DISQUS

Peter Rock · 1 year ago

"We naturally frown on unauthorized [copying]"

No.

"and misattributed copying."

Yes.

intech · 1 year ago

its a good advice to people who are in this feild

Tom W. Bell · 1 year ago

Peter: Please note that I used a conjunction between those two phrases. To make the sentence as a whole true, therefore, both of those subsets would have to be true. You appear to have read my "and" as an "or".

Peter Rock · 1 year ago

My bad.

I was wondering because it didn't seem to jive with the rest of the post. And all the while it was me not reading carefully.

Thanks for pointing that out, Tom.

Noah Clements · 1 year ago

Authors have a problem that painters and musicians do not face: absent copyright protection, there may be no remuneration at all. In such a world, authors would have to have day jobs (a la James Joyce) or be independently wealthy (a la Leo Tolstoy). Certainly one can argue that these examples show that nothing would be lost, but then what about the merely good pleasant reads, the ones not born of such hunger, the ones we like to read on the beach?

As you mentioned, painters still have the original that they can sell. But with paintings, it is the original that has the greatest market value. And most musicians have always (since before and including Mozart) made most of their money from performance and giving lessons. But with authors, it is the copy and the copy only that provides money for the work (unless they are to replace copy income with grants and professorships).

Not that copyright doesn't have problems, but I do believe that authors should have a "natural right" to be able to earn a living from creating a successful work.

Peter Rock · 1 year ago

"[...] with authors, it is the copy and the copy only that provides money [...]"

Is that so?

Steve R. · 1 year ago

Noah: No denies that authors have a "natural right" to be able to earn a living through their work. Nevertheless, this is simply an empty Motherhood statement since the debate is how to define the extent/limits of this "natural right".

From my perspective, a copyright holder should not be artificially protected by regulations that protect obsolete business models, the copyright holder does not have a right to limit the natural property right of the consumer, and copyright is a limited right, not a perpetual right.

Steve R. · 1 year ago

Noah: No one denies ....

Chris Brand · 1 year ago

I've always had a problem with the "right to earn a living doing what you want" argument. Lots of people can't make a living doing what they want. Many people try to do so and fail because they don't find a business model that works.



So while I agree that I want people to be able to make a living from writing, I'm far from convinced that they have some "natural right" to do so.




I note that Noah does qualify it with "from creating a successful work", which is definitely better than what you frequently hear.




Oh, and Noah should check out Baen books - where they've shown increases in book sales as a result of giving away free electronic copies of works.

eee_eff · 1 year ago

Noah: I take your point, and share your concern that authors, especially, would find it difficult to recoup the costs of creation absent copyright.

I agree that authors relie on copyright, but it is notable that they do NOT rely on the DMCA the same way the music industry does. This is because an electronic copy of a book does not have many of the properties of a physical book.

Thus, above it has been shown the artists, authors, musicians do not need the DMCA, and I would add to that list architects, as another producer of cultural goods that does not relie on DMCA.

So just who does need the DMCA?

The owners of these works, the big music companies, that's who.

Noah Clements · 1 year ago

With regard to Baen books, giving away free copies in order to generate buzz so that they can sell copies of those books is a fine strategy - it also worked well for a lot of tech books (I remember Thinking in Java being freely released on the web, chapter by chapter, and incorporating feedback in the finished work). But I think ultimately this strategy relies on copyright in order to generate income from the work being promoted in this way. How could contract or tort or property law protect the author or publisher from others selling a cheaper edition of the work?





I don't claim to know all the different ways that authors could support their art. I identified a few: day job, inheritance, grants (from patrons or government), academia (I would include employment with groups like the Cato institute in this category, but perhaps it fits more with grants?). Income from selling copies is the only source that would directly correlate with success in the marketplace (i.e., what people will buy). What other sources of income have I overlooked? And what other sources would ensure that we can continue to have a world with plenty of works by Elmore Leonard, Jackie Collins, etc.? (I am assuming that no university would employ this type of author if it were not for their market success, which might present a problem of circularity in the absence of copyright.)

Tom W. Bell · 1 year ago

Enigma: I think you've pegged the current situation, but I'd add that I could imagine authors using automated rights management more frequently--or trying to--if they didn't have copyright to fall back on. That by no means requires the DMCA, though. Don't get me started on that piece of . . . legislation.

Noah: I hesitate to predict what entrepreneurs would come up with in the absence of copyright. I'll note, though, that back in the day when English authors enjoyed no U.S. copyrights, they would make money by selling serialized versions of their novels to U.S. magazines, and by giving readings. Dickens fairly well killed himself touring the U.S., so greedy was he for the generous revenues he thereby earned. Also, as I noted to Enigma, ARM could prove useful.