Harry Potter EBooks? - Palmtop

This is a discussion on Harry Potter EBooks? - Palmtop ; "Sky_rider" wrote in message news:96upd1dmrumm6aqi0cuvr4nhd4ecm7t6fq@4ax.com... >>If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal >>BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while >>it >>is not in your possession. Once ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 132

Thread: Harry Potter EBooks?

  1. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Sky_rider" wrote in message
    news:96upd1dmrumm6aqi0cuvr4nhd4ecm7t6fq@4ax.com...

    >>If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal
    >>BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while
    >>it
    >>is not in your possession. Once your buddy passes it on, it's still legal
    >>because he cannot reread the book or give out additional copies.

    >
    > Hmm... I can see where you're coming from, but from that perspective
    > there should be no reason why I can't make or download e-copies since
    > I bought the book (well two copies again actually ).


    That's not the case at all.

    Once your buddy passes a book on (be it purchased or loaned), it's still
    legal because he cannot re-read the book or give out additional copies. The
    moment you make a copy - either a digital or a physical copy (with, say, a
    photocopier) - then yes, you have indeed broken the law unless the copyright
    holder (meaning the person who has the legal RIGHT to make COPIES - hence,
    copy-right) has explicitly given you permission to do so.

    Some people have argued that copyright does (or doesn't) include the ability
    to make "archival" copies of legitimately purchased items, but there isn't a
    100% accurate ruling on that. Many music, film, and book publishers
    strenuously argue that it doesn't; if your CD scratches, your DVD melts, or
    your book falls in the tub, they want you to purchase another copy.
    (Sidebar: One thing I have read is that IF you make an archival copy of a
    copyrighted item, then if you sell or loan out your original copy copy, you
    MUST destroy all archival copies you've made until the original is back in
    your possession - a law that makes little sense to me.)

    >>> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

    >
    >>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
    >>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

    >
    > Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
    > together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
    > watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!


    Er... sorry, but that's not the point at all. Yes, you can have a "DVD
    Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you charge
    nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
    warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition; the
    moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
    However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
    after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
    home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
    watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in question.
    Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.

    >>> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
    >>> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?

    >
    >>Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
    >>it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
    >>that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
    >>when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
    >>rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.

    >
    > And if I keep give them carte blanche to wander in at any time and
    > watch the DVD?


    That's perfectly ok...just as it's perfectly ok for you to loan them the
    DVD. It's NOT ok for you to make a copy of the DVD to give them. A large
    part of copyright stems from the concept that if you own a licensed copy
    (the DVD you bought) you can watch it whenever you wish. Once you make an
    illegal duplicate, you're extending that right to someone who has not paid
    for it WITHOUT surrendering your licensed copy.

    > The whole copyright issue is bizarre and the laws cant
    > possibly cover all circumstances and situations..


    I could not agree more. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I do NOT
    agree with copyright laws in the US - but I do understand them.

    >>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
    >>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
    >>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
    >>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person.
    >>I
    >>disagree.

    >
    > Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
    > view the DVD for free...


    No arguments there.

    > yes I've bought it... but... ??


    But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
    it.

    > Also, since I
    > bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
    > damage the original...


    As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
    studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.

    > but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
    > to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it


    Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    then doing so.




  2. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." wrote:

    >And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
    >your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
    >charge.


    Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
    authors work free of charge...

  3. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tim McKenny" wrote:

    >merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    >then doing so.


    Next time you go to the library, check out the
    criminals at the copy machine...

  4. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "AaronJ" wrote in message
    news:vqcqd1l4ankd8go9rim8o6dvs1vdi5qfnj@4ax.com...

    > Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
    > read the
    > authors work free of charge...


    Yeah, but do you keep the book?



  5. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "AaronJ" wrote in message
    news:tcdqd1dtfpvula4s6gbmtu1k4rlnc0r8fo@4ax.com...
    > "Tim McKenny" wrote:
    >
    >>merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    >>then doing so.

    >
    > Next time you go to the library, check out the
    > criminals at the copy machine...


    I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
    entire chapter, for that matter.




  6. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tim McKenny" wrote:

    >"AaronJ" wrote in message
    >news:vqcqd1l4ankd8go9rim8o6dvs1vdi5qfnj@4ax.com...
    >
    >> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
    >> read the authors work free of charge...

    >
    >Yeah, but do you keep the book?


    No, I don't keep the library book, and likewise I don't keep the ebook file...

  7. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tim McKenny" wrote:

    >I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
    >entire chapter, for that matter.


    Ah. So you don't see all copyright violations as bad then. It only becomes bad
    when the quantity increases. Ok to steal a piece of candy, but not the
    whole box eh...

  8. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    Nicolas George wrote:

    > If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
    > all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
    > or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher).


    Sorry, but that's a rationalization that a thief would find comforting.

    You could apply it to almost anything you'd like to have, but don't want
    to (or can't) pay for.

    If everyone were to decide that they will only "read it for free", then
    few things would be written. Authors have to eat, too. If they can't
    make their livings by writing, few of them will write.

    Yes, I know, there are lots of folks who believe that "intellectual
    property" is a faulty concept. They're right. But like democracy, it
    works better than all the alternatives encountered so far.

  9. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    > if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books), there
    > is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.



    Ermm . . . desire confers a right?

    This is the rationale a rapist might employ for ravishing his
    neighbor's daughter with impunity.


  10. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    AaronJ wrote:
    > "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." wrote:
    >
    >
    >>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
    >>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
    >>charge.

    >
    >
    > Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
    > authors work free of charge...


    That's because the publisher gives you permission. This is not a tough
    concept, folks. If the owner of the intellectual property grants you
    access, then you have legal access. If not, then you do not. What part
    of this is unclear?

    Jeff

  11. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tim McKenny" wrote in message
    :
    > I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
    > entire chapter, for that matter.


    Did you know that the generalization of availability of photocopy machines
    actually increased the textbooks sales?

    The principle is that before, people got to the library, read the part of
    the book they were interested in, took notes, and got home. With
    photocopies, they get to the library, photocopy the part of the book they
    are interested in, and keep the photocopy. Thus, they take the habit of
    having a copy near at hand. And when the part was to big to be photocopied,
    they buy the book.

    It does not prove anything, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

    By the way, could you remind me when did the VCR kill the cinema?

  12. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "David Loftus" wrote in message
    <1121808504.740026.133230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>:
    > Ermm . . . desire confers a right?
    >
    > This is the rationale a rapist might employ for ravishing his
    > neighbor's daughter with impunity.


    There is always the question: whom does it cause harm? It's strange, I
    thought I had already told it in this thread.

  13. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:49:49 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
    wrote the following in ink distilled from the
    fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

    >"Sky_rider" wrote in message
    >news:96upd1dmrumm6aqi0cuvr4nhd4ecm7t6fq@4ax.com...





    >>>> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?


    >>>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
    >>>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.


    >> Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
    >> together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
    >> watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!


    >Er... sorry, but that's not the point at all. Yes, you can have a "DVD
    >Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you charge
    >nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
    >warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition; the
    >moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
    >However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
    >after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
    >home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
    >watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in question.
    >Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.


    So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
    a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
    pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!

    Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
    of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
    don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
    books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
    at the same time.

    >>>> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
    >>>> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?


    >>>Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
    >>>it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
    >>>that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
    >>>when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
    >>>rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.


    >> And if I keep give them carte blanche to wander in at any time and
    >> watch the DVD?


    >That's perfectly ok...just as it's perfectly ok for you to loan them the
    >DVD. It's NOT ok for you to make a copy of the DVD to give them. A large
    >part of copyright stems from the concept that if you own a licensed copy
    >(the DVD you bought) you can watch it whenever you wish. Once you make an
    >illegal duplicate, you're extending that right to someone who has not paid
    >for it WITHOUT surrendering your licensed copy.


    >> The whole copyright issue is bizarre and the laws cant
    >> possibly cover all circumstances and situations..


    >I could not agree more. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I do NOT
    >agree with copyright laws in the US - but I do understand them.


    Sorry a lot of this is contradictory. In fact from what you've
    suggested above, it seems public libraries could simply charge people
    a small fee for entry and lend the books out free!!

    >>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
    >>>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
    >>>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
    >>>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person.
    >>>I disagree.


    >> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
    >> view the DVD for free...


    >No arguments there.


    >> yes I've bought it... but... ??


    >But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
    >it.


    Yes I can... I can watch it on my premises as often as I wish!

    >> Also, since I
    >> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
    >> damage the original...


    >As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
    >studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.


    >> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
    >> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it


    >Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    >then doing so.


    There speaks someone who hasn't got two kids whose mission in life is
    to scratch every DVD he buys within minutes of getting them home
    --
    Skyrider

    Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
    http://www.australianopinion.com

  14. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:56:52 GMT, AaronJ wrote
    the following in ink distilled from the fermented blood of a Norwegian
    Ridgeback:
    >"Tim McKenny" wrote:


    >>I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
    >>entire chapter, for that matter.


    >Ah. So you don't see all copyright violations as bad then. It only becomes bad
    >when the quantity increases. Ok to steal a piece of candy, but not the
    > whole box eh...


    Works for online material as well... on my sites I often add 'large
    quotes' from articles that contain all the salient points, but add a
    reference url to the original... it seems this doesn't violate
    copyright.

    I'm not sure at what point copying sections 'for reference' becomes a
    violation of copyright
    --
    Skyrider

    Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
    http://www.australianopinion.com

  15. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:23:40 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
    wrote the following in ink distilled
    from the fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:
    >"AaronJ" wrote in message
    >news:09eod15vniuo3qbloe7nbokpn5et84t90f@4ax.com...
    >> Nicolas George wrote:


    >>>You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.


    >>>The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author.


    >> Actually it is mostly to prevent the harm to the publisher.
    >> The author gets but a small percentage.


    >>>Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
    >>>example by asking borrowing fees in libraries.


    >> Yep, if they thought they could get away with it, library borrowing would
    >> be as
    >> illegal (immoral?) as downloading...


    >And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
    >your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
    >charge.


    In case you missed it, one post reminded people I have several years
    worth of intellectual property open for public view at my slang
    dictionary site (http://www.ops.org) despite it having been published.

    I have a vested interest in making the site 'fee paying' in some way
    to persuade people to go buy the book... but I don't. It's effectively
    available free of charge.
    --
    Skyrider

    Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
    http://www.australianopinion.com

  16. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    Nicolas George wrote:

    >> Authors have to eat, too. If they can't
    >>make their livings by writing, few of them will write.

    >
    >
    > Would you please tell that to the thousands of authors that lived in the
    > centuries before the invention of the intellectual property laws, and the
    > thousands of nowadays authors wo do not earn enough authors fee to buy
    > paper?


    Uh, what centuries were those?????? Which thousands of authors were
    those????

    Even in ancient Greece and Rome, writers were paid for their writing.
    They were paid by their patrons.

    There have always been a few people who were independently wealthy, and
    wrote without caring about being paid. I wouldn't want to rely on a
    stable of authors so puny.

  17. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Sky_rider" wrote in message
    news:rs5rd110q2qdpi29lq3pdc3vd80a1qo8f2@4ax.com...
    >>Yes, you can have a "DVD
    >>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you
    >>charge
    >>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
    >>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition;
    >>the
    >>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
    >>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
    >>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
    >>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
    >>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in
    >>question.
    >>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.

    >
    > So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
    > a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
    > pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!


    Can you expound on this, please? I'm afraid I don't understand where you're
    coming from.

    I've never heard of a Library charging people for checking out a book or DVD
    (not including late fees, of course).

    > Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
    > of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
    > don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
    > books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
    > at the same time.


    Well, of course you can do that. Never said or implied you couldn't.

    > Sorry a lot of this is contradictory. In fact from what you've
    > suggested above, it seems public libraries could simply charge people
    > a small fee for entry and lend the books out free!!


    Hang on now... when have I ever said it was ok for libraries to charge
    "entry fees"??

    And sorry, but I think I've been fairly straightforward. Making a copy of a
    book, film, or DVD is completely different than reading, viewing, or
    listening to a licensed copy of a copyrighted work.

    You do understand the distinction, right?

    >>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that
    >>>>if
    >>>>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that
    >>>>copy
    >>>>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
    >>>>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that
    >>>>person.
    >>>>I disagree.

    >
    >>> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
    >>> view the DVD for free...

    >
    >>No arguments there.

    >
    >>> yes I've bought it... but... ??

    >
    >>But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
    >>it.

    >
    > Yes I can... I can watch it on my premises as often as I wish!


    Ok... stay with me here: if your friend comes over and borrows your DVD -
    takes it home to his house for example - how can you then watch that DVD as
    often as you wish?

    >>> Also, since I
    >>> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
    >>> damage the original...

    >
    >>As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
    >>studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.

    >
    >>> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
    >>> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it

    >
    >>Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    >>then doing so.

    >
    > There speaks someone who hasn't got two kids whose mission in life is
    > to scratch every DVD he buys within minutes of getting them home


    You would be correct. If I were to have two such kids, you can bet my DVDs
    would not be placed in harm's way.



  18. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    Tim McKenny wrote:
    > "AaronJ" wrote in message
    > news:tcdqd1dtfpvula4s6gbmtu1k4rlnc0r8fo@4ax.com...
    >
    >>"Tim McKenny" wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    >>>then doing so.

    >>
    >>Next time you go to the library, check out the
    >>criminals at the copy machine...

    >
    >
    > I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
    > entire chapter, for that matter.
    >
    >
    >

    I've seen people copy entire scores of copyrighted music.

  19. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    Sky_rider wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:49:49 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
    > wrote the following in ink distilled from the
    > fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:
    >
    >
    >>"Sky_rider" wrote in message
    >>news:96upd1dmrumm6aqi0cuvr4nhd4ecm7t6fq@4ax.com...

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>>>And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

    >
    >
    >>>>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
    >>>>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

    >
    >
    >>>Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
    >>>together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
    >>>watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!

    >
    >
    >>Er... sorry, but that's not the point at all. Yes, you can have a "DVD
    >>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you charge
    >>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
    >>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition; the
    >>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
    >>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
    >>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
    >>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
    >>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in question.
    >>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.

    >
    >
    > So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
    > a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
    > pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!
    >
    > Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
    > of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
    > don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
    > books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
    > at the same time.
    >


    How about libraries that *rent* books? If you want it free, you have to
    wait until they decide the rental period expires. Much like the *new*
    section of VHS and DVD rentals, which is arbitrary.

  20. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:25:00 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
    wrote the following in ink distilled from the
    fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

    >"Sky_rider" wrote in message
    >news:rs5rd110q2qdpi29lq3pdc3vd80a1qo8f2@4ax.com...
    >>>Yes, you can have a "DVD
    >>>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you
    >>>charge
    >>>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
    >>>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition;
    >>>the
    >>>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
    >>>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
    >>>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
    >>>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
    >>>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in
    >>>question.
    >>>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.

    >>
    >> So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
    >> a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
    >> pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!

    >
    >Can you expound on this, please? I'm afraid I don't understand where you're
    >coming from.


    The library must pay a fee to the author for permission to release a
    book for borrowing.

    >I've never heard of a Library charging people for checking out a book or DVD
    >(not including late fees, of course).


    They don't usually charge the borrower... tho they *can*... I'm sure
    there's a private socialist library in Clerkenwell that charges
    borrowers for loans... anyway... the fees are normally covered in the
    UK (and Australia) by the local council who include the costs of
    borrowing in the subsidies they pay the library service.

    >> Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
    >> of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
    >> don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
    >> books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
    >> at the same time.


    >Well, of course you can do that. Never said or implied you couldn't.


    So the author gets no income... so why can't they sit in my cafe and
    read an e-book online... free... makes no difference whatsoever to the
    publisher *or* the author... !

    >> Sorry a lot of this is contradictory. In fact from what you've
    >> suggested above, it seems public libraries could simply charge people
    >> a small fee for entry and lend the books out free!!


    >Hang on now... when have I ever said it was ok for libraries to charge
    >"entry fees"??


    I did... if I run a private 'library' masquerading as a cafe... or
    similar... and it's legal... then why should the local council not be
    able to do the same thing??

    >And sorry, but I think I've been fairly straightforward. Making a copy of a
    >book, film, or DVD is completely different than reading, viewing, or
    >listening to a licensed copy of a copyrighted work.


    >You do understand the distinction, right?


    I think you're still missing the point

    >>>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that
    >>>>>if you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then
    >>>>>loan that copy you just purchased to another person, then it's
    >>>>>as wrong as making a physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book
    >>>>>and GIVING it to that person. I disagree.


    >>>> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
    >>>> view the DVD for free...


    >>>No arguments there.


    >>>> yes I've bought it... but... ??


    >>>But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
    >>>it.


    >> Yes I can... I can watch it on my premises as often as I wish!


    >Ok... stay with me here: if your friend comes over and borrows your DVD -
    >takes it home to his house for example - how can you then watch that DVD as
    >often as you wish?


    I'm assuming they are watching it on my premises... or I on theirs...
    I can leave it with them and go back there when I like... and watch
    it... that way it is possible for *hundreds* of people to watch it...
    potentially... and all for the cost of one copy.

    >>>> Also, since I
    >>>> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
    >>>> damage the original...


    >>>As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
    >>>studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.


    >>>> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
    >>>> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it


    >>>Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
    >>>then doing so.


    >> There speaks someone who hasn't got two kids whose mission in life is
    >> to scratch every DVD he buys within minutes of getting them home


    >You would be correct. If I were to have two such kids, you can bet my DVDs
    >would not be placed in harm's way.


    I thought the same thing... but it seems to be far more difficult to
    do in practice than in theory... and I'm not alone in saying this
    --
    Skyrider

    Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
    http://www.australianopinion.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast