Is it legal? No, not as the law currently stands. You can support Robin Hood, but you shouldn't be shocked when Robin Hood is caught and sent to jail. It was a mistake and a huge legal risk for IA to do this. It could easily have brought down the whole organisation, and all that they've archived to date.
I wish a fraction of the people who are upset about this would actually commit a portion of their time to lobbying and organising for copyright reform. Copyright terms are too damn long, by half a century and then some. This isn't some iron law of nature, this could easily be changed if there were enough of a push for it.
On March 24, 2023, the Internet Archive was found liable for copyright infringement under that section by a federal court, in an order granting a motion for a summary judgment.[0] A summary judgment means that there is no genuine dispute about facts, and the plaintiffs (the people suing the Internet Archive) are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.[1]
It is your prerogative to feel that you're better qualified to interpret federal law than a federal court is, but it is fairly misleading to say that it is not at all clear what the law is here, when a court decision exists on these exact facts.
Should the law be changed? Yes, in my opinion. Is there much dispute over what the law is? No, not really.
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53...
[1] Other common law jurisdictions use clearer language to describe summary judgments: in the UK and Australia, for example, a summary judgment is granted when a party has "no reasonable prospects of success" and there is no point in going to trial. These exact words aren't used in the US, but they give a reasonable indication of how summary judgments are used in practice.
None of this is legal advice.
You are welcome to argue it as a matter of culture (and I'm inclined to agree and cheer you on) but from a legal perspective, Brewster should be removed and they need to find competent people to put on the board because they really did put the entire organization at risk over an idiotic decision. And the ramifications continue.
Internet Archive's "we own a copy of a book, we scan it and loan out one digital copy" policy was already on shaky ground. When Covid hit and everyone lost their minds, letting homeless people sleep on the stairs of their building apparently wasn't enough so they just turned into The Pirate Bay and loaned out infinite copies of everything.
In discovery for the case, it turned out they weren't even tracking the "we own one copy" part to begin with correctly. None of this should be surprising to anyone who actually attempts to use the site. The whole thing is duct tape and string.
They have a tiny budget and the do amazing things with it, but it really deserves to be treated like a business and not be run like an art project. If they wanna stick your neck out and push for CDL reform, great. Just do it under a different LLC so you don't tank the 50 other important things you've got going on. And it's time for Brewster to move on. In any other non-profit he'd be gone by now.
The world locked down u necessarily precisely because the population has not been getting smarter the past 50 years because copyright has poisoned our information wells.
This is a fight worth having.
It's time to abolish copyright.
It would be like if Mozilla decided to stop taking any google funding overnight because they felt like their values didn't fit with Google's. Sure, it would be well intentioned. But then you also guaranteed that Firefox won't be able to exist for more than a few weeks. Deciding to unilaterally reproduce (by way of unlimited lending without the copies to back said lending) books is the legal equivalent to doing that. It would be a nice thing to have, but it's not something you get by just getting wrecked in an open and shut case in court.
That would be the best thing that could happen to Mozilla becose then the vultures would move on and the project could get back to its mission without the MAJOR conflict of interest fucking up their incentives.
> But then you also guaranteed that Firefox won't be able to exist for more than a few weeks.
Firefox doesn't need Mozilla to continue existing. But even if it died that would at least make space for an alternative that isn't just controlled opposition doing the bare minimum to protect Google from antitrust lawsuits while continuuously disrespecting user choices and preferences.
Literally everyone here has already stated that they agree with you on this. There's no controversy upthread about whether copyright law needs to be reformed, the controversy is over whether it made sense to risk the entire Internet Archive (whose most important contribution to the knowledge of mankind has nothing to do with online lending) or if it should have been fought by an organization that was built to fight it.
Their instinct to help is admirable, but their lack of restraint shows a major lack of judgment and very well could have put their archives of the internet at risk. Not every nonprofit organization can do everything.
Finding representative cases to fight over and create precedent is a common strategy that exposes you to less risk if you lose.
I don't like that the IA risked the actual internet archive with this or that they chose to engage in DRM at all but let's be reall: "competent people" would have sold the IA to the advertisement moloch or another horror of modern civilization long ago. The IA does need a leader that puts principles above financial security.
> it really deserves to be treated like a business
That would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to the IA.
> And it's time for Brewster to move on. In any other non-profit he'd be gone by now.
Consider doing something worthwile of your own instead of trying those who have but aren't perfect enough in your opinion.
IANAL, but:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
What the Internet Archive did (loan many digital copies based on one physical copy) is illegal as the law stands today.
This is about sound recordings rather than books, but one of the more insane features of US copyright law is that the copyright status of sound recordings made before 1972 is governed by state rather than federal law, and many states are thought to have no applicable statute. Some of these states determine copyright status for these works by deferring to federal law, which does not cover them.
Agreed. But the problem here is not the daring action but linking it to a sadly unique resource.
> You can support Robin Hood, but you shouldn't be shocked when Robin Hood is caught and sent to jail.
You can however still protest robin hood being sent to jail and you can shame the fat nobles calling for robin hood to be hanged and you can grab the pitchforks and make sure they loose more than they gain. The law is meaningless if it doesn't have the support of the people. Copyright is already routinely ignored by almost everyone when its convenient (outside commercial activity).
Lobbying is all well and good but that's the corporations' turf. Nothing wrong with deciding not to play their game and choose other ways to fight the absurd copyright laws.
No, not “almost certainly.”
I think they pushed the limit of what should be legal, especially since they were digitizing print books and lending those out as ebooks.
The lending out more copies than they bought part is what there are some good arguments against.
Legality aside, why is this acceptable for banks but not books?
Banks can create money out of nothing to enrich themselves, but libraries can't lend out more books than they have to enrich society?
Contemporary copyright law is pernicious and IMO if not drastically reformed soon, will be made moot and obsolete by genAI.
Others are enriched by the made up money the banks lend out, too. The people who buy homes, start businesses, go to college, etc.
But yeah, I think otherwise you have a decent understanding of it.
Yes.
> Why shouldn't they be allowed to do this
They bought a paper book, not the right to lend out an ebook.
Sure, I disagree but whatever. Your license to play in this case shouldn’t extend to lending those MP3s that can easily be copied by as many people as you can “lend” those MP3s to.
> The contents is the thing that deserves protection
Also I disagree with this. The content doesn’t “deserve” to be protected.
As for lending, there is very little difference between lending a physical medium and expecting it to be returned and sending a digital asset and expecting it to be deleted afterwards. In both cases you have basically no way of preventing someone from making a copy and have to just trust them and/or dangle the threat of legal action over them. Yes, some things are more effort to copy than others, but with modern phones and OCR, even books can be digitised and copied in a matter of minutes and with no material cost.
So practically, if we wanted to prevent copying, we shouldn't allow lending at all. And I think that would be too important of a thing to sacrifice just to get authors a few extra percent in income (since, as we've seen, people who pirate are not very likely to buy if piracy isn't an option).
I disagree with this as well. “Works” don’t deserve anything. Stuff comes and goes.
> So practically, if we wanted to prevent copying, we shouldn't allow lending at all.
Who said we wanted to prevent copying?
IMO we want to prevent cmd+c / cmd+v copying or trivial DRM breaking with Calibre or something. If somebody wants to snap photos of each page of a book to “preserve the work” go nuts. But then don’t go sharing the MOBI they make of those pages.
This really is the crux of the problem. Copyright should be "use it or lose it." If you don't make your books readily available, then you should have no right to demand copies of your book be removed from places like IA. It's not like these publishers are losing any money from books that literally nobody can purchase.
What if an author explicitly doesn't want to distribute their works or to distribute an alternative version of their works? There was the recent case of the company that owns the rights to Dr. Suess choosing not to publish old versions of books they felt had racist depictions.
And who sets the standard for readily available? If I offer my book for sale for $100 is it readily available? At what price is something no longer readily available? Does it depend on the type of book? What if it's for sale broadly but not in the state where you live? What if it's free but must be read in person and cannot be taken home with you?
Too bad. Once you publish it the first time, the cat is out of the bag. Eventually it's going to go into the public domain whether you like it or not.
> And who sets the standard for readily available? If I offer my book for sale for $100 is it readily available? At what price is something no longer readily available? Does it depend on the type of book? What if it's for sale broadly but not in the state where you live? What if it's free but must be read in person and cannot be taken home with you?
Good question but can definitely be decided. $100 is probably fine. Regulators can decide. Yes. Not good enough. Not good enough.
We have frameworks for mandatory music licensing, we can do more things like that.
I'm genuinely wondering , because to me there's a clear parallel yet in tech circles we almost always see defense of copyleft code (which I totally agree with, I'm extremely pro GPL) and a very heavy bias towards maintainers. I know GPL code is already free but we are talking automatically putting copyrighted/licensed material in the public domain which isn't GPL compatible.
The whole thing that allows copyright in the US is in the Constitution:
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The original term was 14 years, with one 14 year renewal allowed.
This was probably a little short, in my opinion. 25+20 seems reasonable; most works have no commercial value after 25 years, and 45 years is already a long time to keep things that have become cultural touchstones locked up. The present legal regime of life of the author plus 70 years is clearly excessive.
> but we are talking automatically putting copyrighted/licensed material in the public domain
This already happens: just after an unreasonably long period of time.
> which isn't GPL compatible.
Code which is in the public domain is freely compatible with code under the GPL.
The whole point is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Stuff kept locked away beyond its useful commercial life is no longer promoting progress (the authors have already gotten paid anything they're going to get). Indeed, most of present works borrow deeply from the public domain but the authors seek to only return the same favor to future authors in a few generations.
How long should Nintendo be able to rent-seek and convince/force the same people to buy the original Super Mario Bros. over and over again? Should that be done in 2030, or 2080? What about operating systems of the 1980s-- should they be locked up to 2090, even though no one will sell them to you?
At some point, there are substantial impediments to legitimate archival and research purposes; to keeping existing important systems working; and to allowing the free exploration and creativity that comes from remixing and building upon past works.
> This was probably a little short
Strongly disagree. And for anything that's distributed digitally it's an eternity.
The goal should be that as an adult you can build on the things you grew up with as a child. Anything longer than that is absurd. Remember that copyright is an infringement on your right to free speech so should need extraordinary evidence for that any additional second of the copyright term actually fulfils its constitutional purpose. You don't need to allow maximum commercial exploitation to encourage more works. In fact I would question if commercial exploitation is something that needs to be made possible at all considering that humans are naturally driven to be creative and we have a giant corpus of creative works to fall back on which can now be copied and distributed easier than ever.
The current terms that won't even let your grandchildren benefit from the work your generation funded are an outright affront to the spirit of the constitution. At this point we would be better off scrapping the whole concept of copyright.
On the flip side, there's a fair bit of fiction, etc, where the same author has been acting as steward of the series for 35 years. Having them still get proceeds from book 1 is an important part of the calculus to continue. There's a balance to be struck here.
I do think there should be a significant fee at renewal.
> The current terms that won't even let your grandchildren benefit from the work your generation funded are an outright affront to the spirit of the constitution.
The current terms are absurd, agreed.
> At this point we would be better off scrapping the whole concept of copyright.
Nah; I like there being a market to make expensive works of intellectual property, which depends upon copyright.
Well the GPL code was never being sold in the first place, so these rules might not apply at all. And it's still available the same way it always has been, so that suggests no need for intervention. Alternatively it would make sense to treat source code differently from books and photos and music and movies.
> lose its license after an arbitrary period of time
Of course GPL code would become public domain after an arbitrary period of time, that's how public domain works. In the year 2024, why shouldn't anyone be able to reuse 1997 linux code or pieces of windows 95 in their own programs?
This is actually exactly why I agree with OP. See also the changes made to Roald Dahl books. Future generations deserve to be able to read the content that their forebears produced as they produced it.
I'm supportive of an author's right to not initially publish something that they at the time are uncomfortable with being made public. There should be protections for that. But once something has entered into the public consciousness in a particular form, I'm not okay with a cultural censorship wave being able to memory hole the original copy and replace it with a sanitized version (or wipe it out entirely). They shouldn't be obliged to print content that they find objectionable, but that content needs to be accessible or we lose our history.
Messy and uncomfortable as it is, future generations have a right to see us as we were and are, not as the second-generation holder of our too-long copyright wishes we had been.
If yes, then how do you regulate who is or is not allowed to transfer ownership of rights to or from whom?
It sounds like the suggestion is that retracting / completely discontinuing a book should only be part of the moral rights, not the economic rights.
I'm not sure how feasible that is, but it's not totally unprecedented. For example, one of the moral rights recognized by many countries is the right not to have your works destroyed. E.g. even if someone else owns the physical object of your painting, they are not allowed to set it on fire, and you could sue them if they did.
It shouldn't be part of any rights. At best the author should be able to demand to not have his name associated with the work.
Why? What do we as a society gain by allowing individuals continued control over parts of our culture include the ability to erase them.
Then they should lose the rights of the originals. The point of copyright is to enrich society not to satisfy any want of the author.
Which is basically how trademarks are. So we even already have a system in place to manage something like this.
A publisher "stopping printing" of a book is completely normal - books are like any other mass-produced good, in that there are fixed and variable costs to production and a factory can't economically crank out more than a certain number of different things at once.
Sp, there are "printings" - ie a production run - and then that inventory is sold to distributors. When the inventory is sold out, it is "out of print." That does not mean it's not available - there's still stock at distributors. And likely on shelves.
When it sells out at distributors, then it is backordered.
It is completely normal for a publisher to wait until they feel there is enough pent-up demand for another printing - increasing the size of the printing to improve per-copy profit (or make it economically viable at all), and then sell it to distributors because the distributors think they can sell the inventory at a high enough rate.
Distributors don't want to keep around books that don't sell very fast, because that means they don't have warehouse space for books that do sell quickly. And if they have books that don't sell and need the warehouse space, the books might get remaindered (sold to a low-budget distributor for sale at well below original price) or destroyed (cover stripped as proof of destruction and the rest destroyed/recycled.)
Things have changed with digital press technology improvements, opening the door to more print-on-demand books - but printing one copy will never be anywhere close to as cheap as printing, say, 1000 copies.
There are also other reasons it might not be for sale, despite the author trying / wanting to sell it.
If you know nothing about how book printing, publishing, distribution, buying, and retail works - you probably shouldn't be forming opinions on how it should be subject to radically different regulation, much less offering them up.
https://pinestatepublicity.substack.com/p/book-distribution-...
Also keep in mind that, for many of the books, the authors are dead.
I disagree that requring the customer to have a continued business relationship to retain the work should count as it being readily available.
> Publishers want
> Distributors want
So? I too want a golden goose protected with force by the government at no cost to me. What does the rest of society gain from this deal?
Makes you wonder: Do they even have data on their business growth factors? I don't but I'd guess that:
1. nobody is printing downloaded books
2. instead, people like me _buy_ printed books after browsing through them online
LibGen/IPFS is heavily biased toward books from the past ~3 decades, especially books that are cracked EPUB's and PDF's.
IA seems to be much more scans of library books from ~1930-1980, many of which are out of print and probably only available to you via interlibrary loan, which you might wait a month for.
IA is a huge boon for academic research when you need to go back to midcentury books. I don't know which 500K the IA is being required to remove, but I'm very worried.
Like this: https://archive.org/details/landau-and-lifshitz-physics-text...
Where LibGen only has the first volume in French and Portuguese only...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707084 (4 days ago, 48 comments)
If you are upset about this, commit to seeding as many of these as you can until the IA service is restored.
Very different sets of books. I don't see how this will help. LibGen isn't going away, not that I'm aware of.
IA is mostly full-color scans of old library books.
I've never come across an IA scan on Libgen. Libgen is mostly EPUB's, native PDF's, and the occasional black-and-white high-contrast PDF scan.
Is this some legal angle I’m missing which benefits the plaintiffs in some way?
The product of public domain materials can be copyrighted. For example, if someone were to publish a new book of Tom Sawyer whose text is in the public domain, that book can be copyrighted. Everyone can still publish their own new books of Tom Sawyer using the public domain materials, but noone can copy that book of Tom Sawyer.
One of my books is on Anna's Archive. Since I give them away for nothing on my website, it's more flattering than anything. :)
2. Information and knowledge is for all.
3. The line to draw is 10 years to commercialize, and then release into public domain. Statute of Anne was 14 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne), but 10 is better for today's age.
I'd vote for politicians who push for laws like this. Sadly none do.
Even so, I think in most cases if a piece of software has been unedited for 10 years it’s either feature-complete or obsolete. If it’s been under development for those 10 years, the original version being released into the public domain probably isn’t a significant threat to innovation by way of closed source improvements being made.
The issue here isnt the IA's provision of brand new books that are still being published; this few would say should be legal. We're talking dead authors, books no longer in print, or books published so long ago that the second-hand market (which offers no pay to the author) is the place to find them.
As soon as works transition to "second-hand markets" we're no longer talking about the labour of the author being remunerated. At this point, it's pretty clear that it's a net benefit to society to make creative works publically available.
2. LLMs are an incredible step forward in humanity's progression.
3. 10 years from publishing, then public domain afterwards. The content must be commercialised to have copyright; if it's available for free, it should already be public domain, because copyright is supposed to help you make money, not help you control the use of information.
It's a great source of English books for us. Our city library is good, but it doesn't have thousands of picture books.
Libby has about 15 books. We borrow them often enough that it gives the error message that they are unavailable to borrow :/
If it isn't, a tighter awareness of what is in print and out of print might be able to cut into those 500K, if at all possible. If lending is out, best to be aggressive with what's left.
> That's why current copyright status should be the bar --- that or granted permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright terms are nearly infinite at this point.
Mary Bono, speaking to the House of Representatives:
> "Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
7 Oct 1998 Congressional Record, Vol. 144, page H9952.
The absolute contempt for the constituion required to even propose this is stunning.
It's also the result of an international consensus:
It makes it beneficial to not reprint anything or otherwise be available.
They believed they had the legal right to distribute the books.
You can read the whitepaper about it here: https://controlleddigitallending.org/whitepaper/
I feel that IA erred very badly in lifting the one-to-one correspondence that is at the heart of "controlled digital lending" (https://controlleddigitallending.org). It is frankly annoying that they did that, and then still purport to be doing CDL, even though the CDL website clearly states the 1:1 "owned-to-loaned" ratio is a key part of the CDL platform.
For the record I'm extremely pro CDL, but I feel the IA did not do any favors to the CDL movement with this boneheaded "activist" implementation of CDL
I'm tired of watching old shows that have had music redubbed because of the labyrinthian copyright conditions that inherently arise in composite works.
speaking from a myopic view, in an age where source code can be freely distributed while maintaining ownership and rights*, why do literature have so much gatekeeping digitally?
while the authors that make their digital versions freely available bestow some trust on the other end (please don't print our work and sell it), simultaneously they can often benefit during the editorial process (many books are available this way before final publishing). moreover, if you write a work of fiction, nobody can run and create a movie based on it just because you can read the book for free.
this was a good opportunity to set precedence, but it has gone the other direction.
Here's the plain truth: IA ran a gigantic book piracy site during covid. They should've known they won't get away with it. I remember several authors begging them not to do this because it affected their income. I personally thought it monumentally stupid to put the Wayback Machine at risk.
They said, there are enough physical books in closed libraries to cover their lending. That's not how this works. They should've asked the publishers for permission first if necessary putting pressure on them via public. This is not a case of it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission because they must have known they won't be forgiven for this. I can't even.
I am not saying this is by any means moral or right. I am saying: this is the law. They actually got relatively lucky for not being fined to oblivion for this.
This dumb move was an existential risk putting all their other work in danger.
If it were just over the emergency library, the court would end the restrictionless lending and likely issue a fine. Instead, the court ruling was that CDL was illegal, and only mentioned the National Emergency Library to say "as CDL was already illegal, it was also illegal." There also would likely be a fine, but the case is being appealed.
My impression is that publishers were willing to look the other way when IA was distributing a small # of rare/out of print books, but once IA's homepage became unlimited copies of Harry Potter they felt like a line had been crossed.
The NEL was a PR boon for publishers, allowing the narrative to be "the IA deserved it for the few weeks they allowed a couple hundred copies of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe be unfairly borrowed." But it's irrelevant to the actual lawsuit.
And even worse, it was an epic strategic blunder. A campaign of "in this emergency, we would love to share books, but publishers don't agree" would've put massive pressure on publishers. They could've had a shot at advancing the legal situation of digital lending. Instead they opted for a publicity stunt.
Yes, sure, people couldn't go to libraries. That's when you collaborate with Project Gutenberg to address the actual need for reading material, highlight great free books, and keep hammering "and we could also lend you XYZ, if publishers only worked with us".
Then you reach out to publishers like Tor, who are already leaning further on the "unencumbered access" spectrum. And work out a deal with them. Promoting their books in return for larger lending count. Giving people the opportunity to buy additional copies for the digital library. (There's plenty of folks in the donor list)
And you continue saying "Hachette, HC, Wiley, and Penguin still don't want you to read their books".
Yes, what they did was the most idealistic approach. Sometimes, pragmatism is better in the long run.
> "We use industry-standard technology to prevent our books from being downloaded and redistributed—the same technology used by corporate publishers," Chris Freeland, IA's director of library services, wrote in the blog. "But the publishers suing our library say we shouldn’t be allowed to lend the books we own. They have forced us to remove more than half a million books from our library, and that’s why we are appealing."
Is the "lend the books we own" part somehow inaccurate? I'm assuming IA has some sort of claim to the books they're lending and scanned, similar to any physical library. This seems very different from "a gigantic book piracy site".
Furthermore, I'd argue removing access to those books on IA will likely lead to one of the following:
A. people will fall back to actual piracy through other means to get the same content "even less legally" through well known alternatives
B. people simply not being able to access the content, e.g. if it's out of print , not available locally, or only available used for some exorbitant cost that wouldn't go to the publisher
C. people will spend whatever the publisher charges by buying from them directly
My understanding is that A and B are way more likely than C, since the vast majority of books on IA's website include out of print and hard to get books.
Controlled digital lending was tolerated. It was never legal.
I can't buy a bunch of DVDs and start a streaming service even if a each copy can only be watched by a single person at a time.
It really sucks since they do a lot of good work aside from this.
With IA's loss, publishers get to control the way libraries lend digital media because you can't take a hardcopy and legally "scan" it into a digital copy, so the only way to get a digital copy for lending is as a DRMed product from a publisher that does things like, for instance, expire after a certain number of loans.
Publishers considered scanned digital copies controlled by libraries to be a threat to their monetization efforts surrounding digital lending and they would eventually have sued IA regardless of the emergency library.
Moreover, the DRMed digital lending schemes that the publishers are "offering" libraries are very expensive compared to what a hardcover copy of the same work would have been, and publishers are increasingly vacuuming up libraries' entire budgets with excessive digital lending fees.
It's been observed that libraries would be illegal if they didn't already exist, and I think we're starting to walk down the road where they are illegal in the digital world.
I believe this is the crux of the attack by publishers. They don't want libraries to be able to buy books and lend them out. They want libraries to pay a huge monthly fee for every book lent.
"Zediva thought it could circumvent the need to be licensed by literally renting customers a DVD and a DVD player, with your computer, tablet or Google TV as the remote control. Unlike the other streaming movie services, Zediva didn't turn a movie into a file on its servers that it can serve it to as many users as care to see it at once. Instead, Zediva’s servers had DVD drives and actual DVDs. So when you rented a movie, that disc goes out of circulation until you release it back to the company, just like in one of those increasingly rare real-world video stores."
https://www.wired.com/2011/08/zediva-shuts-down/
More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_I....
The comments here about the lawsuit not being about the Emergency Library completely are technically true, but ignore this sentence. IA poked the bear with it's brazen actions.
> It was never legal.
Before this lawsuit, we weren't sure about this, but by provoking the lawsuit, we've forced the courts to make this decision.
With the monumentally idiotic Aereo[1] decision, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In....
You vessenes have an account, you can buy DVDs that I store for you, and you can view these DVDs using my service.
Even then odds are I'd get sued for copyright infringement.
[1] https://archive.org/details/archive_documentary_internet_arc...
Something I really like about ebooks and e-ink displays is that I can set the font as big as I want and it updates instantly. I read a lot better, and as a result I enjoy it a lot more. For me, the Kindle was kind of revelatory.
I borrow books from my library, which allows me to read the Kindle version, and I don't need to pay anything (outside of my taxes, I suppose).
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.
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.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/False_Profits_(episode)
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.
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.
I.e. the government is doing it.
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...
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?
> was the basis of the economic machine that you speak of
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.
> Where were the industries in the South? Where were the industries in South America?
They weren't there precisely because slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize.
> Why did the South secede to protect their economy from the North?
The south seceded in order to protect the institution of slavery.
> Take a look at contemporary photos and paintings of the North and South before 1865
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?
> 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.
I'm sorry, I can't take that comment seriously.
> slave labor was so profitable that they did not see the need to industrialize
Or that one. Sorry.
The South was so profitable they could not finance their military. The North did easily.
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.
The violent coercion is key, not starvation. Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it? The anti-chinese laws, debt slavery, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.? It's almost as if these things won't happen with free markets!
> generated an enormous amount of wealth
I dispute that. Slavery was dying out in the US by 1800 (as evidenced by its disappearance in the northern states). The cotton gin revived it, but only for cotton, and it was dying out again by the time of the Civil War. The South though the North needed its cotton, but the North was importing it from Egypt. Egyptian cotton (not raised by slaves) was cheaper even including shipping it across the Atlantic.
> made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.
So they sent their money north to found industries? That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they invest locally, and get more slaves to work them, if slavery was so enormously profitable?
Slavery is terribly inefficient. First of all, your slaves hate you. They will work as little as they can get away with. They'll sabotage anything they can get away with. They'll piss in your oatmeal. They'll kill you if they can. You have to employ armed guards at all time. You have to provide cradle to grave care for them. They are expensive to buy. If your slaves don't have the right skills, selling them and buying ones with the right skills is far less efficient than just hiring a plumber. And so on.
The Nazis had all these problems with their slave labor war production. Sabotage by those workers was a constant issue.
Government instrumentalized to serve the interests of the wealthy elites, that is. So at the end of the day, it's the latter who are "doing" it.
The majority of the Chinese immigrants were male, many having left wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and future spouses at home in China. Foreign miner taxes in California, often aimed squarely at Chinese immigrants, prevented them from staking mining claims, which in turn forced them to look for opportunities elsewhere.
The CPRR hired an initial group of 50 Chinese workers that in short time dispelled the negative assumptions held by some CPRR managers. They fostered a reputation of strength, efficiency, and reliability. More Chinese workers would be hired and they held a variety of jobs: laborers, foremen, contractors, masons, carpenters, cooks, teamsters, interpreters, and medical professionals. Even so, racial inequalities persisted. Chinese workers were paid an average of 30% less than their white counterparts. They were segregated in work camps and had to pay for their own lodging, food, supplies, and equipment.
The disparity came to a head on June 24th, 1867, when all Chinese railroad workers from Cisco to Truckee, California, a 30 miles section of track, stopped work.
Confrontation, Threats -- and a Bloodless Resolution
After a week's worth of lean rations had settled upon the men, Charles Crocker returned to the work camps. He dictated the options as he saw them: wages and hours were immutable. If the hungry Chinese workers returned to work immediately they would only be fined, but if they continued on strike they would not get paid for the whole month of June.
Motivated by malnutrition, most men agreed to return to work
Numerous other examples in colonial history.
http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-co...
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.
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.
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 :-)
> Tell me your secrets Walter
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.
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.
> at that point it is ok to go and defend capitalism according to HN guidelines
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.
> Its those who start attacking capitalism everywhere that needs to stop if this happens too often
'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.
> since they are almost always the instigators.
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.
If someone made the same remark about non-democratic political systems, would you say the same thing? "Democracy is the current dominant system in the West, making it both the obvious starting point for discussion of political systems, and the most productive candidate for legitimate criticism." I doubt it. I think some honesty is useful: you want to criticize capitalism but you don't want someone to defend it, you want a space to criticize it. I think if you're going to criticize capitalism then you need to be willing to fend with someone willing to defend it. It's fair game. It may seem unfair, but just like we hold onto our values of democracy tightly so some hold onto their values of capitalism.
If you want a space specifically to criticize capitalism, there are plenty on the internet, and HN isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure you can throw a pebble randomly at literally any Bluesky English poster or Mastodon instance and you'll find one though.
Maybe you can cite examples of it working?
It's legal to start a commune in the US. Why not give it a try? Report back to us how it goes!
> conflates collectivism with being “anti freedom” (lol)
I do, because collectivism means you do not own the fruits of your labor. I bet you'd be outraged if I helped myself to some of your stuff that I decided you didn't need.
Then there are the genocidal militias employed by US companies to keep people from unionising, the genocidal treatment of indonesians, and so on.
Feel free to downvote me all you like, Taylor!
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.
>it's about forcible slave labor, forced with guns and whips.
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?
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t slaves who built the pyramids. We know this because archaeologists have located the remains of a purpose-built village for the thousands of workers who built the famous Giza pyramids, nearly 4,500 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#Great...
>Slaves were a constant presence in ancient Egypt. Starting with the Old Kingdom (2613 - 2181 BC), slaves took on different roles. Some became soldiers, others scribes.
https://www.worldatlas.com/ancient-world/were-slaves-used-to...
>Does it?
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?
In terms of quality you are right, in terms of quantity you are wrong (in the past), but in this day and age replacing people (slaves) with machines changes the whole thing again.
So yes, free labor with specialized people and specialized machines and cheap energy is the most competitive.
That's not free labor. It's government coercion, again.
> Worked incredible well for Belgium
???
> works incredible well for every warlord in west-Africa
None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
That was the definition of "modern slaves", HOW you force people to be slaves is really not important.
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
>???
Rubber -> Car-tires from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
>None of them have been able to compete in the free market.
If you can sell your good's at the cheapest prices you compete very well in the "free market", there is also coltan in Brazil, Australia and China, but DRC sells the cheapest.
https://globalforestcoalition.org/the-dark-side-of-technolog...
Your argument doesn't even make sense: in the first part you say yes, we need national support for this sector of the economy, while a few words later you say that China is cheating by giving support to the same sector.
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.
> But you can watch a factory tour, it’s not some horrible labor conditions it’s huge highly automated machines: https://youtu.be/jTBOSob5MLg
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/byd/dolphin/50011 Hmm, that's a pretty good score. Is this version different?
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.
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.
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 US tariffs are not even officially claimed to have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with industrial competition.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/08/tesla-under-investigation-...
Something like this already happens with housing and NIMBYism.
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.
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.
Your idea has been tried over and over. It just makes things worse, far worse.
Related, I'm surprised how fast people stopped worrying about 3D printers making guns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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)
Super solarpunk, I love it.
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.
> the current system is indeed necessary.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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 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.
Profit they're only getting because they figured out a way to cheat the concept of ownership and get around the first sale doctrine.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
An idea so terrible it might just work.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There has to be a better way than the model we have now where everything is so tightly controlled.
I'm not saying it's a solved question, I'm just saying it wouldn't be that expensive relative to other public expenditure.
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.
> 2: marked by a hatred or contempt for humankind The moral corruption he saw around him made him misanthropic.
Also I didn't mean the commenter was misanthropic, but that the view they held would fit a misanthropic authors novel as part of their satire.
Maybe you thought I wrote "misogynistic"?
That turns out to not make your comment any less incorrect or manipulative, though. Requiring people to pay for the stuff they consume isn't even remotely misanthropic.
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.
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.
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.
>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 purpos
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.
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.
Their suggestions last people who "just want to deny it happens" and their solution is to just let the government pay for it (spoilers: it's allready subsidized), so I don't exactly understand why you think I'm establishing a dictonimy.
Yes. People are unironically arguing to simply abolish copyright. It's an extreme solution and I disagree. I haven't heard many good moderate solutions out there because people are so pro-piracy that I'm inclined to think they don't care about the people behind novel ideas, just benefiting off their work. You get tit for tat with that sort of thinking.
I have moderate ideas, but as I've learned moderate tales fade to the extremities if you aren't even slightly aligned. We're very disaligned here, so the starting step to to show why that extreme take is bad and work from there.
Now that I never said the current system is fine. Because that's not my argument, nor the one the other extreme take needs to hear. But if that's all you got from my chain I suppose I need to do the same thing with you.
Why did you react to "but people need to survive" with "well it NEEDS to be a product"? Compensation comes in many ways, and I was simply saying that the government has historically been horrible at compensating most parts of any industry. What makes this time with books different?
>>Why should we turn information into a "product"[...]
> Because [...]
That clearly indicates that you're in fact advocating it to be a product. Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but then I'm afraid you're not making yourself very clear. I'm also not seeing any references to survival in your post, just of incentivizing where work goes, so I am fairly certain what you think you write is not what you actually write.
Regardless, I am a huge fan of the devil's advocate. You can talk about points without them being your complete world view. That's the assumption that we seem misaligned with. Just because I don't want all information to be free the moment it is published (or stolen) doesn't mean I want to abolish copyright.
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.
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 seems to me that a lot of those experts become experts despite the incentive structures that they are in
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.
>Maybe if we could let people do what they could become an expert in, we would all be better off.
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".
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.
That's like saying f(x)=x is a random function, if x is random.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Another way to look at this: unlike physical property, what you pay for is the novelty. And that wears off.
>Another way to look at this: unlike physical property, what you pay for is the novelty. And that wears off.
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".
Ideally, yes. In reality, far from it. Teaching and nursing are some of the easiest examples of how this structure is fundamentally broken.
>unlike a physical object or consumable material, the utility of this type of knowledge seem to lie in its novelty
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?
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.
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 taken away, originally after 14 years, now 70(?) years. After the death of the creator
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 started with Freud, and ended when Adolph Hitler and Anne Frank lost copyright protection on the same day.
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...).
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.
>Emphasis on "might" want: it's not obvious that that's the correct tradeoff today
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)?
It's theft. How many people, no matter how altruistic, will feel truly zen seeing their own idea copied by people who care nothing about thw craft making money, exploiting other labor, and otherwise making the world a worse place?
I argue less than the amount that at least want a steady living at the bare minimum. Something many struggle to achieve.
>why is the current model assumed to be the best, when it is based on a lot of outdated assumptions (e.g., physical copies)?
Because I've heard no better alternatives?
We don't need to throw the baby out with that bathwater. In increasing orderof viability: Implement UBI so artists don't starve guarantee an easy trial for proper compensation (which may still be pennies for thieves) if/when their art is stolen and makes hand over fist in money, or reduce the current time of exclusivity. The concept of keeping some time to benefit from your ideas exclusively isn't a flawed one, it just needs tweaks to the idea, or a fundamental shift in how humans survive in the modern world.
That's not remotely true even with today's absurd laws.
>(the act of) dishonestly taking something that belongs to someone else and keeping it.
How is this action of taking someone else's idea and keeping the fruits of their mental labor not thievery?
Again, not legally arguing. The point here was to exercise the psychological reason that having your ideas taken without permission nor even acknowledgemrnt feels bad. Theft is bad and feels bad. People want to avoid that where possible.
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.
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
> My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better.
> That's the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written the way it is—as a copyleft. All code added to a GPL-covered program must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make it free as well. I figure that since proprietary software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use our code.
If the GPLed project lost all of its teeth upon the untimely death of a contributor, would that be a bad thing?
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".
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
(a) Assignment. By submitting a Contribution, you assign to MongoDB all right, title and interest in any copyright you have in the Contribution, and you waive any rights, including any moral rights, database rights, etc., that may affect our ownership of the copyright in the Contribution.
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
(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.—
In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. ...
(e) Presumption as to Author’s Death.—
After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.
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.
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.
>Should we do the same thing for other property like land and money?
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).
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Just step back and think about how irrational this is. Abstract constructs like this are arbitrary.
Yes, it's arbitrary - just like practically everything else. Having to drive my car on a road and not kill anyone is arbitrary, but leads to good outcomes.
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.
Sure! There is a natural right to own things: I have a thing, I am not giving it to you. I am the authority. If you want to have it, well, you'll have to do something. Because you can't drive my car while I'm driving it.
That was the problem that the communists ultimately couldn't resolve: people end up having things no matter what you do. My, mine are one of the first words humans learn to utter.
"Intellectual property theft" is a misnomer; like "identity theft".
>The value in intellectual property is the right to copy it.
You are almost correct.
It's not the right to copy. It's the exclusivity, enforced by the state. By definition, it's a privilege (not a right), and is created by punishment.
Information has no inherent value once it becomes public knowledge. The state needs to be actively involved for public information to have any value.
So, we're not talking about the right to copy that gets passed along. Nobody is talking about taking that right away.
It's the privilege to command the state to punish someone for making a copy without one's permission that we say shouldn't be passed along to one's heirs.
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.
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?
> Stop telling others what to do with their work
We are not telling them what to do we are saying authors shouldn't have the right to restrict what we can do, or to be more precise, say - because that's what copyright is in the end, a limitation on free speech.
What about the families of people who toil over creative work and don't hit the jackpot? There are many fine writers/artists who never gain more than a niche audience while garbage sells big. Go to a bookstore and look at the history section, pseudo-historians like Bill O'Reilly are given more shelf space than serious historians. To be frank I almost exclusively buy from used book stores for the last decade because nonfiction offerings in chain/non-specialist bookstores are so bad. Vendors of used books tend to select for quality rather than popularity.
FWIW, this is also why we have copyright. In fact, 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.
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.
Nor encorugae assassinations by having stuff go public domain immediately upon death.
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.
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.
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.
Whats the difference here? Have idea, share some of it, monetize it from peope who want to use it, later on it's a free for all or enough knowledge comes to easily reverse engineer it anyway.
^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.
No natural right, no. But humans are greedy, tragedy of the commons, etc. So governments made copyright to protect those artists.
It's been, as usual, perverted by the people who least need that protection, but the idea is still sound. In a world of greed, give the creators time to be greedy so they can make a living off their own work. Then later on its a free for all.
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.
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.
"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 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.
This is not a thing that happens, and it’s hard to take anyone seriously when they’re presenting this as a counter argument.
If you can’t even understand the difference between criminal and civil matters, how can you even begin to discuss this topic?
try to upload to YouTube your birthday party with a barely audible pop music playing in the background.
now which argument can't be taken seriously?
granted, it's not jail. but being removed from the monopoly forum for internet videos could be worse than jail if you're business depends on that.
That's a pretty important distinction.
>being removed from the monopoly forum for internet videos could be worse than jail if you're business depends on that.
If your business relies on thst then strike up a deal. That's what copyright should be doing.
The situation is still stupid, yes. But the core issue of people profiting off of material they dont own is still something we want to protect against.
But back in reality, you just don't monetize the content. Publishers don't really care about some unlisted kid's party with 50 views and monetization off. The YouTube stuff is draconian but not that asinine.
If you're arguing that copyright length should be shortened, I strongly agree.
If you're arguing that we should eliminate copyright completely because we should only regulate things you would immediately throw people in jail for, I strongly disagree.
As a society we need to be able to regulate some behavior that is not severe enough for jail time on its own, or for most standard offenses, even if the state ultimately has the power of incarceration to punish non-compliance. Just because moderately speeding shouldn't land you in jail, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have speed limits.
This was just today.
Deadline: “Operators Of Jetflicks, An Illegal Streaming Service With A Catalog Larger Than Netflix, Prime Video And Hulu Put Together, Convicted By Federal Jury”
https://deadline.com/2024/06/jetflicks-illegal-streaming-ser...
> > > Who's been jailed for singing Happy Birthday? How many people have been jailed for copyright violations at all?
Note the second sentence which brought the wider topic into discussion.
This is a ridiculous strawman that is completely irrelevant to any discussion happening here.
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 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.
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’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.
I'm fine with initial research being funded by the government, and entrepreneurs attempting to take that research to commercialize it.
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.
Yet it faded away into irrelevance.
Plenty of other examples.
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
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.
>You'd think the theory that capitalist businesses grow to take over the world would have been repeatedly verified by now.
It's not about taking over the world. Ceos aren't twirling their mustaches with a bowler hat. It's about what it's been about for all of humanity: making sure to keep some other part of humanity down so they don't get power.
America's only had one civil war and it was purely to make sure they can keep telling black people what to do, without proper compensation. That's how important that control is to them. Businesses can die and restart, but they cannot get back lost power that way.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> so keep the masses uneducated so they are subservient
Terror makes them subservient. See the Soviet Union's gulags, full of educated people.
You don’t get more golden eggs by killing the goose who lays them.
Also the IA book UI was terrible.
Oh, hello there, dear communism. Same dream, same problems. No, this time around you don’t work either.
They must have no products of their own nor care how the people behind the knowledge they consume make a living.
Here's a tiny tip of the massive iceberg https://independentbookreview.com/2020/07/30/10-free-literar...
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.
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?
I'm not sure what your point was, but mine is that it doesn't necessarily represent a significant amount.
> But few do.
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?
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.
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.
>> It is in nobody’s interest to do any hard work. If you don’t reward great effort, virtually nobody provides it.
> And not nobody. Virtually nobody. Yes open source exists.
In 2018, GitHub reported on their blog [0]:
> Today we reached a major milestone: 100 million repositories now live on GitHub. Powering this number is an incredible community. Together, you’re 31 million developers from nearly every country and territory in the world, collaborating across 1.1 billion contributions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Engaging only with the stupid point I didn’t make is a waste of time honestly and is seriously missing the point.
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
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.
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!
Is the value of the work of the author to be measured against their remaining lifetime?
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Ah, no. That isn't communism.
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.)
Libraries have historically not been considered communistic per se (rightly or wrongly). But they have not commonly been considered a failure.
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.
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.
> If you don’t reward great effort, virtually nobody provides it.
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
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.
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).
> We prevent this achievement due to our attachment to a specific economic system that serves as the current means of financially supporting authors.
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...
"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>
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vR_xj-6S...
Note that I’m not commenting on whether a reasonable person would also interpret copyright law this way, or on whether the laws are fair, just what the judgment was.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free
EDIT: looks like the "this is the law" crowd is out in full force on this summer Friday night. All the cool people are doing something else, elsewhere obviously.
Yet, it ironically gave better results than Google does today.
Actual article: https://blog.archive.org/2024/06/17/let-readers-read/
Some more discussion, including some IA folks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707084