Post AbESkQy4uPIQX8vSlM by raven@fedi.raventhemaker.com
 (DIR) More posts by raven@fedi.raventhemaker.com
 (DIR) Post #AbEI1LAMdNPjxzX0vA by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
       2023-10-28T12:58:09.491951Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @raven >If the publisher is no longer selling the book, then the publisher and author are no longer receiving income from it.The publisher imagines that they're making profit because the book is kept proprietary - that's only the important thing to the publisher.>There is really nothing left to protect, no benefit to the public in protecting a work that is unavailableI don't really get how restricting the copying of a book it meant to protect anything, thus I wouldn't refer to such government enforced monopoly as "protection".It's arguably a loss to the public (rather than protection) if the public is being restricted from the ability to freely copy a book in exchange for losing a large amount of money to publishers who do little more than put an order in to a printer for x books with y cover (for physical books) or upload a file to a server (for ebooks) and then proceed to pay the author a pittance even if huge profits are gained (only superstars tend to be able to negotiate merely an unfair contract after years of ridiculous contracts).>Make an ebook available perpetually. >(No, it's not practical. But it's nice to dream.)It's very practical to make a file composed of text available for download long term due to the small storage requirements, unless of course ebook has digital handcuffs on it.Such files are very easy to make available on GNUnet FS, bittorrent, libgen, ipfs etc - maybe a dedicated library of all the PD books could be maintained (hardware replacement/maintenance costs and a internet connection would be all that's required).
       
 (DIR) Post #AbEPukYybrNiL9PcRs by raven@fedi.raventhemaker.com
       2023-10-28T13:07:29Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Suiseiseki Copyright protects the author's income as an encouragement to write books. With no protections, most authors wouldn't write. I think the basic idea of copyright is sound. Copyright protection beyond the author's life, etc make far less sense. And unfair publisher contracts are a whole different problem.Are you familiar with The Gutenberg Project, an archive of public domain works?
       
 (DIR) Post #AbEPulcuei7ldeGHDs by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
       2023-10-28T14:26:40.255597Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @raven >Copyright protects the author's income as an encouragement to write books. With no protections, most authors wouldn't write.That's the argument the publishers like to use, but it has no basis in reality.Only a small number of authors (compared to the population) can make a decent income out of writing books and most of them seem to be motivated by their enjoyment of writing and publishing books - profit seems to usually be a secondary thought - few, possible no authors are motivated how people will be restricted from making copies of the book they paid for.Even if it was impossible for authors to make a profit from writing books, many authors would still write.I would argue that copyright rather serves as an disincentive for most authors to write books, as almost all publishers demand that authors surrender their copyright to them.Some authors have noted that copyright is a problem for them, as publishers stop distributing their books after a year or two and then use such copyright to prevent them from getting their book published elsewhere.>I think the basic idea of copyright is sound.I think the whole concept of copyright is brain damage and would only achieve its stated goals if applied to commercial activities only.As copyright currently exists whether I want it to or not, I ensure to license under the GPLv3-or-later or the AGPLv3-or-later to ensure that everyone is free to share my works.>Are you familiar with The Gutenberg Project, an archive of public domain works?Yep.
       
 (DIR) Post #AbESkQy4uPIQX8vSlM by raven@fedi.raventhemaker.com
       2023-10-28T14:37:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Suiseiseki We must agree to disagree. If authors didn't want copyright, they'd release their books into the public domain or free-license them.  Yet, author after author chooses to enter into contracts under which they get paid.
       
 (DIR) Post #AbESkRmlrvqV4MdwmG by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
       2023-10-28T14:58:29.379818Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @raven >If authors didn't want copyright, they'd release their books into the public domain or free-license them.It's very difficult to validly place a work into the public domain in most countries - so the difficulty alone may be a reason why so little books are in the public domain.Many authors do release certain books under free licenses, but the author retains their copyright in that case.>Yet, author after author chooses to enter into contracts under which they get paid.Yes, author after author gets coerced into unfair contracts because publishers ensure that books can't easily be published without them.
       
 (DIR) Post #AbEn6gSnyX0G2wBXEG by raven@fedi.raventhemaker.com
       2023-10-28T02:57:39Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       It's my general belief that when a book goes out of print and new copies are unavailable, the book should fall into the public domain.If the publisher is no longer selling the book, then the publisher and author are no longer receiving income from it. There is really nothing left to protect, no benefit to the public in protecting a work that is unavailable. Don't want your book to fall into the PD?  Make an ebook available perpetually.(No, it's not practical. But it's nice to dream.)