On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <[email protected]> wrote:
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 fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can
use it. So effectively, the author is giving you a license attached to
the book to whomever possesses it to read it, as long as someone paid for
the book originally. The publisher sets the price based on this model, so
if that is not the model being used, the publisher loses money. One copy
== one license fee. The reason money is lost is because you are
destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire pricing structure is
based on it. If he knew half the people who read the book were going to
download it without paying for it, he'd charge more, or simply not publish
because it's not worth it.
Downloading the book means that you have a copy, and the web site you
downloaded it from has a copy, but it only has been paid for once. This
breaks the license terms, and is effectively stealing from the publisher.
In reality what happens is thousands or hundreds of thousands of people
download it, and now the publisher's pricing model is completely
destroyed. It's backwards to think about, but it's how it works. The
publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a book is not
worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the book. The law
protects them so they can make those assumptions and remain a profitable
company. Without the law, publishers go out of business, and books are
never created in the first place.
Here's another way to think about it: Let's say a publisher wants to
publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who
potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and
make a profit. Then when the book is finished, you get your copy. How
well do you think this model will work? Essentially it's the same as the
current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the publisher.
Who wants to do that? I want to peruse a book before buying it, how can
that work if I have to pay for it before it's written?
BTW, I can download electronic copies of books from my library for free
too. The library pays for one license per copy, and while I'm reading it,
nobody else can. That model also fits within the copyright law. Legal
use of copyright material doesn't have to be expensive or "unjust". To
see a very good way of reading actual books that you only want to read
once and then give away, see paperbackswap.com.
What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't
illegal. Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing
up your software, or transferring it to another medium for your own
benefit). The thing that is illegal is when two or more copies of the
item are being used and only one has been licensed.
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.
At this point, the author is probably getting very little money (not sure,
never wrote a book), it's the publisher recouping his initial investment
to the author to write the book. If you don't like the model, start your
own publishing company and give more money to the authors. See how long
you stay in business...
I agree that people who want to justify stealing often just simplify the
model to prove their point. You can try to justify it all you want, it's
still stealing. See how far your justification story gets you when they
take you to court.
-Steve
