Quote:
Originally Posted by tirsales
Now it gets strange. A digital existance is a material form? Well - as far as we have a number of ions changed.
But - hey, if we have a material form, we can just sell it like every other book (a material form as well) too - and we cannot copy it as no two material forms can ever be identical.
By the very definition of matter a file is NOT material - it occupies no space, it has no weight, etc
|
Boy, you spend an afternoon cleaning up in the basement, and look where the discussions go when you're not looking!...
tirsales has hit on a point I've been trying to make for a while, now: Whether or not a collection of electrons count as a "physical object," and therefore should be bound by the same rules and considerations. I believe that this debate is at the root of the argument between publishers/authors and consumers, regarding the value of e-books, and their existence as an object to buy or own.
Many people take the side that e-books, being ordered electrons, are essentially "nothing," and therefore should not be treated like the bound paper they buy... nor should they be held responsible for taking such a thing without compensating someone, since "it doesn't really exist," or "nothing was actually taken from the owner."
My opinion is that electrons are like Whos: They may be invisible to the eye, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or have value. Therefore, a book bound in a collection of electrons is as much a physical object as a book bound in paper.
But in fact, the distinction is neither here nor there.
Funny thing is, we wouldn't have this discussion if it weren't for the fact that we cannot manage to separate the content from the container. But the fact is, when we talk about the "cost of books," we're really talking about the cost of paper... hardback, paperback, trade... those are the real drivers of prices. Content? Well, I can buy a paperback by a famous author for the same as a paperback by a no-name, so surely the content does not hold any significant value... right?
Wrong. The content is the value. If it is worthwhile to read the words of Hemingway, it doesn't matter what they are printed (or displayed) on. And if you get a discounted paperback of Hemingway, the lower dollar amount doesn't somehow diminish from the power of his words. There may be a cost associated with a number of printed and bound pages, but they are separate from the value of the content, and should be thought of as such.
Copyright (yes, back to the point of the thread. Ha ha!) was invented by men who believed that content, ideas themselves, had value, and needed to be protected as much as manufactured inventions. Copyright served to protect the author whose books were printed by another publisher without his consent, and without compensation. And it worked, because people and governments agreed to enforce that protection.
Only when (or if) governments, backed by the public, come to an agreement that e-books, regardless of their method of delivery, deserve protection, can we expect copyright to mean anything in regard to e-books. I believe the public can be brought to understand that it is within their best interests to recognize e-books as objects of value, just like a paper-bound book, because they both carry
valuable content. Not all the public is there yet... no one has yet made the compelling argument, the "Common Sense" doctrine, that everyone accepts... but I believe it will come.