[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

A used book store owner has no obligation to the author. Look up the first-sale doctrine you were espousing earlier.

So why doesn't the first sale doctrine apply to used digital goods? A used bookstore owner/street book seller/homeless person might not have a legal obligation to the works creator, but do they have a moral obligation?

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

First, many of the most important books, and almost all serious investigative non-fiction, are not the work of an isolated author, but of a group of people whose work, and compensation, is coordinated by a publisher. So you should be substituting the word "publisher" in the above sentence for "author." But you can't, because then your scheme to have a transnational entity pay "authors," based on something like the number of downloads, would be revealed as crony capitalism.

Before a book is uploaded to the network, the network admins would require a single account for payments to be distributed to, problem solved.

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

So let's rewind in a small example back to that: you insist constantly that artistic goods don't have enough value to be paid for them

In physical books this might be hardcovers where people agreed to pay more for a more presentable product and earlier access because they value their personal joy of having it ASAP high enough. Baen does same with eArcs.

People choose! to pay near tripled price for early access. They are free not do so and wait instead.

In the meantime we all still keep waiting for a statement of yours about the free access to your stuff.

Everything has value. I only think that we should have universal access to all texts, meaning we must be able to read the text before deciding to compensate the creator. The value of said text could be determined by the number of people who have spent a considerable length of time reading the text. Or it could be based upon quantity of downloads over time. My point is that all economic theories are subject to change.

Digital goods can be shipped instantaneously to anyone with a network connection. There is no need to wait for access. Anyone who asks you to wait for access to a digital good is most likely trying to generate some kind of artificial need in the mind of a potential consumer.

What stuff are you referring to?

Originally Posted by tompe

The point is that it is obvious OK to lend a book but that possible deprives author of income so obviously it is OK to deprive an author of income. So the "depriving" argument is not valid for copying an ebook and giving away.

I'm not sure it can ever be shown that lending a book deprives an author of income. Perhaps in a specific case, where someone was lent a book and then said "Since I was lent this book I choose not to send money to the creator." But that's not how it is generally. We all read thousands of words every day...