as sad as this ruling is, simultaneously i see a wave of authors who have made their works freely available online, while selling hardcopies. this too from major technical publishers. see for instance ISLR (https://www.statlearning.com/).
speaking from a myopic view, in an age where source code can be freely distributed while maintaining ownership and rights*, why do literature have so much gatekeeping digitally?
while the authors that make their digital versions freely available bestow some trust on the other end (please don't print our work and sell it), simultaneously they can often benefit during the editorial process (many books are available this way before final publishing). moreover, if you write a work of fiction, nobody can run and create a movie based on it just because you can read the book for free.
this was a good opportunity to set precedence, but it has gone the other direction.
speaking from a myopic view, in an age where source code can be freely distributed while maintaining ownership and rights*, why do literature have so much gatekeeping digitally?
while the authors that make their digital versions freely available bestow some trust on the other end (please don't print our work and sell it), simultaneously they can often benefit during the editorial process (many books are available this way before final publishing). moreover, if you write a work of fiction, nobody can run and create a movie based on it just because you can read the book for free.
this was a good opportunity to set precedence, but it has gone the other direction.