A friend proposed that copyright should just die with the author and / or their spouse and I'm left agreeing. I want books and music to be less strict on copyright. Some of my favorite YouTube channels break down music and songs, and go as far as recreating beats / tracks from famous hip hop songs, but someone at a record label company dings every one of their videos, they can barely sample a few seconds, its VERY CLEARLY fair use, and even gets me to listen to the songs more, but they are stealing all revenue for a fair use video that took a lot of time and money to make to begin with, they are profiting from work they didn't even do. This is silly to me, I'm sure there's loads of other channels and videos out there screwed over by the record industry over 15 second samples from a song... Which should 100% be fair use and not be given to the record labels.

Issue is small streamers have no legal defense.

Edit, adding the channel I am referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/@diggingthegreats/videos

Books in the 17th and 18th century often didnt get bound by the publisher. They were done by independent binders for _custom_ orders. You’d see whole libraries with the owners binding/cover standards rather than per book.

Books in that time were _luxury_ goods. Most people could not afford them. One of the ways that was changed was to introduce cheap, mass produced bindings that were lower quality than the bespoke artisianal bindings done by specialist craftsmen.

You can still get custom bindings done. There exists whole niches on the internet of crafters that will take a production run book and strip its binding and make you extremely high quality and custom bindings and covers.

> I often see well-made books from the 17th or 18th centuries which are still in good nick

At the risk of stating the obvious, any poorly made books from then wouldn’t have lasted this long and so you would never see them.

> I often see well-made books from the 17th or 18th centuries which are still in good nick.

Those books predate the development of wood pulp paper. It isn't the publisher's fault they can't economically print on rag paper anymore.

I have even less sympathy for IP stealing LLM operators

> It's ridiculous that in the 21st century, publication standards have fallen to the point where for most works a disposable format is the only type available - where no amount of money could buy a truly decent hardback copy.

This is purely a response to market demand. Publishers aren’t going to put in the extra expense of binding high quality versions of every book so it can occupy warehouse space while consumers everywhere buy the cheap paperback.

> And if the publisher keeps a book in print - but only in bestseller-grade materials, bogroll paper that furrows in any humidity and perfect binding that molts its pages a couple of dry seasons later - and if it refuses to print a durable hardback copy with signatures, good paper and decent print - something that will still be readable in several generations' time - any other publisher keen to have a crack at it should be able to, again without any compensation for the original publisher, though perhaps in this case, with matching royalties for the author.

This is all based on the idea that there is hidden demand for something, but publishers are choosing to deprive us all of it for reasons. That if we open up the laws, another company will come along and satisfy this hidden market opportunity and associated profits that publishers are declining to take.

The simpler explanation is that these high quality editions aren’t being published because the publishers have the data about demand for them. They know they won’t sell.

If the goal is preservation, laws forcing publishers to print on slightly nicer paper isn’t going to solve the problem. It needs to be a robust digital archive and it needs to exist somewhere other than in unsold warehouse inventory or some book collector’s shelf. You’re trying to solve a problem with last century’s technology.

I'd go for the less complex version: just make copyright last for like 20 years at most.

> I've limited sympathy for the publishers.

This doesn't affect publishers.

It affects humanity as a whole by having large private parties hoard books to partly destroy them. The covers and spines can have historical value too. There's not even a reason for these companies to release their scans to the public once the copyright expires.

It prevents proper preservation by archivists and preservationists.

The post doesn't call for the sympathy for the publishers, so I'm not sure what you're responding to.

Yeah it's as if the publishers are somehow strapped for cash compared to AI companies.

No one reasonable is concerned for publishers they are concerned for the books. Assuming the allegations are correct historical artifacts are being destroyed with no trace. It doesn’t even matter if they republish it. The artifact itself and the time it has transited is the valuable thing. It is simply immoral to destroy stuff like this.

15 years, 5 year extension, that’s it. That’s all we ever need, and there is no logical reason to extend it outside of the kind of greed they warned about in The Bible. Additionally, any and all source code, assets, etc should all be entered into the copyright office and released when it enters the public domain. This should even include printing assets and high res copies of artwork.

Copyright can be intrinsic, sure, but only to maybe 5-10yrs, far less than the maximum to incentivize registration (and thus incentivizing archiving of culture).

I should be able to freely download every Disney film prior to 2006, compile Killer7 for the fun of it, buy a hardback of the LOTR trilogy from any printer I wish, and do so without any interference from the copyright holders.

However, because we don’t live in a utopia and Sonny Bozo became a politician, I’ll be waving a certain jolly flag for the foreseeable future.

> When a publisher has no incentive to keep an edition in print, it should be available to any other publisher to print

How do you adjudicate that? And wouldn't it just lead to loopholes such as "Ghost Printings" (cf. Ghost Flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_flight_(commercial_aviat... ) where the books are technically printed in the required volume but practically unavailable to customers through one method or another. Because, the cost of wastefully printing a few books to warehouse, is less than the potential losses of the IP rights, probably.

I've never read a coherent argument for why all of these "should"s should be. I understand you want to read the books. But I don't see how that desire results in the laws needing to be changed so that you can read everything you want, even things the author or owner doesn't want you to read.

There is not a shortage of books in print. I don't understand why people get so hung up on a few of them being out of print. It is okay for someone to own something cool and not let anyone see it. The cool thing doesn't suddenly become a societal necessity because it is words written down.

I agree. However, AI companies have managed to make publishers and copyright owners saints by comparison.

Thanks for your thoughts, but how is this is anyway relevant to the issue at hand? I'm sad that this is the top comment...

[dead]

[flagged]