And you total ignoring the fact that a person original paid for the song/movie. iTunes has destroyed the need for physical copies.. Mute point. Your only grasp in this argument is law, in which I have stated, is not my issue. Lost income is the issue. Not Law. You loan a book, the receiver of that loan has no need to buy the book.
Not at all. That person is not the problem. Its moot point, not mute, but that's not the point anyway, because iTunes is a poor example. You have to pay iTunes for your downloads, which in turn pays a royalty to the artist. The issue is people who are illegally downloading from "sharing" sites for free. The fact that the copy created by this illegal download is merely an electronic signal rather than a material property like a CD is irrelevant. The artist is still robbed of his right to distribute his/her music as he/she sees fit. As Red has so accurately pointed out, the digital age has made the problem worse by giving the thief the ability to mass produce studio quality copies in a manner that wasn't possible before. Wrong. My grasp is from a moral standpoint; my understanding of what intellectual property is, and who owns it. The law just happens to agree with me. You're quite correct. It is an issue of lost income. Everyone has the right to choose what personal ability/talent they wish to market professionally, be it writing, bricklaying or potato farming. None of us are obligated to buy what the artist has to sell; that's why I have never and will never buy a Lady GaGa CD. But she has the right to sell her crap to anyone willing to buy it, with a reasonable expectation that her crap won't be stolen. And the law is on her side. Not unless the receiver of the loan wishes his own personal copy of the book to keep. I've been loaned books before. On occasion I've enjoyed the book enough that I knew I'd want to re-read it at a future time. So I bought my own copy.
And people download songs for free then go and buy the album..... Regardless of that, loan books still results in lost income.... If your standpoint is moral, then address that.... Not the law... Being a law does not make it moral....
Sorry, mute must have been an auto correct..... Thanks BRO! "The issue is people who are illegally downloading from "sharing" sites for free." -So lost income? "Wrong. My grasp is from a moral standpoint; my understanding of what intellectual property is" -Your intellect stays intact, along with the purchased copy. "As Red has so accurately pointed out, the digital age has made the problem worse by giving the thief the ability to mass produce studio quality copies in a manner that wasn't possible before." - So lost income? "I've been loaned books before." - Ding, lost income "On occasion I've enjoyed the book enough that I knew I'd want to re-read it at a future time." - Occasional lost income, lost income none the less.... "You're quite correct. It is an issue of lost income." - Thanks! "The artist is still robbed of his right to distribute his/her music as he/she sees fit." - File sharing doesn't stop this. Its the will of the people. Just like loaning a book, some people would rather try it before buy it, some people just don't wanna pay, and others are just mean.. Book sharing is no different. Morals are not a shared view.
Yes, but the concept of selling songs either individually or as part of a collection (album) is well-established. People don't typically tear out a chapter of a book and loan it out. No, income is lost if the book is copied and that copy distributed. Income isn't generated from the reading of the book, otherwise, authors with any commercial sense would not allow their publishers to sell books to libraries. If your standpoint is moral, then address that.... Not the law... Being a law does not make it moral....[/quote] I've already said, my standpoint is a moral one. I believe file sharing is stealing. It just so happens that the law agrees with me.
Don't mention it. Editing other people's writing is one of the duties I perform in my job. I would normally have gotten paid for fixing your error, but I 've given you a freebie on this occasion. My marketable talent; my choice. See how it works? Right Right (exhasperated sigh) Right Very true; if it were otherwise, this would be a mute discussion.
that isnt possible. you cant control who gets the books you sell. you could refuse to sell to libraries all you want and the libraries would still get the books. you would have to outlaw book loaning. i borrow books from the library every week and it definitely costs the writers profits because i would buy the books otherwise. but too bad for the writer we are thinking about the greater good here, not pandering to special interests. by your logic, writers who believe librairies are costing them income should be able to make them illegal. in fact, publishers are trying to limit the number of ties libraries can loan ebooks. libraries should tell them to go to hell, and the governemtn should not back the publishers, because, as i have repeated endlessly, it is a tremendous value to society, that libraries and file sharing exist.
Again, if your stand point is moral, laws have no value. So don't use them... If you recognize its not a justification for your morals, why use it as a foundation? It would be nice if we could move past this and not have the law posted every reply and get to the meat of the debate. Loaning results in lost income. You said it yourself, only on occasion would you buy a book that you already read. However, as you pointed this information out, loaning and sharing can directly impact sales... can it not? Furthermore, a moral argument can be made of all those times you bought a product with no way to try before buy. Technology now allows for this...
Publishers already dislike libraries and they realy despise ebook lending. The question is why should the government side with publishers and not the reading public? If the issue is income for publishers then why are libraries legal at all? The answer is because there is value to society in free access to information, and that value is more important than special interests like writers and publishers.
