Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:43:48 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010312223234.0445f3a0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20010312113859.G60399@lpt.ens.fr> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140@localhost> <20010305205030.G80474@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010305125259.00cfdae0@localhost> <20010305142108.A17269@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306011342.045fb360@localhost> <20010306081025.A22143@marx.marvic.chum> <4.3.2.7.2.20010306092612.00b79f00@localhost> <20010306174618.N32515@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311230800.00e19bd0@localhost> <15020.28993.192354.986367@guru.mired.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010311235053.00e26140@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:38 AM 3/12/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: >I have been in Europe for a few months now. I do not need to pay >any copyright fee for photocopying articles. Nobody keeps tracks >of which articles I photocopy. It's part of the fee you pay to use the copying machine. > If authors do indeed get compensated >by the libraries I use, it is certainly not based on how often they >individually get photocopied. It's done via statistical sampling -- the same way performing rights agencies like ASCAP distribute royalties for radio airplay to artists and publishers. No, it's not 100% accurate, but to be more accurate would require the library to track what you're copying. And no one wants that. (OK, maybe someone who was really fascist might.) > It could well be that a blank fee is >charged simply to "compensate" for possible copyright violations, >just as recordable media, CD writers, etc, are being taxed now; but >that simply doesn't keep track of what is actually being copied. I've never liked "blank taxes," because -- unlike the case of a copier in a library -- there's a much greater chance that you're entitled to copy what you're copying for free. Blank taxes are also usually designed to hurt small publishers at the expense of larger ones. >Moreover, when I write something I'm pretty happy for others to read >it, and most of my earlier writings are retrievable for free from >http://arxiv.org and often from the journal's own web pages. I, >likewise, download and often print huge quantities of writings by >others at the above sites. It is true that I don't fall in the same >category as you -- I get paid for the research, by my employers, not >for the writing. But my experience with creative people is that >they're more concerned that they be *read* than that every possible >reader compensate them for it. I'd like a bit of both. I like to be read, but I also need to eat. > It is only the really big names, who >already command a large market, who tend to argue against things like >online reproduction. Not necessarily. Stephen King has implemented it with great success, in fact. >People like that (a recent example was Harlan >Ellison) are rich anyway. In his long rant (recent slashdot story), >Ellison claims that he's "also" arguing for various authors who were >allegedly pirated wholesale and died poor: Harlan has a point. Of course, if he's acting true to form, he's making that point in an abrasive way. That's just Harlan. But it shouldn't color his argument, which is still valid. His rights as an author and copyright holder WERE violated. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010312223234.0445f3a0>