dcow 2 days ago

If the book is the compiled work, then the source of a book is the author's creative process. And certainly that isn't open to all simply by purchasing the book.

But less obtusely: you don't copyright a book--which is why knowledge, language, literature should not be closed source. We'd have to find a different model to support authors than trying to prevent people from copying books. Patreon style models where you subscribe and get behind the scenes access to the creative process, additional content, early access, etc. seem to work well as do sponsorship models like YT where the more viewers you draw the more you get paid, rather than a fixed fee per individual to watch a video. And, simply pay-what-you-want based models where everyone understands they can contribute in a way that matches the value to them and their means also work. One of the strongest arguments for piracy is that the pirate would never have paid $700 for Photoshop in the first place so the value "lost" isn't real and never would have been realized by the author(s). (Note this argument doesn't work for petty theft of physical property because the thief deprives the owner of tangible property.)

  • awesome_dude 2 days ago

    There are precisely three models for funding

    Private - this includes funding by selling item(s), licensing work, and private equity

    State

    Charity - this includes volunteers, patrons, donations, sponsorships.

    Charity relies on people willing to donate for the betterment of others.

    State funding fails because of the political nature of the person holding the purse strings.

    Licensing, copyright, physical sales are the only thing that artists have to sell.

    You "patreon" style falls somewhere between closed source - you can only access if you buy your way behind the curtain, and charity, where creators have to rely on people donating so that their works can be seen by others (for free)

    • dcow 2 days ago

      I am supportive of private and charity funding. I think we can do it without a focus restricting copying. I think this because there is precedent with any industry that relies on trade secrets. Once I can copy a Coke with a food printer we'll be having some really weird internal consistency issues with copyright.

      • awesome_dude 2 days ago

        I'm not seeing a convincing argument from you other than "Once I bought a book that was public domain"