[Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

[retard]

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:18:26 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides
>> copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any
>> difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and
>> destroyed the copy.
> 
> In fact it does.  When the library has lent out the book, nobody else
> can use it.

Actually they can. You can read it loud just like the teacher used to do 
in the elementary school. You can also share the book with a friend 
unlike in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html - the 
copyright mafia is constantly inventing new ways to restrict use.

> The reason money is lost is
> because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire
> pricing structure is based on it.  If he knew half the people who read
> the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge
> more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it.

The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to 
educate people.

> The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a
> book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the
> book.  The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and
> remain a profitable company.  Without the law, publishers go out of
> business, and books are never created in the first place.

That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is 
that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For 
example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money 
(because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some 
low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, 
job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of 
D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for 
profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable.

The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad 
thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write 
something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change 
your profession. If you have high moral and you know that you can only 
write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy 
books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, 
capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the 
society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.

> Here's another way to think about it:  Let's say a publisher wants to
> publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who
> potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and
> make a profit.

You can't know how much is enough.

> Then when the book is finished, you get your copy.  How
> well do you think this model will work?  Essentially it's the same as
> the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the
> publisher. Who wants to do that?  I want to peruse a book before buying
> it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written?

I think sites like wikipedia work this way.

> 
> BTW, I can download electronic copies of books from my library for free
> too.  The library pays for one license per copy, and while I'm reading
> it, nobody else can.  That model also fits within the copyright law. 

That is ass-backwards retarded from technical point of view, but yes, it 
fits within the copyright law.

> What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't
> illegal.

They perfectly understand that it's illegal. They don't care because it 
feels irrational and unjust. That's it.