Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Do the ends justify the means, matey?

Commenter's point was that it's obviously easier to pirate. This is exactly the point; As an author, I'm upset that the system is like it is, I'm not upset at the many people who are undoubtedly going to pirate my work if it's difficult to get, whether it's right or wrong.

No Author finishes their work and declares, "Now, let me make this as difficult as possible to purchase." It's the PLATFORM.



>No Author finishes their work and declares, "Now, let me make this as difficult as possible to purchase." It's the PLATFORM.

IMO, the logical conclusion here is obvious: copyright should provide the author with the right to money, but not with the right to control actual distribution - we should be legally allowed to send the author $X in the mail and then torrent the thing.

This notion that the author should control the means of distribution? It's a historical artifact of old technology when publishing literally meant printing presses, and setting up a competing printing press without the author's authorization was an expensive choice that was inherently, obviously a means to rip off the author.

IMO, every ISBN should have the author's bank account number next to it and obtaining a copy of the ebook should be as simple as sending $X to that bank account, then finding a torrent by ISBN.


> every ISBN should have the author's bank account number next to it and obtaining a copy of the ebook should be as simple as sending $X to that bank account, then finding a torrent by ISBN.

which is fine, except what happens if the author sold the rights to another company that then demand a different set of condition?

Or are you saying that the owner of said copyright does not have the right to decide such (for example, they would want to decide that the works is only available as part of something else sold)?


The ISBN could be the bank account. Like a DOI. Or a BTC wallet address. Access/control over it could be transferable.


Or partial rights. Movie, TV series, audiobook, podcast, blog; all to different entities.


This is an interesting idea but one that will, if anything, increase piracy. Given a torrent link and a bank account number, how many people will think "let me try the book first for a bit, if I like it I'll pay" and then never come around to pay? Or even not care about paying at all, nobody will notice or be able to track, so you're basically safe from law enforcement.


The key here is the dishonesty in society. It annoys me every day.

I hear 30-year old overpaid software engineers brainstorming how to cheat the ticket checks at the ski resort. I watch people at all-you-can-eat buffets piling more food on than they can eat and bring something with them for consuming later at home or by their family. People discussing tax loopholes. Or how to get train rides for free if nobody checks the ticket. All well-off folks. Cheating their way through life. It's sickening.

It makes me wonder whether religion may actually be a (partial) solution to this. An atheist myself, I can see value in brainwashing people into believing that they are constantly being watched by an almighty being which will ensure they go to hell if they steal or similar, even if nobody else is watching.

It's really sad that people can't just be decent.


Because the system tries to screw them over at every step.


Copyright doesnt exist only to prevent people from getting your books for free. It's also there to prevent other authors from using your story for their own - for example, this is (part of) what prevents Universal Studios from putting out their own Spider Man movie.

Now, arguably this has even worse consequences on culture than the banning of copying ebooks. Still, it complicates the expected cost of a book significantly, so replacing current copyright with your proposal would require some alternative for this case as well.


this is (part of) what prevents Universal Studios from putting out their own Spider Man movie.

It's not though. It's the trademark that prevents that. Copyright only prevents them from making a Spiderman movie based on a story that's already been written. Nothing prevents them from writing a new story about a guy that shoots sticky goo from his wrists, and making a movie out of that.

I guess that story wouldn't be considered canon. But canon also has nothing to do with copyright.


But then you are cutting out the publisher, who spent a significant amount of money and an overwhelming amount of hours doing things like, “pressing upload”, and, “collecting payment”.

I kid, they are payday loan services for authors.


Don't editors fit in there somewhere?


This is actually a great starting point IMO.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: