Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/alexandria
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
amelielasker.eth pfp
amelielasker.eth
@amelie
Today, February 26, Amazon takes away the right for people to download offline copies of their Kindle books. Today, we at /alexandria are debuting ebook download. Readers can download their copies of the @jakonrath Dark Thriller Collective, because they own them. Onchain means owning your ebooks.
2 replies
2 recasts
6 reactions
bloke pfp
bloke
@cloaked-bloke
this is cool and ironic. Just yesterday, I had wrote up the parallels from the book marketplace to free software (fsf). I cant let it go to waste, and I have a question… so here we are. With physical books, there exists the ‘first sale doctrine’, where- when one buys a copy, they are free to redistribute it. Ex. Libraries can lend it, Used book sales The problem with this, is the author does not get a cut in either case. The library does not have to pay the author, the individual selling second hand will not give a percentage to the author. With the internet, however, creating copies is extremely easy.. Therefore, redistribution puts the author at risk even moreso—to losing revenue due to second hand sales. The licensing model amazon uses—where customers do not technically own the books they buy— seems to somewhat protect authors on the internet. i.e Limiting second hand sales increases revenue for authors, and a byproduct ofc is helping amazon stockholders… lol
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
bloke pfp
bloke
@cloaked-bloke
the question i have @amelie when someone buys a book, do you believe they ‘own it’ completely? it’s like, when someone takes a photo, does the photographer own it? Or the person in the shot? Or is it fractionalized between all parties involved? Software - Do I get complete market share because I forked amazon’s code and somehow made it more popular than amazon itself? Or do I owe all the FOSS external libraries i used? ex. React, tailwind, etc. If I use a book to source a new one, should I get 100% revenue even though this person significantly helped in writing the new one? Or is the “advertisement” enough? I don’t really know what end game we’re headed towards, because ownership is sooooo complicated to me… And all these mini corps fighting for semblance of success, hurts my brain.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
amelielasker.eth pfp
amelielasker.eth
@amelie
You're bringing up major questions about the nature of intellectual property itself, and I definitely agree it's complicated! Copyright law and existing publishing contracts have decided certain answers to this question. Perpetual digital ownership enabled by web3 brings up new questions that copyright lawyers and artists alike will have to answer. With the book example, you bring up another important complication: is the value of intellectual property about protecting access to that property directly? Or is the benefit of proliferating a brand, as long as it's attributed to the original creator, good enough as payment? (continued below)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction