Re:EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
by Caracas288 on Tuesday September 01, 2026 @12:35PM
(#49524331)
Academics don't collect any royalties, they're paid prior to publication, not for selling copies of books.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
by jolmg on Tuesday September 01, 2026 @01:48PM
(#49525314)
I'm using "research" broadly. People can privately research and publish under whatever arrangement they wish. Academics too. For those that sell their copyright, that would be valued based on projections of what the copyright buyer expects to sell. For those whose research was funded by the copyright buyer prior to writing because they didn't want to bear the risk or lacked the funds, that's going to be less, but everything stems from how the books are expected to sell.
Re:EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
by Caracas288 on Tuesday September 01, 2026 @02:38PM
(#49526121)
I think there are better funding models than the precarity of copyright-dependent publishing.
Re:EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
by saaaaaam on Tuesday September 01, 2026 @01:29PM
(#49525080)
Yes they do. As a kid our (admittedly not particularly lavish) family summer holiday was paid for each year by the modest royalties my father, an academic, received from a couple of academic textbooks he had authored.
Re:EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
by Caracas288 on Tuesday September 01, 2026 @01:45PM
(#49525285)
Right, that was worded too universally, but this is what I mean: royalties here are supplementary to a salary, not a wage in themselves. The research was funded before publication.