Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <r...@tard.com.invalid> 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.
That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy
the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about
downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the
author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still
getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get
paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is
reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing.
I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking
a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't
read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have
a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people
reading the same book concurrently.
I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be
encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to
live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is
so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of
digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do
think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point
that there are viable alternatives).
"This could be heaven for everyone,
This world could be free,
This world could be won..."
