making millions while they may not even get shallow platitudes of thanks? It feels like exploitation of their knowledge, and depending on the product it may indeed be) have some ethical quandary the creator fundamentally disagrees with. But it's for "the advancement of humanity" so the just need to accept that and let people extract their knowledge.
It'll vary by industry, yes. I'm sure authors don't write expecting to make the next Dune. But in the context of this audience: I have definitely seen enough discussion here and on other social media that I wouldn't be uncomfortable asserting that a good 70% of tech workers would not be here without high compensation to education ratio (and I apologize for not providing any hard evidence, this is simply a gut feeling from my own statistical samples from years of discourse). Many people are indeed here for the money first and foremost.
I don't disagree, I'd love a post scarcity society that doesn't need to perform labor to survive. But that's an even loftier goal than abolishing copyright.
I can see other crowds completely disagreeing with the notion of "not all knowledge is equal", however. Definitely a savory group out there that believe that everyone needs to contribute to society somehow and not "leech off our taxes".
It’s a shame we still haven’t built a simple, universal direct payment system that anyone can use to send money to anyone else. By simple I mean my grandparents can figure it out themselves so don’t say bitcoin.
Why should that incentive take form of making information a product?
"just provide knowledge out of thr good of your heart" is a gross misrepresentation of what the person before said, and you even quote the passage indicating as much.
It seems like you're trying to portray the problem as a dichotomy: "product" vs "goodness of heart". That other ways pose problems doesn't mean much. The current side of the false dichotomy causes problems as in the OP.
All information is freely available somewhere in /dev/random. It is worth some value to share the more interesting offsets.
Now I'm not saying that capitalism is the best way to distribute this value, but at least some effort is required in curating all knowledge.
Can you prove your first statement? I assume you cannot as it's nonsense. Lookup how /dev/random is not really random, but relies on interrupts occuring at random timestamps.
That's like saying f(x)=x is a random function, if x is random.
It is quite similar to the infinite monkey theorem, and as it does require infinite time, it is indeed slightly nonsensical.
Substitute the Library of Babel¹ for /dev/random and the point still stands.
¹ https://libraryofbabel.info/
I don’t really understand this logic. Are you saying that multi generational projects are… well I don’t really know what you’re saying. When the world was dominated by the divine right of kings, and changing that was going to take hundreds of years… should people not have discussed what to do to move down a better path?
My plan as a robotics engineer is to prove that open source robotics can be a viable industry by building open source farming robots (see my profile) so that a generation of children grow up understanding that community owned community built robotics are a perfectly viable option, and we don’t need venture capital for robotics infrastructure development.
There’s a generation of adults today who grew up watching Carl Sagan’s COSMOS from 1980 and are now adults working in law to combat climate change - a major call to action in his show the fruits of which Sagan would never live to see.
I fully believe that the world I advocate for will never be fully realized by the time I die. This does not discourage me from laying the ground work and having the conversations. Just as I am working on open source robotics for farming, I encourage other people to contribute to open culture so that we can some day build a better world.
In fact that’s what the people at the internet archive are doing too. Building a better future by fighting now to establish precedent and prove to people what is possible. Human lifetimes are short and I see no reason to restrict our projects to things which can be achieved today.
I think yours is a noble goal that many do share, even if they don't openly express it.
Thank you, that means a lot to me.
Super solarpunk, I love it.
Yusss thank you! I love it too. I’m workin on it right now. :)
Have you heard of the Global Village Construction Set? I think you’ll appreciate it.
We could. But historically, it ends in a bloody battle of nobles vs nobles and sometimes they break off and become the next generation of noble. Despite the name, their goals are not necessarily that.
What ultimately discourages me is that the person who does this will not reao the rewards they sow. On the contrary, the next generation noble may contort it into something absolutely dysyopic.
Conversation doesn't mean much without action. But us non-nobles talking about bloodshed is seen as passe and uncouth. Not much will happen until we take it back by force (not necessarily violent, but a huge, unignoreble gesture coordinated by millions... A very hard problem to do as a grassroots movement)
Yes, I agree with you about this comment specifically. But on this issue in particular, we do not need to overhaul society so drastically. We have laws about lending out books one has purchased. We have laws about how long copyright should last. We can change these laws but still retain much of their benefit while allowing much more freedom to access knowledge.
There is a line here and we may be walking too far on one edge of it. But the comment you replied to does have a utopian tone far from the pragmatism this case actually revolves around.
Most financially successful humans only care how to increase their already huge amount of money. they do not give a flying fuck about advancing humanity as a whole.
The neato thing about free markets is in order to make more money you have to please other people so those people will freely give you their money.
That works until you capture the market. That's the entire phenomenon aroind the poorly named "enshittification".
Companies have in fact figured you can be too big to fail and wait until they get their to no longer "please other people" and squeeze them. Or at least, get away with otherwise company killing moves for years longer than they should.
That was said about IBM. It was inevitable it was going to take over the world, an unstoppable juggernaut.
Yet it faded away into irrelevance.
Plenty of other examples.
That's the thing, though. IBM faded into... A 62B earnings call for 2023. I sure wish that's how I could fade if I sold out.
Not being in the limelight doesn't mean these old juggernaut aren't still making more money than some small countries. Very few companies that you feel are "dead" are truly in dire straits financially. They've mad their money and still make a non-negligible amount today in the background
Intel has also faded away. As did Sears, Kodak, Xerox, GE, even Walmart was eclipsed by Amazon. Disney has lost its footing. AT&T. Novell. Cisco. Kmart. RCA.
Capitalism has been in the US for what, 250 years? You'd think the theory that capitalist businesses grow to take over the world would have been repeatedly verified by now.
Nope. Comparatively to what it used to be some 25 years "pleasing" factor went down the tubes. In many cases modern capitalism looks more and more like an extortion business
Do you buy things you don't want?
[citation needed]
Do we really need a citation on how corporations are run, and what they do to constrain innovation?
I'm sorry, I didn't read "most financially successful humans" to mean corporations.
Look around and see what big corporations are doing. You woll be flooded.
It might take decades and billions of dollars to prove a molecule can cure disease XYZ. Once you know the molecule, copying it is cheap. Only intellectual property rights can provide the incentive to find said molecule, safe in the knowledge that once it is found, all of the costs can be recouped plus profit.
That is the clear-cut case for intellectual property, but it’s the same principle for books. I’m not going to write a book that takes tons of effort and exposes my hard-won knowledge if I can’t profit from it, despite how easy it is to copy text. Food for thought
It’s true that copyright and patents make pursuing certain risky (from a monetary perspective) innovations that are valuable to society worthwhile. But they’re only one way of solving that problem. We choose to apply copyright almost universally, even to innovations and ideas that don’t suffer from high capital risk, and would be worthwhile to pursue without copyright or with shorter copyright. Why not instead subsidize R&D for successful drugs (a lot of drug research in the U.S. is already publicly funded).
It seems to me that it’s an exceptional case that there’s some idea that’s would benefit society but is only economically viable under the current copyright regime. But our laws apply protections that are only needed in this rare instance to all ideas. I highly recommend “Against Intellectual Monopoly” by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. It changed how I view IP a great deal, and the final chapters are dedicated to how we could practically transition away from our current system.
The government is political. When you make things political, it has requirements separated from the profit motive.
I’m not an anarchist. I think the government has its place. But it’s undeniable that a lot of fundamental research is held hostage by politics: Certain ideas are in vogue and get funded, while the new ideas and those pursuing them must wait, or perhaps never get funded for whatever political reason.
The profit motive enables risk takers to get funded with high risk, high reward ideas. If there was no way to capture that profit, we would be subject to political whims for the most important innovations for society.
I don’t entirely disagree - subsidies aren’t a perfect solution. But the current system is so far from perfect that I think considering alternatives is worthwhile.
I’d be curious how many actual world-changing innovations were ONLY pursued because of the existence of copyright, that don’t belong to a class of innovation (like pharmaceuticals) that could have a solution, whether copyright, subsidies, or something else applied to the industry as a whole. I don’t doubt that there are some, but I would be shocked if their benefit isn’t dwarfed by the innovation lost to the anticompetitive nature of patents and copyright.
You don’t get more golden eggs by killing the goose who lays them.
Also the IA book UI was terrible.
Is the goose here the publisher? Or the author? If it’s the latter, then would killing the publisher necessarily dictate that the author also must die?
The goose is the entire book publishing system. Do editors, typesetters, cover artists, indexers, fact checkers, proofreaders, etc not add value to be recompensed? Is copyright (the exclusive right to make copies) not the sole fulcrum upon which rests the author and many others integral to books as we know them? Unlike music, it’s uncommon for authors to go on tour selling tickets and merch.
Yeah I genuinely cannot understand that comment.
Oh, hello there, dear communism. Same dream, same problems. No, this time around you don’t work either.
This subjective labelling contributed nothing to the conversation. Back up your statement.
This is objectively false. There zero actual harm being done here. There is very little, if any, evidence that the vast majority of the 500k removed books contain information that actually provides value to people, as opposed to being fiction and political advocacy non-fiction (for instance, the vast majority of the list of 1300 "banned and challenged books" (that contains many duplicates and is shorter than IA claims)[1] that the IA is clutching their pearls over are almost exclusively non-informational) that result in zero harm when taken away from people.
You also pointedly ignored the fact that the greatest repository of knowledge in human history, by orders of magnitude, is the Internet - even if you restrict yourself to the parts that people have voluntarily made free, you still have the ability to learn everything you need to live a comfortable life, and learn more than you have time for in a thousand lifetimes.
Demanding that the entertainment works that authors wrote with the express intention of making money (and who did not consent to their work being put on IA) be made freely available, regardless of the massive amount of information already voluntarily made free on the Internet that serves almost every need you have (learning to sew, fixing a leak, doing your taxes, getting the equivalent of a PhD in math), is the absolute peak of entitlement.
The only vaguely reasonable vector adjacent to your argument is that academic publishers make their papers freely available, because that's actual human knowledge (and because the funding for the research doesn't come from the publishers).
Now you're just advocating communism, which is one of the actual greatest human follies of all time, and has resulted in tens of millions of deaths and the suffering of hundreds of millions more.
This comment is utterly inappropriate for HN. It is naked political advocacy that is emotionally manipulative, factually incorrect, and contains zero content that aligns with HN's goals of "stimulating intellectual curiosity".
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vR_xj-6S...
There was a Wiley translation of an 80s Russian textbook I needed for my research that was nowhere on libgen and which I could only get via ILL. The library yelled at me for making physical copies but IA had it.
This is exactly how people stayed in power. Knowledge is power, so keep the masses uneducated so they are subservient. I once asked an Englishman why if the British Empire was so great did all of its colonies revolt against it. His response was not what I expected when he said they taught them how to read.
So watching how the school systems keep getting dumber really does get those conspiracy theory synapses firing. Make great again by taking power away from people really goes towards that.
Actually, knowledge is freedom.
Terror makes them subservient. See the Soviet Union's gulags, full of educated people.
Maybe we should do software first. I see no reason why I should not get copies of all binaries and all source code for any and every service I use upon request. And even copies of databases backing them when requested. Then I could simply replicated it in my own environment or roll up competing service. And as for data, what is privacy anyway. If you want the data be private don't generate it... /s
Sadly I feel like Poes law hits here. I do see a few borderline argue such a case.
They must have no products of their own nor care how the people behind the knowledge they consume make a living.
Your obvious conclusion that automation is the answer would be anathema to others who wish to maximize the number of people under their control and the amount of “work” they are doing. It’s a relatable mistake, many people including myself assume everyone thinks like they do before they are sorely disillusioned by rough contact with reality. Don’t make the mistake of thinking your side is in the majority either and that removing opposition or changing minds would be an achievable task.
If you want to build something you’ll need to strike out on your own and take only those who follow you into the wilderness.
Who wrote that (sorry - EDIT) errr am I holding it upright .... bollocks? 8)
"Library genesis exists but necessarily must hide and create some friction in the discovery process."
Really!
Personally speaking, I'm fucking incensed that ... <fill in usual argument here>
Feel free to start, just don't force anyone into it, and take a honest look at past examples and their outcomes.
This has been imagined many times. It's called Marxism. It's been tried, too, innumerable times. But the anticipated utopia never happened, and the people were far worse off than for-profit free markets.
However, the idea of "intellectual property" is a pure invention. There's zero evidence that IP laws actually promote the creation and distribution of creative works. But there is evidence that the free flow of ideas enhances prosperity.
I assert this as a person who made his living creating IP.