On 19, August 1998, Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/18/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > One has only so much time to haunt used bookshops (which I do) contact
> > the author (I've done that) etc.
> >
> > My point is, that I DON'T HAVE A LIFETIME TO WASTE GETTING THE DAMNED
> > BOOK. I NEED IT NOW! How much is your time worth?
> >
> > Again, if
> >
> > 1) the published is too stupid or lazy to make it MINIMALLY convenient
> > for me to PURCHASE the book (which, as I have REPEATEDLY stated in this
> > conversation, I wish to do) and
> >
> > 2) if I don't have all my life to look for it (not a first edition sort
> > of thing!)
> >
> > then the whole point of publishing the book with a copyright is lost.
> > Nobody makes any money if:
> >
> > 1) I buy a used copy
> >
> > 2) I copy an ILL copy of the book.
> >
> > Everybody loses
>
> No publisher -- no matter how intelligent and energetic -- is going to
> make a decision to publish or not publish a book based entirely on
> YOUR convenience. You are one potential consumer for the work. I
> doubt you can find a publisher willing to incur the operating and
> production costs to maintain a print run for the sake of a single
> potential consumer.
>
> Obviously, you don't mean that publishers and authors should lose
> their copyrights if they can't provide you -- Michael Scarpitti --
> with the work you want when you want it. But the point remains that,
> for a publisher, there is a minimal level of likely consumer interest
> required to justify the expense of a print run.
>
> As for your time: (1) There are several book search firms that will do
> all the legwork for you; you just need to call them. Most of them do
> not charge a fee until they get you the book you need. Check the NY
> Times Book Review on Sunday. (2) I can't imagine it takes any more
> time to contact an author than it does to post half a dozen messages
> to this mailing list, complaining that you don't have the time to find
> the book you want.
>
> Finally, you say that "everybody loses" if you buy a used copy or make
> a copy of a book borrowed under ILL. Everybody except you, of course.
> But in reality, though the copyright holder may receive no revenue
> from the sale of a used copy of the book, at least the total number of
> copies in circulation remains controlled -- which has some value to
> the copyright holder, who may be waiting for a future opportunity
> (increased demand, etc.) to republish the work. You win (you get the
> book) and the copyright holder retains whatever value exists in
> controlling the reproduction of the book. (Plus, the bookseller
> receives value.) By contrast, if you copy the book, the copyright
> holder has no control over the exploitation of the book, so you "win"
> at the expense of the copyright holder.
>
> Your argument, by the way, has little or nothing to do with the
> duration of copyright. Your argument, if accepted, would apply to a
> work that goes out of print at any time, be it one year or fifty years
> after publication. I wonder if that's what you intend to argue: that
> no copyright should exist in a book you can't find, regardless of
> time?
Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org>
Received on Thu Aug 20 1998 - 14:30:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT