we are not asking anyone to tell us what the law is, we are talking about why. you mention that you loan your book to a friend. why is this acceptable if the issue is that the author gets paid? after i read a book, i throw it away. this means more profits for the writers because the other people who want to read it have to find another copy. shouldnt everyone be forced to do the same as i do instead of giving books away or loaning them? is the issue about maximizing revenue for the writer?
Because the author/artist has a right to be compensated for his work. I answered this question in detail in the previous post. Try to keep up. No, its about fair compensation, not maximum.
if i am a bricklayer and i go in my backyard and build something, then i tear it down and i do it again, do i deserve to be paid for that work? why not? dont i have the right to be compensated for the work i have done? the deeper question is why does anyone "deserve" to be paid for anything. how are you defining "fair" compensation. some writers write books that nobody ever reads. is that fair? obviously it is because nobody wanted to pay them. so the issue is not simply, "somebody did work so now they get paid". the question is whether we benefit as a society to have these copyright laws. certainly we agree that the laws benefit some people. but they dont help others. my argument is that the net result of these laws is negative and restricting.
And it should be the consumer's right to know what he/she is buying. So by file sharing, I get to see if I want to purchase it or not. Again, if you have a bike and I steal it, you don't have a bike. If you have a song and I download it, you still have a song.
Absolutely! Pay yourself as often as you like. Well, if you choose to provide society with a product or service and not charge for it, I suppose you have that right. How old are you? I feel like I'm explaining the law of supply and demand to a 5-year old. Your argument is wrong.
how does supply and demand work with regard to writing? i know that, for example, if we are willing to buy potatoes, then people will grow them and supply them. and if we do not buy potatoes, farmer wont bother growing them. but even if we have no appetite for writing, people will write. every college english professor iswriting a novel. and they are not doing it get rich. same with music. every high school kid who likes girls picked up a guitar and tried to rock. so the demand is not related to the supply. or more accurately, the demand is self provided.
OK, take out your crayon and tablet and write this down, so we don't have to explain it again. The fact that the professor writes a novel does not obligate anyone to buy it. But he has a reasonable expectation that no one will steal his novel. The potato farmer makes money off me, because I like potatoes. The cauliflower farmer is out of luck where I'm concerned. If I don't like cauliflower, I don't have to buy it. But just because lots of people like potatoes, that doesn't mean every potato farmer will get rich. Some won't be very good farmers, others won't manage their assets properly and some will just have the bad luck to get ruined by a drought. But every potato farmer has a reasonable right to expect that his potatoes won't be stolen.
And I already explained this above, the law protects creators from being robbed by thieves. Already answered by me and mctiger. Repeating the same lame objections is getting you nowhere and just makes you look absent-minded. Trite and totally beside the point. Stop trying to divert attention from the fact that what you call sharing is in fact illegal duplication.
correct not true. if his novel is good and he puts it out, people will steal it. why is that a problem? because he wont write another novel? incorrect. in fact the more people steal it and read it, the more likely it is he will writer another. thats fine because if we steal his crops he will stop farming. not true about the writer. in fact with the artist the opposite is true. he wants to express himself, he wants a stage. some writers dont want a stage, they just like to spread info, and they will even if not paid. if you dont believe me then type anything into google and think about why wikipedia was the first thing that came up.
