Amateur Megalomania

OK, I officially hate the comment system, and will be fixing it when I have time…..

Steve,
Now I’m confused. If you now agree that a loan is as a distributed copy, then how is the loaning justified in the case of a library, while Blockbuster must negotiate fees for the same actvity?

Libraries ‘steal’ in the sense that they distribute works without offering adequate compensation. No, they don’t get together and actually plot to steal, but I do think the current law does not respect creator rights. I don’t think it is defensible to say that a $15 library copy, read by 200 people, is a GOOD thing when the author expects compensation per exhibition.

If the libraries believe that free works are perfectly fine, then why even BOTHER noting that only public domain works will be distributed online? If the distribution isn’t harmful, why not distribute ALL works? I think this distinction is a partial admission that something isn’t right about the very concept.

Publishers have to sell to libraries. They HAVE NO CHOICE under law. THAT’s my problem. If the publisher said no, the library would just go to B&N and stock up. That’s wrong, morally and ethically.

As for ethics, once again I have to point out that the majority of people had a certain view of minorities in the 1800s. Was that popular view moral? The will of the mob is not sufficient to establish the right to plunder.

Glad to see you weighing in on this.

Filed under: Copyright