[Leyor]

Originally Posted by leebase

You linked to one article that makes HUGE cause/effect leaps, ignores HUGE relevant "likely causal facts". It's an opinion piece that you agree with. It's not proof of anything.

Actually I've linked to several pieces. Some being opinion pieces like the ones by Orson Scott Card and the Spiegel, others being a study compiled on the background of historical data; I'd like to direct you to: "Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts (History and nature of copyright) by Eckhard Höffner, July 2010 (in German) ISBN 3-930893-16-9". I've even previously linked to a simple easy to read presentation only hightlighting his points.

A study conducted by economic historical Echard Hôffner, who's managed to get this and other articles published in peer reviewed journals. I'd say his credentials currently ranks above yours and mine. The study contains the economic background and context, an economic impact assessment and alot of empirical data, also supported by other authoritan sources.

While there in science are no "facts" only theories, I'd say that there's a weight of empirical data that atleast supports this position. Not really going to debate this futher as currently your weight of argumentation has been "because I said so".

Who posited that? Offering up a red herring are we?

Writers were either independently wealthy or had patrons who gave them sinecures. No one was able to make a living as a writer until the copyright act was passed.

In this very thread none the less.

I know the best defence is an attack, but as I wrote before, I insist on accuracy, and I'd like to thank you very much to actually read your own thread before making red herring claims.

You've offered no basis for your position besides your own conjecture. I've made two major claims, one that people here has defended copyright based on invalid historical assumptions like the one above, two that there's no intrinsic value to books being priced highly. I'd very much like that you back up your own claims before you attack mine.

Your argument about plagiarism is also a hollow one. Your premise is that plagiarism in itself is a bad thing, and it should be selfevident to the rest of us. However despite plagiarism authors earned more. So PLEASE be precise and call a shovel a shovel. Plagiarism in that SPECIFIC context only hurt already wealthy publishers.

I am really uncertain what your motives are. Your definitely not advocating the cause of authors, your not advocating the cause of consumers. The historical data over more than hundred years:

1710:

Germany:
Plagiarism
Authors earned more pr book.
10x more original works
More people could afford the books

Britain:
Copyright
Authors earned 2.5 times less pr. book
Less original works
Only the wealthiest could afford it.

Instead of saying, wow, thats interesting, how come the authors earned more, or even if you want to be critical dig into the fact that Britain was alot more progressive and wealthier than germany. You instantly go, woops plagiarism, bad, just because it is.

You can attack my claims and data, but as I said, I'd like to see you offer up some of your own. Also keep in mind that I don't claim that abolishing copyright today would have the same result, I am merely referencing what HAS happened.


I'd love to have a discussion with you about how interesting it is, that alot of people earn more money the lower they price their books, and who a high price of books genuinely profits. But it seems we can't get past the past. Maybe for the sake of understanding, you could list what You think are the positives of the book industry, and we can argue from there? Because I am really confused on who you really wish to benefit.