Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Sure. But are you really arguing that things like ACTA are to protect the creators? The creators are doing just fine, it's the corporations which are suffering... why should things like ACTA even be considered when the creators are, demonstrably in the market, doing fine?

I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

To repeat, I was merely pointing out that to argue something like "back in the day authors gave their work away for free so they should do so now" isn't helpful to the debate regarding copyright at all.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[schex86]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

To repeat, I was merely pointing out that to argue something like "back in the day authors gave their work away for free so they should do so now" isn't helpful to the debate regarding copyright at all.

PKFFW

Well excuse me in advance, as I've had a serious cold, just in time for a swine flu vaccination and dental appointment tomorrow morn.

Anyhow, I haven't reread all my posts but I believe that my intent in resurrecting Ben Franklin from the ancient past was to respond to another assertion made earlier that libraries are somehow more "profitable" for authors and publishers than would seem immediately apparent.

However, simple math negates this argument, as even if a library pays 2 to 3 times the books typical cost, it will, in all likelihood lend that one book to thousands of subscribers free of charge. It seems a library is in direct opposition to a small group's interests, that being publishers and authors who create their literary products solely on a financial incentive, yet the vast benefits of a public library system to society in general are easily worth this rather small penalty.

Just because public libraries reduce a bit of financial incentive for one small group, as has been their characteristic from inception, does not mean they should be outlawed, and they have not. Rather they have been embraced, and will we now, as a society, take the next step and embrace the potentials of information technology in the same way.

It may take someone like Franklin, as demonstrated also by his reaction to the patent on his woodstove design, who placed his concern with the greater good far above his own personal gain, to bring about this change in our thinking, and to facilitate this transfer of power, as well as negating forever the ability of an entrenched and shortsighted few to create environments of artificial scarcity in terms of human knowledge.

And just because an idea occurred in the past, does not necessarily lessen its worth, or conversely, improve upon it. However, Franklin's ideas and actions as a Founding Father of the US tend to stand on their own merits, and he is generally recognized as one of the greatest thinkers, and more importantly, doers, of the past millennium. Plus, I just happened to be reading his book and thought his views on the matter could be relevant to the discussion.

[HansTWN]

A library is an advertisement for the author/publisher. And they decide if they want to sell to libraries or not. It is like giving away some copies for promotion. The point is: "the copyright holder decides to sell to a library and allow them to loan the book". Not you, the copyright holder. And the library doesn't print their own additional copies.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by schex86

However, simple math negates this argument, as even if a library pays 2 to 3 times the books typical cost, it will, in all likelihood lend that one book to thousands of subscribers free of charge.

But libraries (in most western nations) pay authors every time a book is borrowed - the "Public Lending Right". In the UK, for example, an author gets paid about 6p every time one of his or her books is borrowed.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But libraries (in most western nations) pay authors every time a book is borrowed - the "Public Lending Right". In the UK, for example, an author gets paid about 6p every time one of his or her books is borrowed.

The author is paid 6p? Or is it the publisher?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by schex86

The author is paid 6p? Or is it the publisher?

It goes direct to the author.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

Anyhow, I haven't reread all my posts but I believe that my intent in resurrecting Ben Franklin from the ancient past was to respond to another assertion made earlier that libraries are somehow more "profitable" for authors and publishers than would seem immediately apparent.

I don't think anyone argued that libraries are somehow profitable to authors. Merely that there is, generally, an agreement between authors and the library in which some sort of royalty is paid to the author per lending. Regardless of the profitability of libraries, the key factor is that there is an agreement for the lending of the book. That is what makes it different to downloading a free copy from the internet.

It was in response to this idea that downloading a copyright infringing copy of a work is the same as borrowing from the library that the entire library discussion began.

Originally Posted by schex86

However, simple math negates this argument, as even if a library pays 2 to 3 times the books typical cost, it will, in all likelihood lend that one book to thousands of subscribers free of charge. It seems a library is in direct opposition to a small group's interests, that being publishers and authors who create their literary products solely on a financial incentive, yet the vast benefits of a public library system to society in general are easily worth this rather small penalty.

Just because public libraries reduce a bit of financial incentive for one small group, as has been their characteristic from inception, does not mean they should be outlawed, and they have not. Rather they have been embraced, and will we now, as a society, take the next step and embrace the potentials of information technology in the same way.

You know, I'm yet to meet, read about, hear about or in any other way come to know about any author who writes a book soley for a financial incentive. I know about many who hope and dream and attempt to gain financially from their writing but none who write solely for financial gain. Do you see the difference?

And yet, even it there is one,(and if you know of one could you please point them out for the sake of the argument) that is their prerogative. If it goes so against your beliefs for them to do that then by all means don't buy their book.

Further, I don't believe anyone was arguing that the library system should somehow be scrapped or abolished. So even should someone want to write a book solely for a financial gain, their book would, most likely, still be available for lending from libraries and no one is arguing that it shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by schex86

It may take someone like Franklin, as demonstrated also by his reaction to the patent on his woodstove design, who placed his concern with the greater good far above his own personal gain, to bring about this change in our thinking, and to facilitate this transfer of power, as well as negating forever the ability of an entrenched and shortsighted few to create environments of artificial scarcity in terms of human knowledge.

Ben Franklin was a great man. He was also a very wealthy man. It is generally much easier for a wealthy man to put the needs of society ahead of his own financial gain. I wonder if he would have put a patent on his woodstove idea and attempted to make money from the idea if he was poor and trying to pay his bills while working at a dead end job he hated. Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted by schex86

And just because an idea occurred in the past, does not necessarily lessen its worth, or conversely, improve upon it. However, Franklin's ideas and actions as a Founding Father of the US tend to stand on their own merits, and he is generally recognized as one of the greatest thinkers, and more importantly, doers, of the past millennium. Plus, I just happened to be reading his book and thought his views on the matter could be relevant to the discussion.

I never said that just because an idea happened in the pass means it is of less worth.

I said it does not add to the debate to argue that just because something was done a certain way in the past then it should be done so that way now. My remark was in response to a specific remark of yours and not aimed at your entire post. That is why I quoted only that specific portion of your post.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

You know, I'm yet to meet, read about, hear about or in any other way come to know about any author who writes a book soley for a financial incentive.

I've written several. Physics textbooks. Fixed price contract for the job (ie not royalty-based). Very nice work.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Unless you aspire to be the big bully, and have your rules enforced...

Even then, the laws I enforce don't have to influence my view of the world.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong on point 1 - Law is made by the people or their representatives in a democratic society.

Wrong here. In democratic societies, law is made by such representatives, but rarely according to real wishes of the people, and always with personal interests of the lawmakers factored in. Please show me how the law is made by the people in totalitarian regimes.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong on point 2 - If the law says you cannot make a copy legally you have harmed not only me but society as a whole. We all lose.

Wrong here. If the law says you cannot make a copy legally, it just means that it was forbidden to copy. In the best possible circumstances it *might* mean that the makers of this law *thought* that this law would benefit the society as a whole, and they *might* be right, depending on characteristcs of the given society.

You behave as if law was something God-given and you an unasking believer.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've written several. Physics textbooks. Fixed price contract for the job (ie not royalty-based). Very nice work.

Ok, I stand corrected.

I doubt you are advocating the abolition of the library system because it might cut into your profits though.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

Hardly - libraries are, IMHO, one of the hallmarks of a "civilized" society.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Hardly - libraries are, IMHO, one of the hallmarks of a "civilized" society.

I hope one day online libraries or stores will have e-books of all books that were found on paper.

I think for the system to promote creation of more works effetively, it needs to:
1) work only as long as it would really encourage the author to create more (which is impossible when the author is dead, and I never heard of anyone specific who wrote a book so his heirs could have more money),
2) the money paid needs to be a part of the deal for the person wanting to read the book. Otherwise the money the author receives isn't really a good measure of how much the book is needed, if only because the buyer wouldn't know how much he pays. For that reason I believe competition of book stores is better than libraries.

Of course, all this is a system to promote creativity, and doesn't need any assumptions about "rights" or "laws".

I wonder how the world would look like if every worker who built part of the house demanded money from every new person who moved in to this house, for life + 70 years. Of course, to encourage him to build more houses, whether they're needed or not.

[neilmarr]

I've no idea at all how many ex pats like me live in countries where their own language is not their first and who find local libraries in their adopted countries pretty useless to them ... but there must be countless millions of us.

With this in mind, I'm pretty sure that the first (say English language) big central library that opens to paying e-reading guests from overseas will be onto a winner.

These days, libraries need all the income they can get, and it's pretty obvious from a recent wave of closures that local authorities are struggling to support them from the local rates and taxes.

I suggested this paying-guest membership initiative to a few UK libraries last year. I'm still awaiting replies.

Cheers. Neil

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

...
You know, I'm yet to meet, read about, hear about or in any other way come to know about any author who writes a book soley for a financial incentive. I know about many who hope and dream and attempt to gain financially from their writing but none who write solely for financial gain. Do you see the difference?

And yet, even it there is one,(and if you know of one could you please point them out for the sake of the argument) that is their prerogative. ...

Well there's this:

Samuel Johnson

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2008...g-a-blockhead/

[cian]

HansTWN:

A library is an advertisement for the author/publisher. And they decide if they want to sell to libraries or not. It is like giving away some copies for promotion. The point is: "the copyright holder decides to sell to a library and allow them to loan the book". Not you, the copyright holder. And the library doesn't print their own additional copies.

Publishers have no choice, at least in the UK. I suspect if they had the power to do so, most publishers would ban libraries. Libraries happened long before modern ideas about intellectual property really existed, and so when IP laws were enacted they were adapted to deal with the existence of libraries (and the objections of authors). There are many good arguments for libraries, but I don't think the financial benefit (either directly, or indirectly through promotion) is one of them. And if that is an argument, it would apply equally to the "piracy" of ebooks (if piracy is the right word for an activity that doesn't financially benefit anyone involved).

HarryT:

But libraries (in most western nations) pay authors every time a book is borrowed - the "Public Lending Right". In the UK, for example, an author gets paid about 6p every time one of his or her books is borrowed.

The amounts involved are tiny. If you're a very successful author you're looking at a few thousand, tops.

PKFFW:

I don't think anyone argued that libraries are somehow profitable to authors. Merely that there is, generally, an agreement between authors and the library in which some sort of royalty is paid to the author per lending. Regardless of the profitability of libraries, the key factor is that there is an agreement for the lending of the book. That is what makes it different to downloading a free copy from the internet.

But when libraries were first created these agreements and royalties didn't exist. These things came quite a while after libraries existence was an established social fact. The only difference between early libraries, and modern darknet sites, is the fact that technology prevented easy copying. If it hadn't, they would given away copies. Given how rampant piracy was in the C19th (particularly in the US), the author may not even have gained a royalty from the purchase of the book.

Now libraries are seen as legitimate, and some kind of (tokenistic, really) redress is made to authors for the loss of income. But that's a later society choosing, for whatever reasons, to do so. Libraries existence and legitimacy does not rest upon these things.