USA, Canada and the EU attempt to kill treaty to protect blind people's access to wri

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

You know, this sort of statement is really unhelpful to the conversation. Unless you're prepared to attack all forms of capitalism, "greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed works." So where do you draw the line between greed and not-greed, and why is your line better than someone else's?

So why do you use terms like "compensated fairly"? I do not see how you can define "fair" in a rights based system that you seem to be talking about. Thinking a bit more about it I do not see how to define it in other systems either...

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by tompe

So why do you use terms like "compensated fairly"? I do not see how you can define "fair" in a rights based system that you seem to be talking about. Thinking a bit more about it I do not see how to define it in other systems either...

Assuming we all believe in Capitalism, here, then fair compensation is the compensation that both parties negotiated and agreed to; whatever percentage and/or price I negotiate with the publisher, that's fair. The point about about "compensated fairly" was not only that certain consumers could get said work without compensation at all, but also that under certain conditions I do get compensated but for less than what I agreed to in good faith. Again, some of these situations apply even if I'm a great guy and selling books for the visually impaired.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by Fake51

However, I'm not entirely sure that it's the best idea to allow non-profits to do it regardless of whether or not someone else has already done it.

Yes, i agree that other solutions could be better - at least for the authors, publishers and copyright holders. Sometimes i'm just a little bit idealistic.
On the other hand the majority of authors and publishers didn't care much about visually impaired people in the past. It was and is usually just not a profitable market. Hence the statement "no profit now, no loss tomorrow" wouldn't be wrong for most of the authors and publishers - even if non-profits would sell accessible books to visually impaired people without compensating the holders of rights. Yeah, i know...i'm really a little bit idealistic sometimes.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Assuming we all believe in Capitalism, here, then fair compensation is the compensation that both parties negotiated and agreed to; whatever percentage and/or price I negotiate with the publisher, that's fair.

Capitalism is not about you and your publisher agreeing on a price, it's about you and your customers agreeing. You can negotiate whatever "fair compensation" you want to with your publisher, but if customers don't agree that it's fair, then you'll fail.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Capitalism is not about you and your publisher agreeing on a price, it's about you and your customers agreeing. You can negotiate whatever "fair compensation" you want to with your publisher, but if customers don't agree that it's fair, then you'll fail.

You can set a price consumers think is "fair" and still fail to sell well, and you can set a price that consumers don't think is "fair" and still sell well. So that's irrelvant. What is a fair price for me and the publisher is what we mutually agree to.

[Fake51]

There is no concept of fair price in capitalism, only supply and demand. Talking about fair price is going outside the framework of capitalism.

Regards
Fake

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Fake51

There is no concept of fair price in capitalism, only supply and demand. Talking about fair price is going outside the framework of capitalism.

That is my opinion also and always think it is confusing when people use the word "fair".

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

You can set a price consumers think is "fair" and still fail to sell well

That's why I said "you and your customers agreeing". Both sides have to be willing to buy/sell (based on supply and demand) at that price. You can't look at it from only one side or the other.

[sirbruce]

We're getting way off-track by semantics that are now completely out of context.

I was asked, specifically, "So why do you use terms like "compensated fairly"". Such a question is entirely within the context of compensating fairly the copyright holders, authors, and publishers. It's not about what a consumer thinks is a just price.

If a consumer, or an external government, can take the authors work by force and decide themselves what the compensation should be, such a compensation cannot be "fair" in the same sense of the word, since it's not a transaction that both parties agreed to. To a certain extent, the government's right of Imminent Domain can be said to offer "fair" compensation, but that's pretty much the definition of being outside the free market and thus Capitalism.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I would assume it depends on the disabled person's personal beliefs. Obviously some would want a federally-mandated program that ensured access to certain works according to government regulations; others would prefer a free market solution...

Awesome. So you're saying that those who are disabled should either shut up and stop whining about the fact that nobody is willing to do anything for them unless they pay extra as a penalty for being blind, or be accused (by you) of being a "socialist"? Why exactly should they care what you think about them?
The whole point of affirmative action legislation for blind (and otherwise disabled people; however, those aren't really pertinent to this discussion) is that corporations/companies/yada frequently refuse to make their establishments/products/etc. available. If the market worked, there wouldn't need to be legislation.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If this were truly the issue, then the solution is simple: pass a law *requiring* the publishers to provide books in some format for the blind. The law requires the restaurant owner to provide disabled access; why not the publisher?

Instead, the proposed law does not do that, but simply allows others to copy that book for the disabled and even profit via it, to the detriment of the author and the publisher. Where is the sense in that?

Of course it doesn't. Do you have any idea what it would cost to have to provide accessible copies of any and every title?
The whole point is that this way, supply can be demand-driven, through the actions of non-profits that talk more directly to and with the people they represent etc.


Also, restaurant analogies are worthless here.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

We're getting way off-track by semantics that are now completely out of context.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I was asked, specifically, "So why do you use terms like "compensated fairly"". Such a question is entirely within the context of compensating fairly the copyright holders, authors, and publishers. It's not about what a consumer thinks is a just price.

Actually, it is. Saying blind people need to pay 3x the RRP for the same work is possibly discrimination, and in any case not just. The point of copyright is that it's temporary, and that stuff in the end belongs in the PD, and "fair compensation" refers to the fact that the public in essence is/will be allowed to claim it (when it expires into the PD).

As such, if you, through your relative monopoly on your IP, "enforce", through making availabe an "authorized" audiobook of your book at 3x the price of the pback, a price that is unreasonable, you're not being fair in any sense of the word that takes into account that that compensation is (was?) defined as temporary anyway.

Sure, you could make a case that you're providing the audiobook at that price because the turnover will be lower, but I really doubt that a non-celebrity reader really costs that much, especially when the market opens up, as right now it's just a niche (luxury) market. Any grandma with a pleasant voice can read a book to a kid in a manner suitable for reading to an adult blind person.
Anyway, if another company can provide the same title at 10$ (or 12$), they've just proven, through the "market", that you're cheating blind folks out of their money, or that you're paying way too much by hiring voice candy (what, brad pitt needs to read your harlequin novel?), per the above definition.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Awesome. So you're saying that those who are disabled should either shut up and stop whining about the fact that nobody is willing to do anything for them unless they pay extra as a penalty for being blind, or be accused (by you) of being a "socialist"? Why exactly should they care what you think about them?

I don't see how you got anything like that from what I wrote, unless colored by your own prejudices. There are disabled people who don't want special treatment and those who do; they are no different from you or I.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

The whole point of affirmative action legislation for blind (and otherwise disabled people; however, those aren't really pertinent to this discussion) is that corporations/companies/yada frequently refuse to make their establishments/products/etc. available. If the market worked, there wouldn't need to be legislation.

Unfortunately, in the case of the treaty being discussion, those who DO make those products available are still being hurt. That's part of what makes this particular proposal a bad one. It's a pure canard to suggest that every law labeled "affirmative action" is a de facto good one, and that an opposition to it is therefore prejudicial.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Of course it doesn't. Do you have any idea what it would cost to have to provide accessible copies of any and every title?

Do you have any idea what it cost to make all businesses wheelchair accessible?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Also, restaurant analogies are worthless here.

How convenient.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Actually, it is. Saying blind people need to pay 3x the RRP for the same work is possibly discrimination, and in any case not just.

Saying poor people need to pay the same amount for the same work as rich people is possibly deiscrimination as well, and in any case not just by the same logic. What about non-English speakers who pay more for a book translated into their language? What about non-US customers who pay more for a book in the UK than in the US?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

As such, if you can, through your relative monopoly on your IP, "enforce", through making availabe an "authorized" audiobook of your book at 3x the price of the pback, you're not being "fair".

Only, I assume, if the majority of voters decides it's not fair? Otherwise, if we're just talking subjective standards, you have your idea of fair and I have mine.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Anyway, if another company can provide the same title at 10$ (or 12$), this only proves that you're cheating blind folks out of their money, or that you're paying way too much by hiring voice candy (what, brad pitt needs to read your harlequin novel?), so proving through "the market" that your prices were unfair, per the above definition.

A fascinating perspective. One wonders what the world would be like if all businesses were subject to the same requirements.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Do you have any idea what it cost to make all businesses wheelchair accessible?

I'm sorry, but how is this an argument against not enforcing audiobook versions for every title? You're only proving my point that forcing the original publisher to provide different versions of each title is less efficient/far more expensive than just leaving those to non-profits (or what/whoever).

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Saying poor people need to pay the same amount for the same work as rich people is possibly deiscrimination as well, and in any case not just by the same logic. What about non-English speakers who pay more for a book translated into their language? What about non-US customers who pay more for a book in the UK than in the US?

I love red herrings too. They're ever so umami.

Also, why exactly are you avoiding my main point in that post? Just because it's harder to respond to using those exciting "there's no accounting for tastes" arguments?