241–250 of 582 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should an author be forced to give away their work for free? They can already choose to give it away for free if they wish. We already have the Creative Commons licenses, and there are many open textbook projects.
[flagged]
This is a ridiculous strawman that is completely irrelevant to any discussion happening here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chinese cars? really? They are at best a hazard. The Chinese government dumped tons of money into every one of those cars, they are being sold at a loss. Not because it's good for any one, rather because china fucked up. Every single one of those cars is a state funded fire hazard about to go on the road. EDITL: cause looking up data is hard apparently: western data: https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/elec…
do you have any evidence that they're more prone to fire than any other EVs?
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.
There is no greater folly of contemporary human society than the purposeful restriction of such vast and easily shareable repositories of knowledge. Perhaps these schemes made sense in the past but with the advent of the internet and independent groups willing to fund all hosting fees, we should move to models of publishing that do not require this restriction of information. Library genesis exists but necessarily mu…
> we should move to models of publishing that do not require this restriction of information. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chinese cars? really? They are at best a hazard. The Chinese government dumped tons of money into every one of those cars, they are being sold at a loss. Not because it's good for any one, rather because china fucked up. Every single one of those cars is a state funded fire hazard about to go on the road. EDITL: cause looking up data is hard apparently: western data: https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/elec…
Cars have gotten a lot safer over the years, so how far of a setback would this be? Are they on par with 90s cars? 80s? 50s? https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/byd/dolphin/50011 Hmm, that's a pretty good score. Is this version different?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 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. An…
Authors should have that inalienable right, and it should not transferable via contract or any other means. Publishers, on the other hand, should have no such rights: they own the presses, their inalienable right should be to refrain from using them.
If yes, then how do you regulate who is or is not allowed to transfer ownership of rights to or from whom?
[flagged]
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vR_xj-6S...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're comparing to the free tiers of Spotify and Youtube, which in effect is saying that we should put ads into our books.
Libraries tend not to put ads into books to fund them. The physical restrictions in a library - ala, only 1 person could read it at a time - is what prevents publishers from trying to charge more or prevent it. The basic issue is that if a library is filled with electronic books, the publishers will stand to lose a lot of profit. Now I'm not arguing that they deserve this profit, but there's no good model so far that…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we should move to models of publishing that do not require this restriction of information. 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…
The US book market is 0.5% of the GDP. The government could subside every author with the same salary they make today and it would only be a small fraction of the amount we spend on the military.
The 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should an author be forced to give away their work for free? They can already choose to give it away for free if they wish. We already have the Creative Commons licenses, and there are many open textbook projects.
I think a lot of the problems being discussed in sibling comments can be solved to an extent if we limit copyright to its original 14 years. That number was decided in a much, much slower age (1790). In today's world, 14 years should be ample time to monetise most creative work.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Income is taxed, obviously. Copyright is taken away, originally after 14 years, now 70(?) years. After the death of the creator
It is amazing that modern medicine has extended authors’ afterlife by 56 years!