Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#81

Post by jefftk »

indigochill wrote: post #62
jefftk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you talked to most authors and asked "would you still do this if it were unpaid" you'd get almost entirely "no"s. Do you expect otherwise?

If you asked most software engineers if they'd code if it were unpaid, you'd also get mostly "no"s. And yet FOSS carries on. There are some people who simply need to create. And yes, some FOSS is subsidized by companies who pay their engineers to contribute, but there are also people who contribute on their own time.

I agree that writing wouldn't go to zero. But I do think we'd get a lot less of it!

(And the same if FOSS were entirely unpaid)

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#82

Post by geofft »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #69
geofft wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but it's the system we have. So, 1) What's a good way to ensure that authors continue to author books while not dying of exposure (or, more practically, that authors continue to author books instead of deciding to go work at a tech company or something)? 2) How do we implement that system?

> What's a good way to ensure that authors continue to author books while not dying Authors should be paid for the act of writing, not the sale of the resulting work. > How do we implement that system? Crowdfunding and patronage seem to be gaining traction these days.

Makes sense, at a high level.

Should we cancel copyright before this system is well-established and stable? It seems like there could be arguments for it, if copyright is indeed a great abuse, but if it's not, it seems like it would be systematically better to establish the new system in parallel with copyright, and then we could argue not only that copyright is bad but it's no longer necessary.

Is copyright in fact no longer necessary? How many people support crowdfunding projects with digital rewards or join programs like Patreon specifically for access to copyrighted works (whether that's because they want legal access, or because there's some form of DRM, or whatever) vs. because they are happy to support the creator anyway? That is, to what extent would getting rid of copyright also reduce the profitability of crowdfunding/patronage?

(There's an inverse question - could we get rid of copyright and still have people interested in buying physical books from official sources? That is, could we change the legal mechanism but not the social one? If we think people will pay creators just because they like their work - and it seems that in fact they do - why wouldn't they buy copies of works from creators just because they like their work, even if not compelled to do so via copyright?)

How do new authors (or new creators/artists of any kind, really) get a living wage via crowdfunding? I contribute to the Patreon of a couple of creators I like, but they're all established in some way - i.e. I contribute to support these particular creators not needing to participate in the system of selling licensed works for royalties, but it doesn't seem to be a systematic change.

How much do creators make via crowdfunding/patronage make, anyway - do established writers tend to earn money comparable to the advances and royalties they'd get from a traditional publisher?

One feature of the current system is that if your books are popular with people who don't have much money (students being one of many examples), you still get paid through taxpayer-funded libraries buying copies of your work. How should we preserve that property - should we make it a norm for your local public library to participate in patronage?

Did Internet Archive do anything to advertise the crowdfunding sites of authors whose books they lent? Could they have?

Related to that, is it possible for the Internet Archive to continue operating infrastructure for digital lending for creators who want to be supported for their work by letting authors post e-books and linking to crowdfunding/patronage sites?

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#83

Post by matheusmoreira »

thr0waw4y5555 wrote: post #80
matheusmoreira wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d blame publishers for paying so poorly That's exactly what you should do. You should have been adequately compensated for the time and effort required to write your book. Instead, your publisher decided to require you to put the work in first and then offer you the chance to get compensated afterwards based on how well your book sold. The expected results didn't materialize because the market conditions that ena…

...and where might the money for that fair compensation of the creative act come from when consumers of the product expect it for free? This is the part that never gets resolved in discussions - someone, somewhere has to cough up money to pay for stuff that people now believe should be consumed for free. Where is this mythical money tree that generates money without consumers putting any in? Same thing occurs in the…

They expect it for free after it was created. The only possible solution is to charge them money before creating it. Perhaps crowdfunding and patronage will be the answer. If not, I guess we'll just have to live with less creators in general. That is fine.

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#84

Post by Longlius »

II2II wrote: post #73
hopfscotch6 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The publishers do not have a legitimate business and deserve to go out of existence. Copyright is nonsense.

Publishers do a have a legitimate business, since they provide many services to authors. Heck, they even provide useful services to readers since the imprint is usually a good way to filter for better quality publications. That being said, I don't agree with how they have been handling digital sales or lending.

Yes, they provide such useful services as underpaying authors, ensuring that authors get as little control over their creative output as possible, and bullying authors into changing their work to fit pet ideological crusades. Maybe smaller publishers still provide some semblance of service to the writers they work with, but the big publishers have been predatory entities for a long time.

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#85

Post by geofft »

indigochill wrote: post #62
jefftk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you talked to most authors and asked "would you still do this if it were unpaid" you'd get almost entirely "no"s. Do you expect otherwise?

If you asked most software engineers if they'd code if it were unpaid, you'd also get mostly "no"s. And yet FOSS carries on. There are some people who simply need to create. And yes, some FOSS is subsidized by companies who pay their engineers to contribute, but there are also people who contribute on their own time.

The amount of FOSS in the world that exists from people who contribute on their own time is a small fraction of the amount of software (total) in the world. Yes, software won't die out, but if somehow people couldn't get paid to be software engineers any more, there would be a lot less software engineering happening.

It's certainly possible to argue that copyright is so bad that we should have way fewer authors and musicians in this world, such that only those who are truly passionate about writing and making music (and/or independently wealthy) will do it, but it doesn't seem to me that that's what people are arguing.

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#86

Post by ashtonkem »

geofft wrote: post #8

> We moved up our schedule because, last Monday, four commercial publishers chose to sue Internet Archive during a global pandemic. Did this come as a surprise? Did Internet Archive not expect publishers to sue? The Archive launched the emergency library during a global pandemic. Lots of people, myself included, said that this was a risky move because they would obviously get sued and it would put not only the Archiv…

The dynamic here is exactly why a lot of fundamental questions rarely get litigated; both parties are terrified that a court case against them will create long term precedent. So they usually negotiate a compromise before the court decides.

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#87

Post by geofft »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #83
thr0waw4y5555 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and where might the money for that fair compensation of the creative act come from when consumers of the product expect it for free? This is the part that never gets resolved in discussions - someone, somewhere has to cough up money to pay for stuff that people now believe should be consumed for free. Where is this mythical money tree that generates money without consumers putting any in? Same thing occurs in the…

They expect it for free after it was created . The only possible solution is to charge them money before creating it . Perhaps crowdfunding and patronage will be the answer. If not, I guess we'll just have to live with less creators in general. That is fine.

> If not, I guess we'll just have to live with less creators in general. That is fine.

I was wondering if someone was going to make this argument.

1. Why is it fine?

2. How is "Actually, it's okay if there are fewer books in the world" a defense of "Internet Archive was in the right to give people access to books, because it's very important that people have access to books"?

If the world doesn't actually need people to write books unless they can afford to do so for free (or via crowdfunding/patronage), why did Internet Archive need to do anything at all, besides say "Authors, please make your books available for free if you can"? What was so important about the rest of the books?

And why abolish copyright? Is the world improved if we go from a small number of books available for free and several available under copyright to only a small number of books available for free?

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#88

Post by geofft »

Aeolun wrote: post #63
jawns wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the IA was shut down because its leadership decided to be philanthropic during a period of human history that lacked freedom of information Philanthropic by massively infringing on copyright. Giving away something you own and have a right to give away is one thing. But critics of the emergency library allege that because the IA doesn't own the copyright to these books, they don't get to make and lend unlimited copi…

I don’t think they actually make more copies? They just allow multiple people to look at the same copy at the same time?

The word "copy" gets kind of strange in a digital world, but I think the closest analogue to this in the pre-digital world would be public performance, which is one of the limited rights under copyright.

I only need to buy one copy of sheet music (and maybe not even that, if I'm a quick learner) for a thousand people to enjoy my performance of it, but merely having the copy does not entitle me to perform it for those thousand people. The first-sale doctrine does allow me to resell the sheet music itself, for someone else to rehearse from or study, but that's it.

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#89

Post by geofft »

Longlius wrote: post #84
II2II wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishers do a have a legitimate business, since they provide many services to authors. Heck, they even provide useful services to readers since the imprint is usually a good way to filter for better quality publications. That being said, I don't agree with how they have been handling digital sales or lending.

Yes, they provide such useful services as underpaying authors, ensuring that authors get as little control over their creative output as possible, and bullying authors into changing their work to fit pet ideological crusades. Maybe smaller publishers still provide some semblance of service to the writers they work with, but the big publishers have been predatory entities for a long time.

Sure, but the abolition of copyright would also mean that individual authors do not have copyright over their works, even if they sidestep the publishers. (Which, to be fair, the commenter upthread admits - turn on showdead in your profile if you want to see it.)

I am not sure that many authors who get mistreated by their publishers would feel like they're going to get paid better and have more control over their creative output if copyright goes away entirely.

Re: Temporary National Emergency Library to close 2 weeks early

#90

Post by matheusmoreira »

geofft wrote: post #82
matheusmoreira wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's a good way to ensure that authors continue to author books while not dying Authors should be paid for the act of writing, not the sale of the resulting work. > How do we implement that system? Crowdfunding and patronage seem to be gaining traction these days.

Makes sense, at a high level. Should we cancel copyright before this system is well-established and stable? It seems like there could be arguments for it, if copyright is indeed a great abuse, but if it's not, it seems like it would be systematically better to establish the new system in parallel with copyright, and then we could argue not only that copyright is bad but it's no longer necessary. Is copyright in fact…

I've been warned about repetitive ideological discussion on HN so I should probably not elaborate on the matter. I do agree with you though. These are all important points that should be addressed. I do not know the answers to these questions. I sincerely hope someone smarter than me will be able to come up with really good answers.

I just think that we can't go on like this. Copyright is based on a lie: artificial scarcity. It wasn't so obvious before the 20th century but computers and the internet changed everything. Society must change as well.

In order to enforce copyright in the 21st century, computing freedom must be sacrificed. I don't think anyone here wants that outcome. So I defend the end of copyright.

Post reply on HN