[wubrr]

> it's galling to see the work my co-authors, editors, designers, illustrators, translators, and reviewers poured months of our lives into available for free on this site.

Why? You may think your work is super unique/original/awesome, but the reality is 99% of the content of 99% of books is not unique or original, and those works wouldn't exist without massively relying on and borrowing from other works.

> it's certainly important for the brilliant and under-appreciated people who work in publishing, maintaining the fragile existence of our greatest technology: the book.

There are better ways of supporting work you find important than the parasitic publishing industry and copyright.

> maintaining the fragile existence of our greatest technology: the book.

Books existed long before publishers and copyright, and seem to have survived quite well.

[dansitu]

> Books existed long before publishers and copyright, and seem to have survived quite well.

Who do you think was feeding the monks?

[wubrr]

I don't really care, but many different people, for many different reasons.

You may think this specific example, which you seem to think resembles the current publishing industry, negates my overall point, but... not even close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_books#Book_culture

> The authors of antiquity had no rights concerning their published works; there were neither authors' nor publishing rights. Anyone could have a text recopied, and even alter its contents. Scribes earned money and authors earned mostly glory unless a patron provided cash; a book made its author famous. This followed the traditional concept of the culture: an author stuck to several models, which he imitated and attempted to improve. The status of the author was not regarded as absolutely personal.

[daedrdev]

> Books existed long before publishers and copyright, and seem to have survived quite well.

We are living in the most productive time ever for the book industry, I think comparing the current industry to the past when we produce several orders of magnitude more works that many people highly value is nonsensical.

[wubrr]

That point was specifically in response to the suggestion that we need publishers and copyright for books to exist - which is obviously false. Not sure how the size of the current industry relates to that point.

[daedrdev]

I'm saying that even though books would exist without copyright and publishers, it allows for several times more books to exist by providing an incentive. Authors could give their books for free if they really felt that it was important for their book to be free.

[wubrr]

> I'm saying that even though books would exist without copyright and publishers, it allows for several times more books to exist by providing an incentive.

Having the maximum number of books possible is not really something I would consider a success metric. Or do you think the endless stream of AI-generated books happening right now is a good thing? Also, publishers and copyright are not the only way to monetize your work.

> Authors could give their books for free if they really felt that it was important for their book to be free.

Can they? Or does the publisher control that right? That being said, some of the best technical books/works I've read were free.

[daedrdev]

> Having the maximum number of books possible is not really something I would consider a success metric. Or do you think the endless stream of AI-generated books happening right now is a good thing? Also, publishers and copyright are not the only way to monetize your work.

Obviously I think that the combination of value and quantity of books today is much higher in the past, you don't need to nitpick my phrasing. Additionally, the book industry has been in its new peak of written work since before AI became good in 2020.

> Can they? Or does the publisher control that right? That being said, some of the best technical books/works I've read were free.

Its 2024. An author doesn't need a publisher outside of academia if they want to publish a book for free. They might not have an editor or translator, but those things cost money. But most authors like money and since most books loose publishers money its not like the author is loosing out.

> That being said, some of the best technical books/works I've read were free.

I'm glad you liked them. The best fiction works I read I paid for, and trust me I've read a lot of free fiction works.

[wubrr]

> Obviously I think that the combination of value and quantity of books today is much higher in the past, you don't need to nitpick my phrasing.

It's not obvious at all when all you mentioned was quantity (two times in a row). And I think the reason that was all you mentioned is because that's the only 'obvious' increased metric you have. Not to mention, there are many other things that are different now, so chalking it all up to copyright and publishers is illogical.

> Additionally, the book industry has been in its new peak of written work since before AI became good in 2020.

Again, you're making claims about 'peak' and 'book health', etc. without actually defining what that means... is it supposed to be 'obvious'?

> Its 2024. An author doesn't need a publisher outside of academia if they want to publish a book for free.

That entirely depends on the situation.

[account42]

> I'm saying that even though books would exist without copyright and publishers, it allows for several times more books to exist by providing an incentive.

Does it though? The current deluge of books is mainly due to the easy of creating them and getting them to readers. That is, thank computers not copyright.

[troyvit]

> You may think your work is super unique/original/awesome, but the reality is 99% of the content of 99% of books is not unique or original, and those works wouldn't exist without massively relying on and borrowing from other works.

Cool so you won't miss it when libgen is gone then? I mean if there's nothing unique or original there then what's to miss right?

> Books existed long before publishers and copyright, and seem to have survived quite well.

I don't know how else to measure the health of books other than measuring the health of publishing, and it doesn't seem like it's doing so great:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...

I'm not saying the publishing industry is sane or just, but how does belittling the work of the authors help anything?

[wubrr]

> Cool so you won't miss it when libgen is gone then?

I personally won't, because I've never used it. I am 100% against it being shut down though.

> I mean if there's nothing unique or original there then what's to miss right?

Read my comment again and find the spot where I said 'nothing'.

> I don't know how else to measure the health of books other than measuring the health of publishing

You can start by defining what 'health of books' even means, but your conclusion here seems seriously perverse.

> how does belittling the work of the authors help anything?

What is belittling about acknowledging the fact that current works (especially technical/non-fiction) heavily draw from previous works? The last few technical books I read literally had zero original/unique information - they were just re-organization/re-phrasing/compilation of other works. That's not a bad thing - I think it's great, and the books are great, but is that justification for restricting access to this information - when it is literally 100% based on other works?