You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I've been running errands all day.
The keyboard my parents bought me as a birthday gift turned out to have faulty key, so I had to ship it back to Amazon. But my printer is out of ink, so I first had to go to the library and print out the shipping label. And I figured since I was going to The UPS Store anyway, I might as well round up some textbooks I don't need anymore and sell those on Amazon, too.
So I went to the library and went shopping for dinner food then came home and ate then went to UPS and dropped off my packages then went to FedEx to drop off something my parents needed shipped and then I went to go pick up some medical papers for my mother at her doctor's office.
That doesn't sound like a lot, but it sure felt like it. Also, I went through the McDonald's drive-thru and got an iced coffee, because it was $1.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Oh, there was a quick run to Dollar General in there somewhere, too.
Also, I used Gahanna's public parking garage for the first time. It's quite nice...amusingly they apparently keep Fire/EMS vehicles there.
Public domain means it ain't copyrighted, meaning the author's probably long dead, y'know.
I know that. I know that it's not hurting the author. However, the author is the person third most worthy of a book's profits, after the Publisher and the Editor. And the Publisher, the one most deserving of the book's money, is getting screwed over.
Public domain means it ain't copyrighted, meaning the author's probably long dead, y'know.
I know that. I know that it's not hurting the author. However, the author is the person third most worthy of a book's profits, after the Publisher and the Editor. And the Publisher, the one most deserving of the book's money, is getting screwed over.
For every work which was copyrighted and fell into the public domain, as far as way too much that hasn't thanks to Disney's aggressive protection of Steamboat Willie, the actual creators, as well as the publishers that assisted the creators on their journey and took risk by publishing these creations, are long dead. If you had to pay to download it, the money would be going almost entirely to people who have nothing to do with it.
A recent book, and by "recent" I mean "after 1933 or so", will cost you money to purchase, whether as a physical book or an e-book. This is to support, not only the author, but also the editors and various other personnel at the publisher, as well as in the case of the physical book the physical printing of the book itself.
If you want a physical copy of a public-domain book, this too will cost money. The money you pay here will go almost entirely to the physical processes which turn trees into paper with words on it, as well as some small amount for the people who decide how many copies of each type of book should be printed, design the covers, etc.
With Project Gutenberg, THERE IS NONE OF THIS. The only real costs are fixed, from scanning the book in in the first place and then editing it to make sure it came out right, and then there's server costs, which aren't particularly high when most of what you're hosting is text files.
Is giving money to publishers just because they're publishers really more important to you than preserving the vastness of human culture?
If you aren't willing to give the publisher money for the book you want to read, them YOU DON'T DESERVE TO READ BOOKS.
Except at the library.
So that's a yes. You think that the gigantic New York corporations like Random House deserve an eternal fount of money solely for helping publish things in the 1920s, and that this is more important than the ability of humanity as a whole to experience the products of our culture.
Fuck you.
Copyright is designed to promote the creation of human works by making it easier for creators--and I include the editors and publishers here--to make money from their creations. It's not supposed to be for companies that did important things a century ago to rest on their laurels and extract money from people for shit their predecessors did. The fact that it is for Disney should be a shame of the United States government; we shouldn't be wanting to expand that.
I just think that Project Gutenberg and file sharing is much more of a hindrance to smaller businesses and independent publishers than it is to huge corporations.
You know what I think is the No.1 obstacle to authors and publishers, etc.? Aliteracy. People who could be reading but instead spend all their time, uh, playing Call of Duty or some shit.
That's gotta be much more damaging than Project Gutenberg ever could be.
I just think that Project Gutenberg and file sharing is much more of a hindrance to smaller businesses and independent publishers than it is to huge corporations.
The latter, maybe, though even that's a complicated issue. The former, definitely not. Few independent publishers are going to remain both in existence and small and independent long enough to take advantage of the entire copyright term.
Well, Aliroz has a bit of a point here; the author is ultimately the original creator of the work.
But editors and publishers are thus facilitators -- their role is necessarily secondary to and dependent on authorship. Without authorship, there is no editing nor publishing.
Y'know what's one of the neatest things about Kickstarter and similar crowdfunding ventures these days? The fact that it actually cuts separate publishers out of the picture and takes the money directly from the consumer (who desires the product) to the creator (the author who creates the product). This is more economically efficient since you don't have a middleman taking a cut.
Furthermore, a work does not stop dead and become frozen in time when it is published. It is further absorbed by public consciousness, interpreted (often in multiple ways), and becomes part of culture. And culture is a public good.
I just think that Project Gutenberg and file sharing is much more of a hindrance to smaller businesses and independent publishers than it is to huge corporations.
The latter, maybe, though even that's a complicated issue. The former, definitely not. Few independent publishers are going to remain both in existence and small and independent long enough to take advantage of the entire copyright term.
You've got a very good point.. Now, if only there was a way for us to take away the practice of "your predecessors did stuff in the Twenties, you can coast on that because copyright" thing and hurt the monopoly of megacorporations of publishing AND support the independents. Like, maybe if independent companies could print Public Domain works.
I do think that file sharing hurts independents much more than it does megacorporations.
See all those people making memes out of pieces of creative media? See all those Youtube Poops and Nico Nico Douga in-jokes and stuff? See all those people writing fanfiction and remixing and sampling music? That is novel material. That is authorship right there. If you advocate freezing copyright immediately upon publication, forever, that in no way matches the fact that knowledge of that work moves on and becomes part of public consciousness. You can't make people unthink about a work. You can't make people unwatch or unlisten to it.
Well, Aliroz has a bit of a point here; the author is ultimately the original creator of the work.
But editors and publishers are thus facilitators -- their role is necessarily secondary to and dependent on authorship. Without authorship, there is no editing nor publishing.
Y'know what's one of the neatest things about Kickstarter and similar crowdfunding ventures these days? The fact that it actually cuts separate publishers out of the picture and takes the money directly from the consumer (who desires the product) to the creator (the author who creates the product). This is more economically efficient since you don't have a middleman taking a cut.
Furthermore, a work does not stop dead and become frozen in time when it is published. It is further absorbed by public consciousness, interpreted (often in multiple ways), and becomes part of culture. And culture is a public good.
But I like middlemen. I like Editors and new-author-supporting publishers who help the art spread. I don't want to cheat them out by making the money go straight to the author. All the people involved in the making and distribution of a work should be allies and friends, and they should share the rewards of their work.
Now, if the publisher already is in good shape, the publisher can afford less of the profits. But editors deserve way more credit than they get.
Comments
Good gosh, this makes me so mad. Publishers. Deserve. Money. More. Than. Customers.
Internet service: worth paying for.
Electricity: worth paying for.
Programs to help you download: worth paying for.
Computer: worth paying for.
Software: worth paying for.
Hardware: worth paying for.
Public Domain Book: aw heck naw, I'm entitled to get it for free.
So, everything made by big media corporations is worth paying for, but the publishers aren't worth your money.
Great. It's thanks to people like you that I'll never make it as a traditional author.
I know that. I know that it's not hurting the author. However, the author is the person third most worthy of a book's profits, after the Publisher and the Editor. And the Publisher, the one most deserving of the book's money, is getting screwed over.
Except at the library.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
-walks out of thread-
Because, seriously, screw the consumer.
Then who the hell are books for?
The author.
Also, you're right. You're absolutely right and I'm wrong here.
That's gotta be much more damaging than Project Gutenberg ever could be.
But editors and publishers are thus facilitators -- their role is necessarily secondary to and dependent on authorship. Without authorship, there is no editing nor publishing.
Y'know what's one of the neatest things about Kickstarter and similar crowdfunding ventures these days? The fact that it actually cuts separate publishers out of the picture and takes the money directly from the consumer (who desires the product) to the creator (the author who creates the product). This is more economically efficient since you don't have a middleman taking a cut.
Furthermore, a work does not stop dead and become frozen in time when it is published. It is further absorbed by public consciousness, interpreted (often in multiple ways), and becomes part of culture. And culture is a public good.
You've got a very good point.. Now, if only there was a way for us to take away the practice of "your predecessors did stuff in the Twenties, you can coast on that because copyright" thing and hurt the monopoly of megacorporations of publishing AND support the independents. Like, maybe if independent companies could print Public Domain works.
I do think that file sharing hurts independents much more than it does megacorporations.
nazareth
But I like middlemen. I like Editors and new-author-supporting publishers who help the art spread. I don't want to cheat them out by making the money go straight to the author. All the people involved in the making and distribution of a work should be allies and friends, and they should share the rewards of their work.
Now, if the publisher already is in good shape, the publisher can afford less of the profits. But editors deserve way more credit than they get.
Can we all agree that illegal file sharing is bad?