[sycamoretrees]

So, if you write a really good (free, since you don’t believe in intellectual property) book and I merely translate it into German, you don’t mind me selling it on Amazon and making money off of it? Ethically this is OK right? Since it’s not physical.

I don’t mean to come off as rude, I just find these “intellectual property doesn’t exist” takes ultimately very shallow and dismissive.

[Adverblessly]

I'm not the parent poster, but I still wanted to reply.

In this hypothetical scenario, there's no copyright, so everything that isn't private is essentially public domain.

I've released my book into the public domain, you translated the book into German and also released it into the public domain. In addition, you suggest to the public that if they want to compensate you for your work (of translating the book to German), they can do so by purchasing a copy on Amazon. As long as you are honest about who wrote the book and what work you did (translating it), I'd have no problem.

Possibly, I've also indicated some way for people to compensate me for my work (even though they technically don't have to, they may want to do the moral thing and compensate me for the work I've put into something they enjoyed), for example I've also put it up for purchase on Amazon. It would then certainly be nice of you to also point your German readers to my Amazon entry in case they feel like giving something to me as well (or possibly even only to me).

This to me seems perfectly fine and ethical to me and I'd welcome that world.

[tremon]

I've released my book into the public domain

But, continuing the hypothetical, why would you do that? Why would you spend the effort to compile all your knowledge in book form? Typesetting is hard, and you may want to use the expertise of other people for editorial review, printing and binding. Everything you pay them will be out of your own pocket, since the expected market value of the finished product is zero. On top of that, each one of those people may decide to publish your book as their own, and may have to if they want to recoup their own costs.

Taking a slightly wider view, how are you going to convince the bank to lend you a mortgage if your primary activity can only be remunerated via donations? In this world, who would still spend time on publishing books?

[Adverblessly]

Before answering, I'd like to again remind you that we're talking about a world where the concept of intellectual property does not exist.

> your primary activity can only be remunerated via donations

I don't think the word "donations" really applies here, just like tips at a restaurant are not considered donations. Tips are not legally required, but they are heavily socially encouraged. If everyone agrees that creative works and knowledge should be shared and that we want more of them to exist, then it is expected, though not required that you give something back. Ideally proportional to the use you got out of it and what you have in the first place.

> On top of that, each one of those people may decide to publish your book as their own.

They can share the book all they want, but that doesn't mean they get to lie about who made the book ("as their own"), that should probably be illegal ;)

> But, continuing the hypothetical, why would you do that? Why would you spend the effort to compile all your knowledge in book form?

Maybe I hope to get compensated for it, maybe I like writing books, maybe I wrote the book for my own use and decided to share, maybe I personally value getting this knowledge out there for others to use which may even benefit me, maybe I feel grateful for the knowledge I received for free myself and want to give soemething back or build upon it or maybe I'm just obssessed with books :)

> Typesetting is hard, and you may want to use the expertise of other people for editorial review, printing and binding. Everything you pay them will be out of your own pocket, since the expected market value of the finished product is zero.

Probably if I only know about writing the book, it would make more sense to release a PDF, and maybe someone else will want to go through the trouble of actually making it into a printable book for some portion of the tips. Maybe they'd like to cooperate with me on the "official" release of the book for some share of the tips, after all anyone could possibly piggyback on their derivative work (or just get the PDF :)) so they may get more out of it by being part of the "original" "official" version of my book. Or maybe I can just pay them if it seems valuable to me.

> and may have to if they want to recoup their own costs

Or as above, they'll find it easier to recoup their costs by cooperating ;)

> Taking a slightly wider view, how are you going to convince the bank to lend you a mortgage if your primary activity can only be remunerated via donations?

As in our existing world, if the bank thinks I'll get enough back in tips, then it is a worthwhile investment. Also, in our hypothetical world, since everything is already available "for free", the best place to spend your budget for creative work is in works that don't already exist, making crowdsourcing a much more popular and rewarding option (I can get Eat Pray Love for free, but adverblessly's book is priceless since it will only exist if they get this money).

> In this world, who would still spend time on publishing books?

If we're talking about online publishing, I'm sure you could find plenty of people that will setup a website to host PDFs (or epub or mobi :)) for a 10% comission, guaranteeing the original artist gets at least 85% of the sale price (if it isn't going to the original artist, why even pay?). If w'ere talking about physical book publishing we'd probably see a similar dynamic. Alternatively, maybe you'll get your PDF from the original artist to tip them and then go to the professional printer for the physical book at printing cost +10% profit margin (at whichever book printer provides the best cost/quality for your needs).

[thallium205]

You made a copy. No theft occurred. I still have mine.

I never will understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. I’m not entitled to anything else.

https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4

[sycamoretrees]

No, I get it, I’ve heard that argument and I see the logic behind it. It’s a “victimless” crime.

There are two issues I can think of that I would lead one to different conclusions. The first is that of consent - do I consent to my hard work being used without any reference to me and my effort? Would I have made the effort in the first place if there was no recognition? The second is the following example: I quit my job to write an encyclopedia, something which is sure to benefit humanity. I toil day and night in order to one day sell it and get bread on the table. I finally publish it, but the next day another publisher copies it and sells it for cheaper (which they can afford, because they’re not paying me!), gobbling up my publisher’s market share and hence making me penniless, since the publisher has no money to pay me. Do I not deserve justice, considering the encyclopedia has sold a million copies and I am struggling to make a living?

The point is that the world is much too complex to draw a straight line between physical and intellectual property. A lot of us - and the vast majority on HN, I can imagine - work “intellectual” jobs in order to afford “physical” food.

[zirgs]

That's how open source software works. You are allowed to sell it.

[gumballindie]

If you respect the license. You cant steal open source code and just implement it in your products. Nor can you sell it modified or not without attribution and in some cases without open sourcing your own product.

[zirgs]

GPL is not the only open source licence out there. MIT, BSD, CC-0 and others don't put any stupid restrictions on derivative works.

[thallium205]

Fashion operates without any “intellectual property” protections and it’s suffering greatly because of it!

/s

[gumballindie]

Yeah counterfeit fashion products are not just illegal they also cause massive issues, both for original makers and consumers. It’s hilarious how all arguments against copyright as so blatantly easy to refute.

[stale2002]

> Ethically this is OK right?

Yes it is.