webby Wrote:This right here.
When an author has a book published, he/she knows that copies will be read by people who borrow them from libraries, friends, relatives, or find them abandoned in airports, laundromats...whatever. One purchased copy is all the compensation they can expect with regard to all that borrowing. That's the way it works and authors know it.
Any author who authorizes e-copies should be prepared for the "borrowing" (downloading) to increase dramatically over physical books. That's the way file sharing works.
Any author who does not authroize e-copies of work still under copyright has a legitimate complaint if his/her work turns up in electronic format somewhere.
Wapitikev Wrote:Bones: please read Webby's post caaaaaaaarefully.
Ok.
Quote:Paragraph one is use of FPW's Intellectual property through borrowing a friend's copy or a library copy...while you have it, the other party DOES NOT .
Hmmmm....
Quote:Paragraph 3 is NOT borrowing because the original creator of the e-copy has his copy AND the person he gave an e-copy to ALSO has a permanent copy.
-Wapitikev
Wappy, read my post caaaaaarefully.....
It's not that I somehow
misunderstand what you and Webby are saying, it's that I
disagree with you.
My point is: THE BOOK is not FPW's
Intellectual Property. THE BOOK once an individual has bought it is their
Physical Property. But even once THE BOOK has been bought and is owned by a customer, FPW still owns the
Intellectual Property which is the STORY he created and is contained within.
As I said before, FPW is a storyteller, not a book binder.
So if I borrow a copy from a library and read it and give it back, obviously I don't retain a copy of THE BOOK, I've given it back. But in my head I retain a copy of FPW's
Intellectual Property, and becasue I now have that I no longer need to buy a copy myself to read it; FPW has lost my sale. I got FPW's
Intellectual Property without paying for it.... and yet this isnt considered stealing?
It seems to be splitting the hair mighty fine, in my opinion.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If scanned in eCopys are verboten, then by the same principle so should copies you get from the library, buy second hand from the charity shop, borrow from a friend... and the mental contortions that your argument requires to elude this fact is what I'm challenging.
So as you point out, if you borrow it from the library then one party has it whilst the other does not. But everyone ends up with a copy of the
Intellectual Property. If 100 people borrow the book from the library, sure it's the same copy, but now 100 people have their own personal copy of the
Intelectual Property in their heads and don't need to buy a copy of the book from FPW. How is this
any different from someone buying one copy of the book and then having 100 people download it from a torrent? There is still one copy that FPW has been compensated for, and 100 people who have read the story, one copy of the book still in circulation.