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

Do you think the authors and editors should be compensated for their work? Charging for use seems to be a pretty straight forward way to reward the people who create good books.


Copyright grants you the right to profit from the first sale. It does not grant you the right to charge "per use."

Should your books destroy themselves after you've read them once?


No. Copyright gives the right to control how a work is reproduced. In the case of printed books, we've arrived on the first sale doctrine which still does a pretty good job of spreading costs over all users. It's not perfect, but wear and tear help spread out the costs.

Digital books are different. It's quite possible for there to be one "sale" in the first sale model. That doesn't do a very good job of sharing costs among the people who read the book. Nor does it do a good job of rewarding the people who produce good books that are in much demand.

I'm quite happy with all of the digital "renting" schemes that effectively "destroy" the digital work after I've consumed it. Why? Because I want to pay the least amount and that means spreading the costs as broadly as possible. That's just fairness.


Yes, it controls reproduction, but not all uses are a reproduction. The law also has zero concerns for "spreading costs" and it's why "fair use" and libraries can even exist in the first place.

Further, simply because you give out copies of your work for free, does not mean you suddenly lose copyright protection. Costs and copyright are two entirely separate issues, which is why open source licenses can exist. Your attempt to convolve these two facts leads to an incredibly messy interpretation.

Digital books are not different in any meaningful way. You have the right to sell a digital copy. Once sold, the user who purchased it, has a right to use that copy in any way the see fit. Including lending it to others, selling it second hand, or even reading it out loud as part of an event.

The article makes it perfectly clear, this is not driving costs down, so while you may be happy with that outcome, that's clearly not what's actually occurring. So I'm genuinely surprised you've gone to this much effort to advocate for something that demonstrably fails to produce the outcome you're after.


Do you think the authors and editors actually get the lion's share of the profits from sales of books? Particularly ebooks?


Do you think your plumber should be compensated every time you take a shit?


If the plumber wants to write such a contract and the customer wants to sign it, sure. In many big cities, there are toilets that are pay-per-use. So, in essence, the market has already embraced the idea you mock.




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

Search: