[sdiy] OTA book on eBay

[Tim Parkhurst]

On 10/12/05, Fiercefish <fiercefish at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> I find this whole issue pretty idiotic, guy writes book, guy sells book,
> guy
> stops selling book, other guys still want book, copy guy copies book, copy
> guy sells book to other guys, first guy admits that copy guy is not
> authorised to sell book, guy still does not sell book, guy moans that copy
> guy will stop him from writing and selling future books, eventually copy
> guy
> gets busted/bored and no longer sells book, first guy still will not sell
> book, other guys still want book, book gone, no more books, guy won't sell
> book, other guys still want book, ad infinitum.
>
> Its undoubtedley illegal and morally wrong to copy someone else's work,
> this
> is clear. But the author (so it seems) is not interested in the book (and
> presumably profits from it) so legal and moral issues aside who is in the
> wrong? Sure the copy guy is doing it for profit, but he has noticed a gap
> in
> the market and applied the basic business model of supply and demand, ok
> so
> he should have got permission, but so should everyone who ever recorded a
> song off the radio etc.
>
> Many would gladly buy the book legally if it were available and not even
> entertain buying an unauthorised copy, yet the author neither makes the
> book
> available for sale from a third party, or sells it himself or even puts it
> in the public domain - all of which would take the market away from the
> copy
> guy. WTF, seems kind of a spoilt brat attitude to me, because even if
> there
> is a reason why the author can't undertake the sales himself surely he
> could
> licence it to some third party, no?
>
> Maybe I am missing something, I would be interested in hearing other
> opinions.
>
> FF

 The number of people who want the book, or what they're willing to pay, or
even what they think of the author has NOTHING to do with it. THE BOOK IS
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. IT IS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. It doesn't matter
whether the author is being a 'brat,' selling unauthorized copies is just
like someone walking into your house and walking out with your TV. If the
thief said "well, he wasn't watching it. In fact, he hasn't even turned it
on for a month and it's a really nice TV," that doesn't change the fact that
it's your TV and you can do with it whatever the hell you want. Sorry, but
your argument does NOT hold water.
 The material in the Thomas Henry books belongs to Thomas Henry and he can
give copies away on the corner, or never ever print another copy 'til the
end of time. The point remains: It is Mr. Henry's decision! Just because
there is a lot of demand for the material, that does not make it okay for
someone else to copy it and sell it. It also DOES NOT MATTER whether Thomas
Henry (or any other author) makes a living selling the book, or if he just
makes a few bucks here and there from it. THE MATERIAL IN THE BOOK BELONGS
TO THE AUTHOR. The laws of supply and demand DO NOT justify stealing. A lot
of people want big screen TVs, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to steal
them from a store and sell them on eBay.
 I'm not trying to be too heavy handed here, but I'm just trying to show you
that copyrighted material belongs to the author, and only the author can
make decisions regarding distribution and sale of that material. The same
rules apply whether it's a song, a poem, a photo or a book.
  Tim (when did I become the copyright police, and why do I have to keep
explaining that stealing is wrong) Servo
--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20051012/c6440fd5/attachment.htm>