659
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + +
Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing? (view source)
Revision as of 19:44, April 17, 2007
, 19:44, April 17, 2007→Comment
:Ah. A librarian. That means you buy one copy of a book and let dozens of people check it out and read it. If you hadn't done that, they would have been forced to buy a dozen copies (or go without). Surely the existence of libraries reduces the number of copies of books sold. Are libraries, then, "stealing" from publishers? No. Do publishers ''feel'' they are? Probably. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ah. A librarian. That means you buy one copy of a book and let dozens of people check it out and read it. If you hadn't done that, they would have been forced to buy a dozen copies (or go without). Surely the existence of libraries reduces the number of copies of books sold. Are libraries, then, "stealing" from publishers? No. Do publishers ''feel'' they are? Probably. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, you can buy one copy and have thousands of people read it, provided they are reading one copy. If I made copies and distributed them, that would be stealing. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:P. S. Are libraries breaking the law? No, "right of first sale." Is Conservapedia breaking the law when it uses copyrighted photographs without permission, which it sometimes does? Yes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:P. S. Are libraries breaking the law? No, "right of first sale." Is Conservapedia breaking the law when it uses copyrighted photographs without permission, which it sometimes does? Yes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)