Few people would not keep a copy because not many people are that 'honest'. And there is really no way to verify if someone kept a copy or not, therefore no legal repercussions. And very few people will go through the trouble of photocopying an entire book before selling it, which could take hours, while copying a digital ebook takes like 2 seconds. Bad comparison and poor logic.
When you sell a used physical book, you're giving something up. When you sell a digital good, there's no guarantee that the seller isn't keeping a digital copy, nor is there any way to verify that. Why would people bother to buy from the publisher when they can get it from someone for a discount price (and same quality). The exception in this case is if, say someone bought something that has DRM on the cloud (like a game from Steam.) But that would have to be sanctioned by Valve, and I doubt they'd allow that because it would hurt their profits.
Two completely different things: making a copy of something and giving it away for free, and making a copy of something and selling it. The latter is what we're talking about here. With the latter you can sell exactly what the publisher is selling (same quality) at a discount price, so people have no reason to go to the publisher. The publisher then loses money. This opens a legal can of worms that may cause publishers to go out of business. Would you be happy then?
Yes, I think popular authors and artists make way too much money and deserve to take a hit in profits, but there comes a point when your small niche authors can't make a living because of filesharing. You need to think of the financial repercussion on all content providers.
"so why can't you do the same with e-books, music albums, movies, and other things you've downloaded?"
Umm...what a ridiculous question. It's because these goods can be replicated. Why can't the person just buy them from the source, rather than being "used" (in either case, the property would be in the exact same condition anyway.)
We have an AA+ credit rating, which means a high likelyhood of paying off debts. Unfortunately you libertarians don't know how credit ratings work prefer the budget fearmongering of your illiterate talk show overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
Few people would not keep a copy because not many people are that 'honest'. And there is really no way to verify if someone kept a copy or not, therefore no legal repercussions. And very few people will go through the trouble of photocopying an entire book before selling it, which could take hours, while copying a digital ebook takes like 2 seconds. Bad comparison and poor logic.
When you sell a used physical book, you're giving something up. When you sell a digital good, there's no guarantee that the seller isn't keeping a digital copy, nor is there any way to verify that. Why would people bother to buy from the publisher when they can get it from someone for a discount price (and same quality). The exception in this case is if, say someone bought something that has DRM on the cloud (like a game from Steam.) But that would have to be sanctioned by Valve, and I doubt they'd allow that because it would hurt their profits.
Two completely different things: making a copy of something and giving it away for free, and making a copy of something and selling it. The latter is what we're talking about here. With the latter you can sell exactly what the publisher is selling (same quality) at a discount price, so people have no reason to go to the publisher. The publisher then loses money. This opens a legal can of worms that may cause publishers to go out of business. Would you be happy then? Yes, I think popular authors and artists make way too much money and deserve to take a hit in profits, but there comes a point when your small niche authors can't make a living because of filesharing. You need to think of the financial repercussion on all content providers.
I bought it, I used it, I am selling it because I am no longer using it.
All while keeping a copy yourself after the sale. A win for the consumer but a loss for the content creator.
"so why can't you do the same with e-books, music albums, movies, and other things you've downloaded?" Umm...what a ridiculous question. It's because these goods can be replicated. Why can't the person just buy them from the source, rather than being "used" (in either case, the property would be in the exact same condition anyway.)
That's how conservatives think, with their "gut feelings".
We have an AA+ credit rating, which means a high likelyhood of paying off debts. Unfortunately you libertarians don't know how credit ratings work prefer the budget fearmongering of your illiterate talk show overlords.