[Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:43:22 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

And that will never change.  It hasn't in a hundred years.  Richard  
Stallman predicting the future is hardly evidence of anything ;)

Let's not forget that we have an open society where everything is openly  
debated, and where our elected officials are held accountable for their  
actions (like they will be this November).  First, the chances of  
copyright law being changed to alter the provisions of fair-use is 0.  The  
DMCA is an atrocity, and should be repealed, but it probably will lose its  
teeth the first time it's tested in court.  And second, any changes will  
have to be judged against existing law by trials.

The point is, all types of fair-use are accounted for in the pricing  
structure of the book.  Once you start having "unfair use" or piracy, the  
pricing model doesn't work, and without laws to protect against such  
abuses, its quite possible that we would have a much less innovative  
society, with less books or crappier books.  Shit, just look at the  
over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale  
software.  For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.

>> 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.

Educating people doesn't feed your family.  Making money does.  If  
educating people doesn't make you money, then you're likely to do  
something else, especially if you have the intelligence to write a good  
book.

I suppose only millionaires with lots of time on their hands (although  
that happens very rarely) would be the ones to write books?

>
>> 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.

Oh yeah, how dare people try to make money off of books.  Who do they  
think they are?  People should just spend years writing books and give  
them away for free, so I can benefit and they can starve.  That's the way  
it should be!

I can see where you got your name ;)

> 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.

Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have a  
very twisted view on reality.

>
>> 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.

Trust me, the publishers know exactly how many copies they need to sell to  
make a sustainable 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?
>
> I think sites like wikipedia work this way.

wikipedia writes books?  And charges fees for the contract of writing  
them?  I've never heard of that...

>> 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.

No, it's *legal*.  What's not legal is giving the copies to others.  Many  
people *do not get it*.  They think if they can do something, and do it  
easily, then why should it be illegal?  Especially when they have legally  
obtained all the items necessary to pirate.

Ignorance is probably less prevalent now that individuals are being sued  
over their actions, but I'd say most people still don't get how copyright  
works, and what rights they have.  Almost everyone I've ever told that  
copying music and giving it to a friend is illegal were defiantly ignorant  
about it, not defiantly knowledgeable.  I was probably in that majority  
until I really studied copyright laws when the DMCA/decss controversy was  
around.

-Steve