i know the law, i am curious as to why you think the loss of income for artists is morally acceptable.
There is no lost income, it is fair use! You would know this if you bothered to read and understand the law.
why is there not lost income if you dont buy a book because i loan it to you? i have borrowed many a book that i would have otherwise bought. clearly lost income for the writers. this is not something you can deny. just because you use the term "fair use" doesnt mean it isnt lost income.
Because there is a limited market for book sales. Books can be read many times by many people. Not all of them are going to buy books, some will borrow or rent books. These are users of books and their reading is fair use. No book sales have been lost because these users were never going to buy the books. Fair use is good for the user and also good for the author. Because of fair use, libraries flourish and buy many books to make available to users who down buy books. College bookstores rent many books to students who don't need to purchase them. College bookstores buy many books. Authors are happy with fair use, because it enables libraries and bookstore to buy more books to loan or rent to those who would otherwise not buy the book. Fair use is essentially one user per book at a time. You can make this claim, but I know it to be false because you have many time proclaimed that paper books are a waste and you have no space for them. The law doesn't take such unprovable claims into account either. It assumes that if you really wanted to own a book, you would buy it. If you did not really want to own it, but just wanted to read it, then borrowing or renting a legally purchased book is fair use because you are simply a reader, not an owner. No income has been lost. According to long-established laws, fair use means no lost income because authors can only sell COPIES of a book, not charge per reader of a book, which would be ludicrous.
how is that relevant? i buy kindle books all the time. unless i can borrow them from someone. every time i borrow a book that is one less sale, less money for the artist. again, this is simply not true. every single time i borrow a book thats one less book i buy. ebook or physical book. one less purchase. i dont waste time reading books only because i can borrow them, that i otherwise wouldnt. in fact, with harry potter books, every time one came out my friend and i would flip a coil to see who had to buy, then the other would read it and give it to the other. we defihnitely would have both bought it otherwise. it was unquestionably loss of income that we distributed it to each other. why would that be ludicrous? movie theaters charge per viewer and distribute no copies whatsoever.
I just explained for the third time how that is untrue. You are just being contrary now. A child can understand the concept of owning versus loaning. Fair use. The movie theater bid for and PAID for the rights to show the film.
i do understand that. i am asking you why loaning is morally acceptable to you, when it clearly reduces the income of the artist. your contention is that trading files on the internet is morally wrong because the artists are not paid. why is it ok for me to borrow your book instead of buying. why should i be allowed to read the book for free. do not artists deserve to be paid when i consume their items? obviously i can buy a book and read it and give it to another dude and he can read it and give it to another dude and he can read it and a hundred of us can read it and only one of us paid. thats a tremendous amount of lost income for the artist. why is that any different that if i put my metallica CD on the internet? the answer is it is not different at all. only the scale and speed of transfer of the information is different. so if you argument is that artists deserve payment, then you should be morally opposed to loaning books.
And I have told you . . . it is fair use and does not deprive the author of sales. Already explained several times. Stop pretending to be stupid. Because it allows people to duplicate it without paying royalties, rather than borrowing a paid copy. I have explained at length why borrowing and owning are different. Perhaps you are stupid. That is not my argument. I have explained fair use to you and how it benefits authors. You are stupid.
It is not. For the last time, books have never been intended to be read by only one person. Many people can read the book. Only one can own it. This is my last word. You are addicted to dispute rather than debate.
