I don't think I should have to pay for my e-Books

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

And I would guess that loads of people bought Harry Potter books and never read them.

Unlike most classic novels, Moby Dick has never been a bestseller. But it might be that people who buy Moby Dick are more likely to finish it than people who buy Harry Potter books. We just don't know.

Right now I am reading Wandering Star, published in 1911. Does that make it a classic? Don't know, don't care, it is wonderful.

And I can assure Giggleton that Sholem Aleichem wouldn't have written it without copyright

Just as a matter of interest, what's your authority for your last sentence?
After all, copyright didn't do him much good, did it? He still had to slog his guts out at "real jobs" to make a living.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Just as a matter of interest, what's your authority for your last sentence?
After all, copyright didn't do him much good, did it? He still had to slog his guts out at "real jobs" to make a living.

He may have not been able to make his living solely with his writing, but without copyright, he would have had to have worked even more at his day job to make a living.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

He may have not been able to make his living solely with his writing, but without copyright, he would have had to have worked even more at his day job to make a living.

So, what's your authority for the proposition that "Sholem Aleichem wouldn't have written it without copyright"?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

So, what's your authority for the proposition that "Sholem Aleichem wouldn't have written it without copyright"?

I didn't claim that he wouldn't have written if it wasn't for copyright. I disputed your claim that copyright didn't do him much good. Although he didn't make enough money to live solely on his writing, he did make some money, which he wouldn't have had made if anyone could just print their own copy without paying him royalties. Thus, copyright was of benefit to him.

It's possible that some authors would have written purely as a hobby if it were not for copyright, but there would be far less written.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I didn't claim that he wouldn't have written if it wasn't for copyright. I disputed your claim that copyright didn't do him much good. Although he didn't make enough money to live solely on his writing, he did make some money, which he wouldn't have had made if anyone could just print their own copy without paying him royalties. Thus, copyright was of benefit to him.

It's possible that some authors would have written purely as a hobby if it were not for copyright, but there would be far less written.

Yes, I'm sorry, it was SteveEisenberg who made the unsupported claim that he wouldn't have written if it wasn't for copyright.

Of course, your claim that there would be far less written if it wasn't for copyright is equally unsupported. It is often put forward in this bald way as a support for the copyright regime, without any supporting evidence.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Yes, I'm sorry, it was SteveEisenberg who made the unsupported claim that he wouldn't have written if it wasn't for copyright.

Of course, your claim that there would be far less written if it wasn't for copyright is equally unsupported. It is often put forward in this bald way as a support for the copyright regime, without any supporting evidence.

If there were no copyright, authors could not make money.
Authors need money to eat.
If they could not make money from writing, they would have to work more at other jobs.
If they had to work more at other jobs, they would have less time to devote to writing.
If they had less time to devote to writing, there would be less books written.
Therefore, if it were not for copyright, there would be less books written.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If there were no copyright, authors could not make money.
Authors need money to eat.
If they could not make money from writing, they would have to work more at other jobs.
If they had to work more at other jobs, they would have less time to devote to writing.
If they had less time to devote to writing, there would be less books written.
Therefore, if it were not for copyright, there would be less books written.

In the words of Bertrand Russell ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

In the words of Bertrand Russell ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'

Right, I mean, authors made money before copyright, they will make money after copyright, it might be argued that they make less under copyright, but you can of course argue anything you want.

[DiapDealer]

If my aunt had testicles, would she be my uncle?

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If my aunt had testicles, would she be my uncle?

I don't know the answer to your question.
I do know that if someone told me their aunt had testicles, I would want some evidence before I believed them.
But in practice I would probably be prepared to leave the issue unresolved.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

Yes, I'm sorry, it was SteveEisenberg who made the unsupported claim that he wouldn't have written if it wasn't for copyright.

Of course, your claim that there would be far less written if it wasn't for copyright is equally unsupported. It is often put forward in this bald way as a support for the copyright regime, without any supporting evidence.

The French Revolution did away with copyright, and virtually nothing new was published until it was brought back. That's pretty compelling support to most people: it's been tried, and produced the expected results.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If there were no copyright, authors could not make money.

That simply isn't true. Publishers make money on public domain stuff now, even though it's readily available for free elsewhere. There are a number of public works (thousands, I suspect, but at least hundreds) for sale on Amazon and B&N that are available for free (and often of higher quality) through Project Gutenberg, and they do sell.

New material gets published for free, as well, with authors being given money even though there's no requirement. There's a whole line of computer games that are distributed on the basis of "pay us whatever you feel like" that has made millions.

I agree that a heck of a lot less new material would be available without copyright, but making absolute (and untrue) claims like that doesn't help the argument any.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

In the words of Bertrand Russell ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'

So what's your evidence for this??? You keep challenging everyone else's lack of evidence for their claims/comments but haven't produced any evidence to support your contrarian position...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

. . . it might be argued that they make less under copyright, but you can of course argue anything you want.

I agree with that last.

For example, you can argue that if pizza was given away, pizza chefs would make at least the same amount of money, because of all the people who would donate cash, and the possibility the government would step in and compensate pizza creators. I don't believe it. Do you?

Now, actually, there are a few chefs who live on donations, such as in connection with churches. And, getting closer to books, maybe calibre creator Kovid Goyal is doing OK, although I wouldn't count on it. But being able to live on donations is unusual, because the supply of generous people is limited. If the generality of chefs give away their services, the generality of chefs will, in the US, live on food stamps, and, in many other countries, starve.

P.S. Re Mr. Goyal, he also has a special situation because cost of living in his country (India) is much lower than in the countries where his software is mostly used (US, Britain, Canada, Australia). But most authors primarily write for people in their own country.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

But in practice I would probably be prepared to leave the issue unresolved.

I'm almost always prepared to do that with any issue.
Woosah.