I want to get this straight, given you

> dont even really believe in that much

If I write a book, let’s say it’s a really good book, and self-publish it, you’re saying you think it’s totally kosher for Amazon to take that book, make a copy, and then make it a best seller (because they have vastly better marketing and sales tools), while putting their own name in as author?

That seems, to you, like a totally fine and desirable thing? That literally all content should only ever be monetized by the biggest corporations who can throw their weight around and shut everyone else out?

Or is this maybe a completely half-baked load of nonsense that sounded better around the metaphorical bong circle?

Come on, now.

▲

protocolture 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Actually the more common outcome is that some enterprising random makes a compilation of public domain content and markets it for like 25 cents. Competing to make it as available to me as possible.

Have a look at REH short stories on Google Books. This is super common.

Do I want someone to do that to your book? To make it as available and as cheap for me to read on the platform of my choice.

Yes.

Its just data, and culturally speaking, it already belongs to me. I own your book. People can compete to deliver it to me for the cheapest price. I welcome that.

I don't begrudge you going on tour, and selling author signed copies for whatever price you want. But likewise don't expect me to support a set a property norms that would deprive me of elements of the culture I live in.

Come on, now.

▲

jmye 2 days ago | parent [-]

> that some enterprising random makes a compilation of public domain content

My hypothetical book is not, at all, public domain. This is always a non-starter.

> But likewise don't expect me to support a set a property norms that would deprive me of elements of the culture I live in.

I could simply choose not to publish my book, and carry it around and let people read it in front of me. Apparently this is an insufferable “property norm” as you would be unable to consume my work at all, let alone for free and in the manner of your own choosing. What an absurd thing to believe in.

Do you similarly think your entitled to sleep on my couch, or eat my dinner, or do you only think you’re entitled to take what you want when it’s words rather than, say, oranges? Or do you just have a weirdly tenuous grasp of what culture is?

	▲	protocolture a day ago \| parent [-]
		>My hypothetical book is not, at all, public domain. This is always a non-starter. Right but in your weird strawman argument that assumes big scary amazon can reproduce it for free, it is effectively public domain. >I could simply choose not to publish my book, and carry it around and let people read it in front of me. Apparently this is an insufferable “property norm” as you would be unable to consume my work at all, let alone for free and in the manner of your own choosing. What an absurd thing to believe in. "I only want to contribute to human society if I can profit by it" as long as you can live knowing you are a sell out, I can live without reading your book, or using it to prop up my table. >Do you similarly think your entitled to sleep on my couch, or eat my dinner, or do you only think you’re entitled to take what you want when it’s words rather than, say, oranges? Or do you just have a weirdly tenuous grasp of what culture is? "Do you think you are entitled to <Scarce, physical thing> because you believe everyone is entitled to <non scarce, non physical thing intrinsic to human culture, able to be spread around the world to millions of people instantly>" No lmao.

▲

Lerc 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you think if it were allowable for Amazon to do that, it would actually be profitable for them to do so?

As soon as any work became popular, anyone could undercut Amazon. If you really think that Amazon is in a position where they can charge significant money for something others can provide for much less, then you are talking about an anticompetitive monopoly.

If that's the case the problem is not with copyright, it's lack of competition. The situation we have now is just one where copyright means they can't publish just anything, but Amazon can always acquire the rights to something and apply those same resources to make it a best seller. They don't care if the book is great or not. They just want to be able to sell it. Being able to be the only producer of the thing incentives making the thing that they own popular, not the thing that is good. Having the option to pick what succeeds puts them in a dominant negotiating position so they can acquire rights cheaply.

I guess if that were the case though it would be easy to spot things that were popular when though they seemingly lack merit or any real reason other than a strong marketing department. It would really suck in that world. Not only would there be talented people making good works and earning little money, but most people would not even get to see what they had created. For many creatives, that would be the worst part of it.

	▲	fwip 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, Amazon would do that. Why would another person be able to meaningfully "undercut" Amazon here? Amazon would profit from selling e-books even if it's only for 10 cents - and integration with their Kindles and convenience of discovery would make it difficult for anyone to compete meaningfully on price. For printed books, economies of scale work in their favor as well - if it costs them $1.20 to manufacture/store/ship a paperback, and me $1.50, how am I supposed to undercut them?