5 ms·

>Here, it's more like the distributor left their books around in a library, and some people got to read them for free. I would say it's more like some people w

by danssig 15y ago

>Here, it's more like the distributor left their books around in a library, and some people got to read them for free. I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. The author most certainly did lose something: sales.

cbr 15y ago
> The author most certainly did lose something: sales. But they didn't lose 6000 sales, they lost however many sales they would have made at $6. So it's tricky to quantify the damages.
- danssig 15y ago
  Agreed. I'd say 10% is probably fair.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  It's tricky to figure out the damage, yes, but I think an award of sales times normal royalties would be fair here. If the RIAA went for the number of whole copies distributed times normal sale price times three in their lawsuits I wouldn't find them to be a terrible organization.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Is it really necessary to precisely quantify the damages? Amazon was clearly in the wrong here and essentially* violated this fellow's copyright, so it would only make sense for the damages to be set at the number of copies times the previous royalties, even if he wouldn't have sold that many otherwise. * Weasel wording here because it seems likely to me that the distribution contract ends up giving Amazon the right to do this sort of thing with this guy's copyrighted work.
toyg 15y ago
No, it's like people read the book, went home, and wrote it down again. The original book is now back in the shop and the publisher is free to sell it. How can you "lose" a sale that you don't know you'd get? I bet 6000 downloads for an unknown writer of zombie-pulp wouldn't have happened without the £0 price tag. We can argue about it all day, but the fact is that there is no direct loss, and if there is an indirect one, it's still very, very hard to quantify.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  I find your argument poor in the extreme but to say "there is no direct loss" is wrong even at extremely confined levels of directness. Your argument hinges on the idea that he wouldn't have made a single sale and would still have expended time and effort in promotion of the work if he knew it were being given away for free. The difficulty in quantifying the cost is largely irrelevant IMO. Either Amazon are guilty or not and if found guilty the court I'm sure has an equivalent case of similarly priced works being given away for free that they could use to model the award given to the appellant (eg mp3.com $25k per work/CD made available). Such an award should be in terms of punitive damages.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >The difficulty in quantifying the cost is largely irrelevant IMO. If you cannot quantify any damages, you are not entitled to any compensation. It's as simple as that, really. Or are you seriously going to argue that "there could have been possibly maybe with a certain unknown probability which I cannot prove" is a sufficient claim in court (or actually, anywhere else as well)?
slowpoke 15y ago
>I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. No. If anything, they are walking out of the library with a perfect copy of the book, while the library still has the original. Nobody looses anything. People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model. It's obsolete.
- edanm 15y ago
  If by "obsolete", you mean "a business that rolls in many billions of dollars every year", then you're right.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    You're committing a fallacy here, in addition to completely missing my point. The fact that it still rolls in billions has nothing to do with any justification of the business model. To use an extreme analogy: slave trade rolled in a huge profit as well. Would that be a justification for slave trade for you?
    - edanm 15y ago
      Well now you're talking about morality. I honestly had no idea that that's what you were referring to in your post.
- danssig 15y ago
  But your model isn't right either. An author has to have a way to be compensation and depending on charity (of thieves no less) just isn't valid. The book has value or it doesn't. If it has no value then it shouldn't be created.
  - eropple 15y ago
    The unpleasant implication of slowpoke's "model" (and it's really just recycled Stallman nonsense) is that they'd really do it for the love of the art, and to hell with such ephemeral things as "eating". Guess they have to get a job or something.

by danssig 15y ago

cbr 15y ago

> The author most certainly did lose something: sales. But they didn't lose 6000 sales, they lost however many sales they would have made at $6. So it's tricky to quantify the damages.

danssig 15y ago
Agreed. I'd say 10% is probably fair.
Dylan16807 15y ago
It's tricky to figure out the damage, yes, but I think an award of sales times normal royalties would be fair here. If the RIAA went for the number of whole copies distributed times normal sale price times three in their lawsuits I wouldn't find them to be a terrible organization.
mikeash 15y ago
Is it really necessary to precisely quantify the damages? Amazon was clearly in the wrong here and essentially* violated this fellow's copyright, so it would only make sense for the damages to be set at the number of copies times the previous royalties, even if he wouldn't have sold that many otherwise. * Weasel wording here because it seems likely to me that the distribution contract ends up giving Amazon the right to do this sort of thing with this guy's copyrighted work.

toyg 15y ago

No, it's like people read the book, went home, and wrote it down again. The original book is now back in the shop and the publisher is free to sell it. How can you "lose" a sale that you don't know you'd get? I bet 6000 downloads for an unknown writer of zombie-pulp wouldn't have happened without the £0 price tag. We can argue about it all day, but the fact is that there is no direct loss, and if there is an indirect one, it's still very, very hard to quantify.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
I find your argument poor in the extreme but to say "there is no direct loss" is wrong even at extremely confined levels of directness. Your argument hinges on the idea that he wouldn't have made a single sale and would still have expended time and effort in promotion of the work if he knew it were being given away for free. The difficulty in quantifying the cost is largely irrelevant IMO. Either Amazon are guilty or not and if found guilty the court I'm sure has an equivalent case of similarly priced works being given away for free that they could use to model the award given to the appellant (eg mp3.com $25k per work/CD made available). Such an award should be in terms of punitive damages.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >The difficulty in quantifying the cost is largely irrelevant IMO. If you cannot quantify any damages, you are not entitled to any compensation. It's as simple as that, really. Or are you seriously going to argue that "there could have been possibly maybe with a certain unknown probability which I cannot prove" is a sufficient claim in court (or actually, anywhere else as well)?

slowpoke 15y ago

>I would say it's more like some people walked out of the library with them. No. If anything, they are walking out of the library with a perfect copy of the book, while the library still has the original. Nobody looses anything. People need to stop clinging to paid distribution of content as a business model. It's obsolete.

edanm 15y ago
If by "obsolete", you mean "a business that rolls in many billions of dollars every year", then you're right.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  You're committing a fallacy here, in addition to completely missing my point. The fact that it still rolls in billions has nothing to do with any justification of the business model. To use an extreme analogy: slave trade rolled in a huge profit as well. Would that be a justification for slave trade for you?
  - edanm 15y ago
    Well now you're talking about morality. I honestly had no idea that that's what you were referring to in your post.
danssig 15y ago
But your model isn't right either. An author has to have a way to be compensation and depending on charity (of thieves no less) just isn't valid. The book has value or it doesn't. If it has no value then it shouldn't be created.
- eropple 15y ago
  The unpleasant implication of slowpoke's "model" (and it's really just recycled Stallman nonsense) is that they'd really do it for the love of the art, and to hell with such ephemeral things as "eating". Guess they have to get a job or something.