bones weep tedium Wrote: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.
Yes.
bones weep tedium Wrote:As I said before, FPW is a storyteller, not a book binder.
Yes. Book binding is how FPW has chosen to distribute and sell his intellectual property.
bones weep tedium Wrote: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?
No.
It is not stealing because FPW who, by deciding to publish books and let them be used by public libraries, has given his permission for the intellectual property therein to be used by public libraries. This is only different by degrees from your video presenter who has given away all rights to the distribution of his words after the publication and distribution of the 1st edition printed copies. FPW has simply not chosen to given away as many of his rights as your video presenter has.
bones weep tedium Wrote:It seems to be splitting the hair mighty fine, in my opinion.
No.
You may view it as semantic, but consider an analogy:
When arrested in the US and Canada you are (supposedly) entitled to a certain list of rights: remain silent, an attorney, etc.
If you give up your right to remain silent, you do not automatically forfeit the rest of your rights. You may damage your ability to exercise your remaining rights, but you still have them.
bones weep tedium Wrote: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.
The principle does not transfer. FPW chooses to condone public libraries' use of his int. property but also chooses to be compensated for every copy that exists, even the ones that libraries buy. This requires no mental gymnastics to understand.
bones weep tedium Wrote: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.
So you're objecting to FPW using the library as free publicity for his intellectual property but it is OK for Madonna to use free Internet access to promote popularity for her concerts? Both allow people to view intellectual property without cost, somehow, in order to stimulate popularity.
The difference you are missing is: you are supporting Madonna's decision on how she will offer free access to her intellectual property but are dismissing FPW's.
FPW has decided that he will not ask for royalties for copies that exist, however perfectly or imperfectly, inside people's heads. Since the copies in a person's brain is not the target of his royalties, FPW accepts that libraries are a use he is willing to condone, perhaps even support, for the very concepts of "property" and "ownership" that you decry as irrelevant.
He has also decided that he wishes to be paid only for physical copies that can be owned and disposed of by an individual, whether they be in print, an audio book or in electronic format. He has even been so gracious to accept that, after buying a copy of his book, I can then make a copy for my own personal use until such time as I sell, give away, or destroy on purpose, the original.
By those same decisions, 100 e-copies that 100 different people can all own and read simultaneously, without royalties, are not satisfactory to him, for the very concepts of "property" and "ownership" that you decry as irrelevant.
These are the decisions FPW has made regarding his intellectual property, good or ill.
We both agree that, right or wrong, the nature of the Internet makes copyright virtually un-enforceable. So, in the end, it comes down to each individual making their own decision about how we will use FPW's intellectual property.
I can either respect an author's or artist's decisions regarding their intellectual property or I can disregard them.
The question is not whether I can own an unauthorized/illegal copy of all FPW's works. I can. Easily.
The real question is: should I?
-Wapitikev