[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.