Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
But we're allowed to "leech" off their creativity with paper books. We can lend them to friends, or pick them up for a dollar at a yard sale--or get them for free at bus stops or through bookcrossing. Book appreciation has always included a lot of not-paying-the-author activity.
The argument, "if you wanted to read it, the author should be paid" says that libraries are unethical, that you should never borrow a friend's book, that dollar-a-bag book sales shouldn't be allowed. That universities shouldn't allow last year's books to be read for class credit; grammar schools shouldn't re-use books from year to year. Doctor's offices shouldn't have magazines in their lobbies.
If it's "leeching" to read without paying, then every book, every magazine, should have exactly *one* reader, and then be destroyed.
AFAIK, nobody's arguing for that. So... why are they claiming that's how ebooks should work? Why try to force people to follow a set of ethics that don't apply anywhere else?
I'm not saying it's a fine idea to send ebooks out on the torrentwebs to be copied into hundreds of machines. I'm saying that the reason that's a bad idea, is not "because people should pay for what they read."
People have never paid for everything they read. It's never been considered reasonable to destroy every book after a single person has read it. |
I quite agree actually. Though everything you have said would fall into that "grey" area that both sides of the argument seem to want to avoid. My interest and point was why one side of the argument seems so willing to cry foul when the other engages in this either/or, black/white ignore the grey, type argument but then does so themselves in order to make their point.
When I mention leeching it was directed more at those who "can't understand why anyone would pay for anything" and those that argue creative people will continue to create even if no money is forthcoming(and good riddance to any that don't or simply can't continue) so that makes it ok to not pay. As if by dint of the creator enjoying what they do and wanting to do it they shouldn't be paid for their efforts. I did not mean to imply that every single "read" should be paid for, that libraries are unethical or anything like that. Apologies for not being clearer.
Cheers,
PKFFW