Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
speakingtohe:
None of those points are valid, not even the seemingly legitimate "wear out" argument. As for the other points, they are just plain misleading.
Libraries are only authorized to lend out one copy of each purchase. They must then wait until the book is returned or the book expires. In that sense, it is no different from lending print books.
Even though the bits are being duplicated, an individual's right to access those bits is being restricted. So those bits are effectively useless. Now I supposed that you could argue that it is possible to crack DRM, but photocopiers can duplicate print books anyway. Again, it is no different from lending books.
So let's get back to that wear out bit. Strictly speaking, ebooks don't wear out. Yet the popularity of books does wear out. So if a library buys 20 copies of an ebook to satisfy demand, they will have 20 copies of that book sitting on their virtual bookshelf in 20 years. If the same library bought 20 copies of a print book to satisfy demand, they may have 10 copies sitting on the shelf in 20 years. But both the ebook and the print book may only have 1 copy out at any given time 20 years down the road. There is no difference in the publisher's or author's revenues. Even authors who would only sell 1 copy to a library are unlikely to see a difference, since books that aren't in demand aren't going to be replaced.
What I see are a bunch of weak arguments that are intended to create an absolute sense of ownership that is meant to control how people use the products that the purchase. Quite frankly, I find that dangerous. When one side is given absolute property rights while the other side has no property rights, the many will become impoverished -- or worse.
|
Just curious which points are misleading and how?
I find the 20 year argument in your post to be somewhat irrelevant and very misleading.
The majority of sales are made within the first year or two. Especially for Bestsellers. I would go so far as to say that the majoriy of Paper books, both fiction and non-fiction are not even being printed and sold 20 years after initial publication.
Many books are reprinted and sold after 20 years and why shouldn't the author/publisher prefer and possibly be entitled to make a few dollars more if the book is that good?
Quote:
|
Quite frankly, I find that dangerous. When one side is given absolute property rights while the other side has no property rights, the many will become impoverished -- or worse
|
I can agree with this part of your post, but while I would like to see a world where no one was impoverished (as in everyone had the same rights and privedges and amount of material goods) I am not sure I would be a good enough person to lower my standard of living which is not even close to affluent, so no one was impoverished and instead we would all be poor. No excuses, just don't have the jam. Perhaps you do.
I do fail to see that making ebooks moreaccessable and the fact that they can in many cases not be sold, will impoverish anyone, or limit their quality of life when paper books are still available in all the traditional ways. Eventually this might change but it hasn't happened yet, and if it does are the publishers/authors to blame?
And of course the power is still in the hands of the buyer. Just don't buy the product if you don't like the terms.
Helen