If you buy a used copy, I’ve still been paid for that copy. You’re not creating a new copy out of thin pixels that I haven’t been properly paid for. All I care is that I get paid for every blasted copy of my work that is sold. Whether it is then passed on is immaterial. I’ve been paid for that copy. I get paid per copy, not per reading, not per transaction. Per copy. You want a copy, you have an obligation to pay me.
That only applies to new books, though. For old books that aren’t in such high demand as new releases, it’s rare that you won’t be able to find a copy at the library - so the library effectively keeps authors from making money off their old books.
I wonder what the anti-file sharers would think about a P2P service that doesn’t provide any music released in the past year.
So you must also be opposed to making personal backup copies of music and software then, right? All those people who listen to backups and keep the originals in a safe place are just stealing from the artists?
If you’re serious about this “per copy” principle, I hope you don’t do any of these with your legally obtained music:[ul]
[li]Back up the drive where your MP3s are saved[/li][li]Listen to your MP3s on more than one computer, or on a portable player, without deleting them from the original location (if you have a player that doesn’t let you copy the music back off, this means buying another copy of each song you put on the player)[/li][li]Rip CDs to your computer, without immediately destroying the CDs[/li][li]Listen to MP3s with a player that buffers them in memory (that means creating a copy, dontcha know)[/li][/ul]
Well, there’s a good, debatable topic. So long as you’re not being scum and giving those backups out to other people, I think the courts have found a proper balance with regard to fair use rights.
However, no argument can be made that uses fair use rights to justify the outright thievery of music or the distribution to other people of your back up copies.
How do you reconcile this with your insistence on being paid for each copy that comes into existence?
Surely, if the artist isn’t harmed when I make a backup copy for my own personal use (instead of buying another copy), the act of making a copy isn’t what harms the artist.
Format shifting is another good example. If I copy a vinyl album onto a cassette or CD, or copy a CD onto an MP3 player, I’ve created a copy of the artist’s work and deprived him of profit - since I could have bought the cassette, CD, and MP3 editions separately. Obviously, the artist would prefer that I buy four copies instead of just one.