Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:28 am, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Even if the payment to the author is the same in each case, that
> > doesn't follow. Library users are (a) obeying widely established law
> > and custom and (b) 'paying' an opportunity cost in that they'll
> > probably have to wait to get very popular titles. I've bought things
> > in hardcover that I knew would be in the library in a month, because I
> > didn't want to wait the month.
>
> Well, let's compare and contrast:
>
> Action: Check book out of library
> Result: Many people read a book with only one purchased copy
>
> Action: Download book from Usenet group
> Result: Many people read a book with only one purchased copy

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed because you ignored the key
difference between the two results: In one, the number of people who
can access the work at any time is limited to the number of original
copies purchased. In the other, there is no such limit.

The fact that you ignored this DESPITE the fact that you were replying
to a message in which it's specifically being brought up just makes
you look like a goddamn ******. (A state you seem to frequently find
yourself in.)

The practical effect of this distinction is that the number of copies
of a book purchased by a library is still responsive to the laws of
supply and demand, and -- as a result -- the author will still benefit
financially from increased demand. A copy obtained through pirating,
OTOH, gives no financial benefit to the author.

Now, if you want to argue that creative people should not be
recompensed for their efforts, be open about it. And if you have a
better way for that to happen than the extant and proven solution of a
system of copyright, then offer it.

Otherwise just admit that you like getting **** without paying for it.

If you want to criticize some of the excesses and corporate-driven
loopholes of current copyright law, I'm right there with you. But
arguing, "The RIAA is a bunch of ninnies, so we should throw the baby
out with the bathwater!" just makes you look ******ed... again.

--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

On Dec 19, 2:13 am, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net>
wrote:

> Now, if you want to argue that creative people should not be
> recompensed for their efforts, be open about it. And if you have a
> better way for that to happen than the extant and proven solution of a
> system of copyright, then offer it.

There is a third possibility. Since, elsewhere in this thread, people
were discussing duplication of material objects, one might argue
against copyright (for certain types of work) because the good arising
from encouraging authors to create more is outweighed by the
contribution to poverty by making what they produce expensive.

This is a difficult observation to sustain, because it ends up as a
justification of slavery in most cases.

But we *could* imagine...

a world where schools and colleges are required to use textbooks that
are in the public domain wherever possible, and pool their resources
to create open-source textbooks on recent subjects...

a world where IP in things like the API of an operating system, or the
architecture of a computer, or the design of an interface is not
granted.

A standards body might decree how operating systems interact with
applications, so that it would be *illegal* for a private company to
create an operating system that would run software that was
incompatible with Linux. Of course one can create a proprietary
software that has better features, or is friendlier to the user, and
attempt to charge for it - but to have a position secured by a pool of
third-party software that can run only on your proprietary operating
system needlessly makes computers more expensive than they might
otherwise be, and goes beyond the limits of fair competition.

So IP would be permitted as long as it didn't create non-commodity
products. The decision of purchasing an operating system should be
like purchasing a can of pears - which one is cheapest, which one
tastes better. Of course every binary runs on every brand of operating
system, so that there are no long-run implications from one's choice.

All microchips would have only one ISA under such a system, or perhaps
changes would be possible for distinct applications areas.

The idea being that we allow copyright where it has the desired result
- more music and books for people to choose from - but not if the
result is bad instead of good for the general public, by creating a
large financial burden for most people to serve one giant monopoly, or
just because it makes certain resources scarce which have no need to
be scarce.

Richard Stallman's argument that copyright is an unethical way for
programmers to make more money might also be cited.

So it is possible to argue that copyright can do more harm than good
in some circumstances. Patent law is a more reasonable example these
days, because there are many cases of patents being taken out on the
obvious and natural way to do something in a situation that doesn't
quite yet exist - so that the people whose real innovations make a new
technology possible end up being assailed by legions of "inventors"
with patents on trivialities.

John Savard

On Dec 19, 1:13 am, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net>
wrote:

> The practical effect of this distinction is that the number of copies
> of a book purchased by a library is still responsive to the laws of
> supply and demand, and -- as a result -- the author will still benefit
> financially from increased demand. A copy obtained through pirating,
> OTOH, gives no financial benefit to the author.

Bullshit; it's quite likely to be a net economic plus, in fact.

> Otherwise just admit that you like getting **** without paying for it.

As I mentioned before, most of the music which gets shared I'd pay not
to have to listen to. The same may be true of Trek novels and reading,
but now I could download them from Usenet and discover I was really a
fan, I suppose.

> If you want to criticize some of the excesses and corporate-driven
> loopholes of current copyright law, I'm right there with you. But
> arguing, "The RIAA is a bunch of ninnies, so we should throw the baby
> out with the bathwater!" just makes you look ******ed... again.

Your continued personal attacks suggest you don't have an actual
argument. Mine is that the right of being able to do what you like in
your own home, unless it really does affect other people, such as
building bombs, trumps other considerations because freedom of the
individual is more important than those other considerations.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 19, 1:13 am, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The practical effect of this distinction is that the number of copies
> > of a book purchased by a library is still responsive to the laws of
> > supply and demand, and -- as a result -- the author will still benefit
> > financially from increased demand. A copy obtained through pirating,
> > OTOH, gives no financial benefit to the author.
>
> Bullshit; it's quite likely to be a net economic plus, in fact.

Get back to me when you have some verifiable facts to back up this
assertion.

And, no, the Baen Free Library doesn't constitute a broad proof. Even
if we accept it as a data point for the effect of electronic pirating
of e-books -- and it's not clear that this is true for a number of
reasons (most notably the difference between a Free Library that
drives consumer attention towards a website designed to operate as a
storefront for the authors' other wares and a pirated copy that
doesn't) -- it's impossible to extrapolate that to mediums where there
is no discernible difference between a pirated copy and a copy of the
work available for commercial sale.

And, even more importantly, the mechanism by which the Baen Free
Library generates economic benefit to the participating authors STILL
REQUIRES COPYRIGHT.

> > If you want to criticize some of the excesses and corporate-driven
> > loopholes of current copyright law, I'm right there with you. But
> > arguing, "The RIAA is a bunch of ninnies, so we should throw the baby
> > out with the bathwater!" just makes you look ******ed... again.
>
> Your continued personal attacks suggest you don't have an actual
> argument.

.... and yet you just got done (attempting) to respond to (some) of my
argument.

You're looking like a ****** again, Gene.

> Mine is that the right of being able to do what you like in
> your own home, unless it really does affect other people,

And clearly violating someone's intellectual property rights DOES
affect other people (and, in fact, is known to HARM other people). So
your argument basically has no validity at all.

--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:35:33 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>A standards body might decree how operating systems interact with
>applications, so that it would be *illegal* for a private company to
>create an operating system that would run software that was
>incompatible with Linux. Of course one can create a proprietary
>software that has better features, or is friendlier to the user, and
>attempt to charge for it - but to have a position secured by a pool of
>third-party software that can run only on your proprietary operating
>system needlessly makes computers more expensive than they might
>otherwise be, and goes beyond the limits of fair competition.
>
>So IP would be permitted as long as it didn't create non-commodity
>products. The decision of purchasing an operating system should be
>like purchasing a can of pears - which one is cheapest, which one
>tastes better. Of course every binary runs on every brand of operating
>system, so that there are no long-run implications from one's choice.
>
>All microchips would have only one ISA under such a system, or perhaps
>changes would be possible for distinct applications areas.
>
>The idea being that we allow copyright where it has the desired result
>- more music and books for people to choose from - but not if the
>result is bad instead of good for the general public, by creating a
>large financial burden for most people to serve one giant monopoly, or
>just because it makes certain resources scarce which have no need to
>be scarce.

Uhm, yeah. That's just *evil*. A government mediated standard for
instruction set of CPUs and OS APIs is the sort of thing that seriously
undermines progress.

It might work if we hit the limit of Moore's Law at some point, but not at
any time before that.

Jasper

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:31:22 -0800 (PST), Justin Alexander
<justin@thealexandrian.net> wrote:

>And, no, the Baen Free Library doesn't constitute a broad proof. Even
>if we accept it as a data point for the effect of electronic pirating
>of e-books -- and it's not clear that this is true for a number of
>reasons (most notably the difference between a Free Library that
>drives consumer attention towards a website designed to operate as a
>storefront for the authors' other wares and a pirated copy that
>doesn't) -- it's impossible to extrapolate that to mediums where there
>is no discernible difference between a pirated copy and a copy of the
>work available for commercial sale.

What is the discernible difference between a Baen Free Library book and
its Webscriptions.org counterpart that costs money?

Jasper

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:31:22 -0800 (PST), Justin Alexander
> <justin@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
>> And, no, the Baen Free Library doesn't constitute a broad proof. Even
>> if we accept it as a data point for the effect of electronic pirating
>> of e-books -- and it's not clear that this is true for a number of
>> reasons (most notably the difference between a Free Library that
>> drives consumer attention towards a website designed to operate as a
>> storefront for the authors' other wares and a pirated copy that
>> doesn't) -- it's impossible to extrapolate that to mediums where there
>> is no discernible difference between a pirated copy and a copy of the
>> work available for commercial sale.
>
> What is the discernible difference between a Baen Free Library book and
> its Webscriptions.org counterpart that costs money?

The Webscription books are newer; the Free Library books are mostly
older ones that under normal circumstances would be backlist, and
probably out of print. A few are labors of love that would never exist
today except as very obscure used tree pulp (e.g., 1991's "Old Nathan").
(Amazon shows 40 used copies, and one new copy, ranging from $4-$114.
The new copy was $29.)

Yes, I'm sure you can find a counterexample; no, I don't really care.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

Jack Tingle wrote:

> The Webscription books are newer; the Free Library books are mostly
> older ones that under normal circumstances would be backlist, and
> probably out of print. A few are labors of love that would never exist
> today except as very obscure used tree pulp (e.g., 1991's "Old Nathan").

Er, "Old Nathan" is available as part of "Mountain Magic", which is
still in print.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Webscription books are newer; the Free Library books are mostly
> older ones that under normal circumstances would be backlist, and
> probably out of print. A few are labors of love that would never exist
> today except as very obscure used tree pulp (e.g., 1991's "Old Nathan").
> (Amazon shows 40 used copies, and one new copy, ranging from $4-$114.
> The new copy was $29.)
>
> Yes, I'm sure you can find a counterexample; no, I don't really care.

The obvious example on the Baen Free Library is _On Basilisk Station_, which
while backlist, is definitely still in print, and AFAICT really commonly
held in stock at decent-sized bookstores.

Note also the "Baen CD" versions, which while publicized a bit less than the
Free Library ones sometimes include books that haven't even made in to MMPB.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:02:37 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:31:22 -0800 (PST), Justin Alexander
>> <justin@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And, no, the Baen Free Library doesn't constitute a broad proof. Even
>>> if we accept it as a data point for the effect of electronic pirating
>>> of e-books -- and it's not clear that this is true for a number of
>>> reasons (most notably the difference between a Free Library that
>>> drives consumer attention towards a website designed to operate as a
>>> storefront for the authors' other wares and a pirated copy that
>>> doesn't) -- it's impossible to extrapolate that to mediums where there
>>> is no discernible difference between a pirated copy and a copy of the
>>> work available for commercial sale.
>>
>> What is the discernible difference between a Baen Free Library book and
>> its Webscriptions.org counterpart that costs money?
>
>The Webscription books are newer; the Free Library books are mostly
>older ones that under normal circumstances would be backlist, and
>probably out of print. A few are labors of love that would never exist
>today except as very obscure used tree pulp (e.g., 1991's "Old Nathan").
>(Amazon shows 40 used copies, and one new copy, ranging from $4-$114.
>The new copy was $29.)

I said *its counterpart*. Not a different book that happens to be sold the
same way.

Jasper

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:17:41 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The Webscription books are newer; the Free Library books are mostly
>> older ones that under normal circumstances would be backlist, and
>> probably out of print. A few are labors of love that would never exist
>> today except as very obscure used tree pulp (e.g., 1991's "Old Nathan").
>> (Amazon shows 40 used copies, and one new copy, ranging from $4-$114.
>> The new copy was $29.)
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure you can find a counterexample; no, I don't really care.
>
>The obvious example on the Baen Free Library is _On Basilisk Station_, which
>while backlist, is definitely still in print, and AFAICT really commonly
>held in stock at decent-sized bookstores.
>
>Note also the "Baen CD" versions, which while publicized a bit less than the
>Free Library ones sometimes include books that haven't even made in to MMPB.

Usually, even. Almost all of them came with the release of a first
printing hardcover, and include the ebook of that hardcover on the CD. The
10th Honor Harrington (War Of Honor) CD, for example, includes all 10
Honor books up to then including War of Honor.

Jasper