Re: attn. JMS: A TV writing question...

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:01:32 +0000 (UTC)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Size: 2,305 bytes

> I think the point being made is that the library purchased one copy of
a book
and made it available to many people to read for free. No royalties are
paid
for each reading. <
And royalties aren't (and never have been) paid for my friend reading a
copy of a book I bought or Blockbuster renting a videotape, or somebody
listening to music I bought in my home. So what? The point is still
that the library *paid* (usually for *many* copies of any popular book.)
And that the circulation of that limited number of copies is itself
limited by the *physical* nature of the distribution medium.
> This can be considered similar to a book being scanned and made
available online for free. <
Only by people who completely miss the point of the difference in the
*delivery* system. If a library has a book I want I must go to the
library to get it and I must return that book to the library within a
reasonable amount of time or face a fine. Same with everyone else.
Same with Blockbuster video rental. And the number of people who can
fit into my house and listen to music for free is quite limited. So's
the number of people who can read a book I own for free. (Only one can
read it at a time, only people who know me can borrow my books, etc.)
Now consider your "similar" case in the digital world: *Millions* of
people can access that "one copy". Each of them can make a perfect
digital copy of that original with no generational loss or distortion
and keep it forever. If I hear about a hot new author I may check out
one of her books from the library rather than shell out $25 to see if I
like her work. But if I *do* like it, I'll buy the next one. If I like
the first one sufficiently to read it again, chances are I'll buy a copy
of that, too, to have on my shelf anytime I want it. Even if I'm on a
budget and can't afford the $25 I may borrow the hardcover from the
library and buy the paperback in a year when that comes out. If I
"borrow" the same book from the internet "library" I already "own" my
copy and never have to buy it in any form at all.
Yeah, that's *real* similar, and obviously wouldn't have any impact on
creators' livelihoods at all. What the heck is wrong with all these
writers and artists thinking that the free internet is some kind of
threat?
Regards,
Joe