Isn't that called a federal reserve bank?

If the "Fed" does it, it's called monetary policy, if you or I do it, it's called counterfeiting. Hypocracy? Yes, but I was making an analogy, and no analogy is perfect.

(Well, that one wasn't anyway.)

Ken V.

Ok, I went back and reread the OP that started this thread and I think I see where the issues are now.

If you are downloading a book and paying for it, then it is wrong without the author's permission because they are not getting a percentage of that money.

But if someone was to scan these novels out of a personally owned copy of the novel that he/she bought some time in the past and then post them as free downloads on the internet would it really be any different then passing the actual book from hand to hand and not charging the receipent a fee?

Either way it is not something I would do personally since I hate sitting in front of a computer to read, but I'm trying to understand the heart of the discussion here.

The analogy of the house (book) to the e-copy is that, when you're selling your house, you no longer have the house...you didn't make a copy of the house (book) and sell that (or give it away).

Theoretically, you could make an exact copy of the house (a backup, if you will) and still not owe the architect any money...you already bought the plans once.

So, you now have two copies of the same house. No problem.

I think that this book/house/e-copy analogy is wearing a thin/silly A copy of a house? Imagine the size of the scanner you'd need to make an e-copy of a house! :eek6:

However, the minute someone either sells a copy (or gives one away) then the receiver NOW has the item without paying FPW one cent for the item.

That's copyright infringement.

I agree with the 'sells a copy' bit, but then you put in brackets 'gives one away' which I do not agree with. :dancing:

If FPW has 1000 copies of The Keep printed, and those copies are lent out, passed along, put on eBay, given to charity shops or donated to the library and a 1,000,000 people end up reading the book, isn't that 999,000 sales that FPW has missed out on?

Those 999,000 people have all read a legitimate copy of The Keep, yet they havent paid a penny to FPW. The story in the book is the intellectual property that FPW deserves to be paid for, not the actual book that his publishers pump out.

Not terribly unlike earning a fifty dollar bill, and making a copy of it -- or a number of copies. As long as you keep those copies for yourself, everything's fine. But the instant you try to "sell" or distribute those copies it's called counterfeiting, and that's wrong.

Ken V.

even with a laser printer? I hate those rules

Bleh. I think I see what the issue is now. Please overlook my last response, I was pretty tired when I wrote it this morning (long story).

I saw that Wap addressed what I asked in that second response already by basically stating that while the book itself is yours to do with as you please if you make a copy (such as scanning it into a computer and making a digital copy) you are fine with that as long as you do not try to sell it or give it away because now there is a "version" of the story out there that the author was never paid for.

Got it. I'm tracking now.

No one thought a book would be easy to copy and give away unlimited times, prior to the Internet (only 15 years ago). 15 years from now, houses may be easy to copy.

Heh.

I agree with the 'sells a copy' bit, but then you put in brackets 'gives one away' which I do not agree with.

If FPW has 1000 copies of The Keep printed, and those copies are lent out, passed along, put on eBay, given to charity shops or donated to the library and a 1,000,000 people end up reading the book, isn't that 999,000 sales that FPW has missed out on?

No. Focus on the book shaped artefact. The 1000 artefacts were sold. After that they are property and those 1000 copies can be disposed of however the single person touching each book determines is appropriate.

In the end, no matter how many people read the 1000 books, there are still only 1000 books.

Those 999,000 people have all read a legitimate copy of The Keep, yet they haven't paid a penny to FPW. The story in the book is the intellectual property that FPW deserves to be paid for, not the actual book that his publishers pump out.

The technology does not exist (yet) to require royalties to be paid every time a new person reads/hears a word/book for the first time.

Currently copyright (which virtually ignores the existence of the Internet) deals only with the issue of a physical copy.

So as long as there are still only 1000 copies, no copyright law has been broken.

You can belittle the 1000 items that the publishers pump out and ask that 1,000,000 royalties be paid to FPW (and I'm sure FPW wouldn't turn down another 999,000 royalties), if you choose, but that's how FPW gets paid for his 1000 books in the real world. Copyright law only protects those 1000 physical books.

But, in the case of e-copies, if 1,000,000 people read a copy of the book AND also can keep (no pun intended) a copy of the book...ie they own a copy...but only 1000 copies were created by the publisher (who paid FPW for 1000 copies), then yes, 999,000 copies of the book have been stolen from FPW according to current copyright law.

If you think copyright should change to what people see or hear instead of what they own, then lobby for it.

Royalty payment every time a group of words enters a person's brain for the first time (through the eyes or ears)...sounds like a premise for a great horror story.

-Wapitikev

Ugh...:eek:

...Royalty payment every time a group of words enters a person's brain for the first time (through the eyes or ears)...sounds like a premise for a great horror story.

No one thought a book would be easy to copy and give away unlimited times, prior to the Internet (only 15 years ago). 15 years from now, houses may be easy to copy.

Heh.

You might even describe the copyright laws as anachronisms now that the internet's rocked up. Trying to police a 21st century technolongy with 18th century laws.

No. Focus on the book shaped artefact. The 1000 artefacts were sold. After that they are property and those 1000 copies can be disposed of however the single person touching each book determines is appropriate.

In the end, no matter how many people read the 1000 books, there are still only 1000 books.

Why focus on the atrifact (book)?

FPW is not a book binder, people don't buy his late4st book becasue of the quality of the stitching, it's the story FPW's selling.

People wouldnt buy a blank book, but they'd pay £10 for a book with FPW's story in it.... the story is FPW's intellectual property, the book is just the medium.

The technology does not exist (yet) to require royalties to be paid every time a new person reads/hears a word/book for the first time.

Currently copyright (which virtually ignores the existence of the Internet) deals only with the issue of a physical copy.

So as long as there are still only 1000 copies, no copyright law has been broken.

You can belittle the 1000 items that the publishers pump out and ask that 1,000,000 royalties be paid to FPW (and I'm sure FPW wouldn't turn down another 999,000 royalties), if you choose, but that's how FPW gets paid for his 1000 books in the real world. Copyright law only protects those 1000 physical books.

But, in the case of e-copies, if 1,000,000 people read a copy of the book AND also can keep (no pun intended) a copy of the book...ie they own a copy...but only 1000 copies were created by the publisher (who paid FPW for 1000 copies), then yes, 999,000 copies of the book have been stolen from FPW according to current copyright law.

If you think copyright should change to what people see or hear instead of what they own, then lobby for it.

Royalty payment every time a group of words enters a person's brain for the first time (through the eyes or ears)...sounds like a premise for a great horror story.

-Wapitikev

I wasnt saying that 990,000 people should have to pay royalites, I was just saying that although (according to your interpretation) no copyright law had been broken FPW would have missed 990,000 sales; all those people who would have had to buy a copy of the book to read FPW's story will not need to any longer.

I think bascially you're putting way too much importance on the book which was knocked out in a factory somewhere horrid like china or canada, and not enough on the actual story.

Cory Doctorow on the internet vs copyright. Quite long, but very interesting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...6832593071

You might even describe the copyright laws as anachronisms now that the internet's rocked up. Trying to police a 21st century technolongy with 18th century laws.

I believe I mentioned that in my post.

Why focus on the atrifact (book)?

Because that is how FPW chooses to put out the majority of his work.

FPW is not a book binder, people don't buy his late4st book becasue of the quality of the stitching, it's the story FPW's selling.

Which is integral to his books...or his audio-books for that matter...I was talking about books because that is what the thread is about. Everywhere the word book appears in any statement I've made, you could just as easily say audio-book or legal e-book and the statement holds true.

People wouldnt buy a blank book, but they'd pay £10 for a book with FPW's story in it.... the story is FPW's intellectual property, the book is just the medium.

True but that doesn't change anything I said.

I wasnt saying that 990,000 people should have to pay royalites, I was just saying that although (according to your interpretation) no copyright law had been broken FPW would have missed 990,000 sales; all those people who would have had to buy a copy of the book to read FPW's story will not need to any longer.

Frikin commie libraries and book-sharers!

I think basically you're putting way too much importance on the book which was knocked out in a factory somewhere horrid like china or canada, and not enough on the actual story.

To quote a famous Canadian philosopher "the medium IS the message."

While it is nice to confuse the issue by slagging a discussion that focuses on the medium, the bottom line is, communication does not take place without a medium. Whether it is printed or spoken, those are the mediums and always will be until they can be transmitted some other way (ESP, etc.).

Copyright law focusses on licensing the artifact because the message is impossible to charge someone for.

As in my post, if you want to charge for the message, then a completley new set of structures (and mind-monitoring) needs to be developed.

-Wapitikev