What part of "opt-out" Do you not understand? Contact them, ask them to remove it, they will, on an author by author basis, rather than as a blanket publisher request that everything be removed.
The root of this difference is whether a personal value system is based on the sum of utility- how many people are happy, and how much- versus the spread of utility- how much better off I am compared to my neighbors.
Much of present human culture publicly praises the former- collectivism which "raises all ships"- while individuals quietly optimize their personal advantage, and cry outrage at policies which they perceive as allowing others to "close in" on their own standard of living. This tendency toward zero-sum thinking- and the resistance to social progress it creates- is a troubling problem.
Now fill out the form and opt out or I'm going to feel completely good about taking your car.
Though I have to point out you seemingly ignored my other question, so I'm not sure how much good this one'll do.
It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy. It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst the users.
Here's an assignment for you: imagine writing a book or creating a movie. Now imagine that everyone pirates a digital version instead of paying you. Do you feel okay because no one deprived you of your original copy? Or are you depressed because everyone is using your work but not paying you what you asked?
You made a stupid analogy, I called you out on your stupid analogy.
Close to 100% of the cost of creating a book, movie or song lies in the creation
Correct.
not the duplication.
Exactly! Duplication costs nothing and as such should be free to all.
If all of the audience copies it for free instead of buying it, the creator makes nothing.
This never happens, and you'd have to have the strangest mindset to believe it does. I've got three bookshelves stocked with nothing more than CC-licensed hard copies of books. (I actually just spent $200 acquiring a mint copy of one that was particularly special to me as a child a couple of weeks ago.)
It has ZERO to do with whether the book store is deprived of the use of the copy.
Then maybe you shouldn't have made such a ridiculous analogy.
It has everything to do with whether the creation costs are split evenly amoungst (sic) the users.
Costs shouldn't be distributed evenly: people who can pay more should pay more, and people who can't pay at all shouldn't pay.
Here's an assignment for you: imagine writing a book or creating a movie.
Sure. I'd argue that books are objectively more valuable than movies, but you're obviously not taking this at any level but the most superficial.
Now imagine that everyone pirates a digital version instead of paying you.
Completely unlikely[1], and also ignoring that theater sales are where movies actually get the majority of their revenue, but sure.
[1] It's actually impossible, because the pirated copy had to come from somewhere.
Do you feel okay because no one deprived you of your original copy?
I'd recommend looking up Drew DeVault's words on this topic. He recently wrote a book, was receiving reasonable royalties from it, all the while it was licensed under a CC license.
Or are you depressed because everyone is using your work but not paying you what you asked?
People don't have a right to a business model, and if we're making decisions on levels of depression now, I declare that the idea of hypercapitalist nonsense like you're advocating for and that the current intellectual property system defends is depressing to me, and we have to change it now to something that supports authors (or, radical idea, everyone) while also not robbing the public of information.
This is not hypercapitalism. It's hyperfairness. We all have a right to control our work and how it is used by the world. If you don't want to buy my book, write your own.