[Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
>>>> could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
>>>> prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
>>>> and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
>>>> *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
>>>> share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
>>>> efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
>>>> not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
>>>> modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
>>>> see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
>>>> recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
>>>> advertisement here.
>>>
>>> Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't
>>> afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local
>>> library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages
>>> other member of the target audience to loan the book without
>>> paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of
>>> enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to
>>> introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get
>>> lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.
>>
>> No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that
>> other people have bought.  If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it
>> wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book.  If you have a
>> copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy.  This
>> falls under fair-use.  You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to
>> someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as
>> long as you are not also using it.  There is a difference between
>> copying and lending.
>
> 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.  So effectively, the author is giving you a license attached to  
the book to whomever possesses it to read it, as long as someone paid for  
the book originally.  The publisher sets the price based on this model, so  
if that is not the model being used, the publisher loses money.  One copy  
== one license fee.  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.

Downloading the book means that you have a copy, and the web site you  
downloaded it from has a copy, but it only has been paid for once.  This  
breaks the license terms, and is effectively stealing from the publisher.   
In reality what happens is thousands or hundreds of thousands of people  
download it, and now the publisher's pricing model is completely  
destroyed.  It's backwards to think about, but it's how it works.  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.

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.  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?

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.  Legal  
use of copyright material doesn't have to be expensive or "unjust".  To  
see a very good way of reading actual books that you only want to read  
once and then give away, see paperbackswap.com.

What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't  
illegal.  Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  
up your software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  
benefit).  The thing that is illegal is when two or more copies of the  
item are being used and only one has been licensed.

> In either case the author gets as much/little money
> assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people
> who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.

At this point, the author is probably getting very little money (not sure,  
never wrote a book), it's the publisher recouping his initial investment  
to the author to write the book.  If you don't like the model, start your  
own publishing company and give more money to the authors.  See how long  
you stay in business...

I agree that people who want to justify stealing often just simplify the  
model to prove their point.  You can try to justify it all you want, it's  
still stealing.  See how far your justification story gets you when they  
take you to court.

-Steve