For the last time, stop avoiding the fact that borrowing is not the same thing as duplicating. Lending deprives no one of income. Duplication does. And they are in the public domain. Living writers deserve to be paid for their work. Sun Tzu and Plato sold their work in their time. It's just that duplicating a book by hand was difficult 2000 years ago. Yiou argument is essentially that you should be allowed to steal just because it is easier to steal electronically. You are morally bankrupt. I attack you because you just keep repeating yourself as if it somehow makes your argument better. I won this argument several threads ago. The law doesn't back you, the majority of people don't back you, the dictionary doesn't back you, the poll here doesn't back you, fair play doesn't exist for you . . . all you got is LaSalle. Enjoy.
This is why you lost the argument. It makes you a thief. Just because you are proud to be one doesn't make it right or justifiable. I find it contemptible.
Red you say duplicating deprives an artist of income. So, you are saying basically that everyone that downloads music and shares files, would go out and buy them if they weren't free? In fact it's probably the opposite, most everyone wouldn't waste their time with it if it wasn't free. So that deprives them of income as well, because now, their shit isn't out there, and making people want to see them live, or buy something else of theirs because they never heard their material in the first place.
that is correct, those are not the reasons it is justified. the reason it is justified is that free exchange of information is a net good for society, perfectly in line with the golden rule, or the categorical imperative or utilitarian philosphy or any other rational basis for morality.
the publishing industry does not agree, and is therefore trying to limit ebook lending. this is actually not my argument, but i hope to help encourage you to improve your reading skills. if you say so, hoss. its true not everyone agrees with me. i cant concern myself with that. and i dont care because i am still free to steal without any remorse or ramifications of any kind. so if you think you won the argument, cheers.
I've said repeatedly that my argument is based on a moral assessment of the subject. The issue is getting confused here with the discussion of loaning. The issue is the file sharing of music, not books. They are two very different concepts. The loan of a book does not create a new copy of the book, the way "sharing" a music file does. And its in the creation of that new copy, that is distributed for free, that income is lost. Other than food, name a product that you don't get to try out before you buy it. You can test drive a car, try on clothes and shoes. Shoot, since you want to talk about books so much, bookstores even give you a place to sit down and read a bit before you buy the book! Granted, some things are impractical to try out first; Wal-Mart doesn't let you plug in that new coffee maker and brew a pot in the store. But they do let you return it for a full refund if you're not satisfied after you get it home and try it out.
its clearly true that free distribution of music only makes you more popular, and able to command larger fees for performance. the same way you might get more money as a feature dancer at a strip club if your porn videos were super popular. over time, revenue models change. technology drives innovative people to innovate. clinging to old revenue models doesnt work.
