Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote: >> >>> Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she >>> could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often >>> prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves >>> and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if >>> *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to >>> share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their >>> efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is >>> not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most >>> modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may >>> see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was >>> recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for >>> advertisement here. >> >> Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't >> afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local >> library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages >> other member of the target audience to loan the book without >> paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of >> enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to >> introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get >> lots of attention after they're available from the shelves. > > No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that > other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it > wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a > copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This > falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to > someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as > long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between > copying and lending.
Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy. In either case the author gets as much/little money assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.
