Used bookstores, harbors of piracy?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, all contracts are meaningless unless all parties agree to all terms. It seems to me that if everyone just read whatever they felt like reading and paid who they can what they could, everything would be fine.

Why are people against this idea?? Which is just a manifestation of freedom?

It is a manifestation of being cheap, a manifestation of your obsessive love of money (i.e. never wanting to part even with small amounts). Freedom has nothing to do with it.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It seems to me that if everyone just read whatever they felt like reading and paid who they can what they could, everything would be fine.

What HansTWN said.

There is no real world amount corresponding to what I could pay. What I can pay without going hungry is a lot different from what I can pay while still subscribing to high-speed internet, or what I can pay while still going on a vacation every year or two, or what I can pay without having to make my kids take out college tuition loans. Since I very much want to do all that, I'm going to say that what I can pay is very little. And so I am going to keep on getting most of my reading material from public libraries, Project Gutenberg, and free newspaper web sites.

Under your proposal, I think that the only books which could be published are those with minimal research costs.

[Rylon]

Originally Posted by Soldim

With regards to the contract issue -- as far as I have understood, my (still) somewhat liberal Swiss legislation does not acknowledge these type of contracts if both parties do not agree to them upfront (whether that's in writing or orally does not matter). I have bought probably over a thousand books in my life-time, and never has a bookstore owner, or any one else, mentioned the contract to me.

Well, I can't speak for Swiss law. I only know U.S. law. Even then, my focus is on California. Though most of the U.S. uses the same background.

Anyways, in the U.S. both parties have to agree on the terms as well. Lawyers call it a "meeting of the minds." If there isn't a "meeting of the minds" then there is no contract. That said, if someone tried to argue that they had the right to copy a book and sell it because they purchased the right to do so when they bought the book, it's likely the argument would fail at every level it was tried baring extenuating circumstances. (I.e., they bought a book covered by the LGPL.)

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Rylon

That said, if someone tried to argue that they had the right to copy a book and sell it because they purchased the right to do so when they bought the book, it's likely the argument would fail at every level it was tried baring extenuating circumstances. (I.e., they bought a book covered by the LGPL.)

That most certainly -- but that's because there's copyright laws that are independent of the contract you enter (or don't enter ) with the book seller.

It would be interesting to see how such 'contracts' are considered if one buys a public domain book with a non-duplication clause and starts making copies. Then the validity of the 'contract' could be tested -- but I don't know any cases (most likely because defendants would certainly win ).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

That most certainly -- but that's because there's copyright laws that are independent of the contract you enter (or don't enter ) with the book seller.

It would be interesting to see how such 'contracts' are considered if one buys a public domain book with a non-duplication clause and starts making copies. Then the validity of the 'contract' could be tested -- but I don't know any cases (most likely because defendants would certainly win ).

I doubt it. There's NON public-domain content in almost every public domain book, so a verbatim reproduction of the entire book would be a breach of copyright.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

... It seems to me that if everyone just read whatever they felt like reading and paid who they can what they could, everything would be fine.

Why are people against this idea?? ...

Yes, to each according to their needs and from each according to their means.

I see you have been reading this:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is quite obvious that the only logical solution to the problem of universal access is for the author to set a suggested donation level when the book is uploaded...

I think I missed the part where the problem with universal access was defined and consensus was reached that it needed to be addressed.

[Rylon]

Originally Posted by Soldim

That most certainly -- but that's because there's copyright laws that are independent of the contract you enter (or don't enter ) with the book seller.

It would be interesting to see how such 'contracts' are considered if one buys a public domain book with a non-duplication clause and starts making copies. Then the validity of the 'contract' could be tested -- but I don't know any cases (most likely because defendants would certainly win ).

I think copyright law and contract law intersect more than you think.

Copyright law gives the author of the work a property interest in the work. This is similar to, though not identical to, an interest in real property (land) or chattel (personal property). The holder of a copyright can certainly give others the right to copy a work, just as much as they can exclude people from doing so. Usually, they give some rights and exclude others via contract.

Consider the Lesser General Public License (LGPL). It's a licensee (contract) that allows anyone (including the purchaser) to copy and distribute the contents of a book published under the license. There's a book on GNU Awk (gawk) published by O'Reilly Media that's licensed under the LGPL.

Copyright law doesn't require that the copyright holder withhold permission to copy, it's just that is what most people do with it. Just like most people don't open their house to the public.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, all contracts are meaningless unless all parties agree to all terms. It seems to me that if everyone just read whatever they felt like reading and paid who they can what they could, everything would be fine.

Why are people against this idea?? Which is just a manifestation of freedom?

If you don't want to enter into a contract, then don't enter into the contract, by all means. But if you don't agree to the terms of the contract, you don't get the book. If walk into a restaurant, and don't agree to pay for a hamburger, I don't get a hamburger. I can't say "I don't agree to this contract, so give it to me anyway." What you propose isn't freedom, but serfdom. You would turn authors into your serfs.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If you don't want to enter into a contract, then don't enter into the contract, by all means. But if you don't agree to the terms of the contract, you don't get the book. If walk into a restaurant, and don't agree to pay for a hamburger, I don't get a hamburger. I can't say "I don't agree to this contract, so give it to me anyway." What you propose isn't freedom, but serfdom. You would turn authors into your serfs.

Still, I have yet to understand why one day someone will say seek out all knowledge so that you may better understand yourself and the world, and the next day this same someone will ask you for an admission fee.

It's absurd and you know it.

[Rylon]

Originally Posted by Soldim

It would be interesting to see how such 'contracts' are considered if one buys a public domain book with a non-duplication clause and starts making copies. Then the validity of the 'contract' could be tested -- but I don't know any cases (most likely because defendants would certainly win ).

I didn't really address this in my last response. Sorry.

I was actually in that situation a few months ago. I went to a university's special collection to see if they had any Collier's from 1903 that had stories from The Return of Sherlock Holmes. (Collier's was a weekly magazine that published the stories in the U.S. at the same time, or earlier, than The Strand did in the U.K.)

Anyways, they had some with illustrations by Frederick Dorr Steel. I asked about copying them. Because the magazines are over a hundred years old, the special collections director offered to scan them for $50 a copy. However, there was a catch, I couldn't publish them. Part of the reason I wanted copies was to publish the illustrations of Mr. Steel. So I asked how much more it would be if I could publish them, and it was another $50 per copy. (That was after she mentioned a discount.)

Now, the stories and illustrations are out of copyright. But because they own the physical magazines and they can stipulate that they will only sell me scans if I don't publish them. Or ask for more money for the permission.

So I didn't go with them. I ended up getting the illustrations somewhere else.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Still, I have yet to understand why one day someone will say seek out all knowledge so that you may better understand yourself and the world, and the next day this same someone will ask you for an admission fee.

It's absurd and you know it.

Because the latest Dan Brown does not represent "all knowledge so that you may better understand yourself and the world".

There is plenty of knowledge for you to be gained from reading free and PD books. And you will never run out of legally available, free reading materials.Go ahead, and quench your thirst.

But don't expect many here to accept your twisted theories, whose only purpose is to keep your money in your pocket and not to give anything to people who worked hard to provide you with your entertainment.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Still, I have yet to understand why one day someone will say seek out all knowledge so that you may better understand yourself and the world, and the next day this same someone will ask you for an admission fee.

This someone sounds more like a minister than an author, although I suppose there are authors like this.

Either way, are you sure you don't know why said minister or author would care more about making a more comfortable life for their family than the enlightenment of strangers?

Or it could just be that the minister/author is a manipulative SOB who wants more money to have more power over others.

The question of why intellectual property needs to be priced is touched on in the one eBook that I have ever paid for, for my own personal use as opposed to a gift. I now find it available, with a wait, for my favorite price. Bad title, good book:

http://ebooks.nypl.org/A675657B-C5A5...9-c297ae6738ea

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This someone sounds more like a minister than an author, although I suppose there are authors like this.

Either way, are you sure you don't know why said minister or author would care more about making a more comfortable life for their family than the enlightenment of strangers?

Or it could just be that the minister/author is a manipulative SOB who wants more money to have more power over others.

The question of why intellectual property needs to be priced is touched on in the one eBook that I have ever paid for, for my own personal use as opposed to a gift. I now find it available, with a wait, for my favorite price. Bad title, good book:

http://ebooks.nypl.org/A675657B-C5A5...9-c297ae6738ea

No, that book assumes that things in general need to be priced. We are not sure that this is the case.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

When was the last time you saw a Swiss movie? Or read a Swiss book?
(The "Swiss Family Robinson" doesn't count!)

I hope the movie Verdingkinder makes it to the US.