Can other sites legally discount Kindle books?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Actually, it is illegal, it simply is not a crime.

That depends on the contract. And exatly how you breach it. When, as some people have suggested in this thread, you sign a contract with no intention of keeping it, that is, in fact, criminal fraud (at least technically, however difficult to prosecute) in most jurisdictions.

[ApK]

nevermind.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

murraypaul didn't say it was't criminal, he said it wasn't illegal. He was flat wrong.

I don't believe that I am (I may of course be wrong, I am not a lawyer).
I believe that it is illegal to violate criminal law.
I believe that it is wrongful to violate civil/contract law.
This may of course vary by juristiction. (Both the distinction and the terminology)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I don't believe that I am (I may of course be wrong, I am not a lawyer).
I believe that it is illegal to violate criminal law.
I believe that it is wrongful to violate civil/contract law.
This may of course vary by juristiction. (Both the distinction and the terminology)

You are using words in different ways than most of the english speaking world (and certainly differntly than any legal usage).

This is not useful.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by taustin

murraypaul didn't say it was't criminal, he said it wasn't illegal. He was flat wrong. It's not just debating terminology, it's using words correctly. It matters, if you want people to have any clue what you're talking about. A web forum is a text only medium. If you can't use words correctly, nobody will know what you mean. What's the point of even trying, if you won't bother to be understood?

Exactly how I was referring to his post.
Apache

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

You are using words in different ways than most of the english speaking world (and certainly differntly than any legal usage).

wrongful act legal definition
noun

Any act that will damage the rights of another, unless it is done in the exercise of another equal or superior right. For that reason, the scope of wrongful acts is not limited to illegal acts, but includes acts that are immoral, anti social, or liable to result in a civil suit.

For example anything that is a tort is a wrong, or wrongful act. Tort is derived from the Old French word for injury or wrong.

Anyway, at this point we clearly are arguing definitions, which as I said before may be different where you are than where I am.

We can all agree that it is 'wrong' (in the normal meaning of the word) to intentionally break your word, which is what violating a contract is.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

wrongful act legal definition

Had you said it was a wrongful action, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But you said it was illegal. Try the definition of illegal, instead. You'll find that, to people fluent in the english language, it means a lot more than just criminal.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Anyway, at this point we clearly are arguing definitions,

As I said, definitions matter, if you want people to know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

which as I said before may be different where you are than where I am.

I'm in the english speaking world.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

We can all agree that it is 'wrong' (in the normal meaning of the word) to intentionally break your word, which is what violating a contract is.

And, again, signing a contract with no intention of living up to it is, in fact, at least technical criminal in most jurisdictions anyway.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

We'll call them ebooks. Just because an iPod isn't a pod doesn't change the name.

They're ebooks because that's what we call them. You may think the name is based on a false equivalency or relationship but it doesn't matter. The name is the name.

If we are simply tossing out names for things then that is fine, but as to the crux, does this thing require IP legislation?

Did we call the codex an etching on a stone tablet? Or the scroll a codex??

No, we did not. Digital thought transfers (formerly known as ebooks) are not books!! Therefore copyright should not apply, we do of course have to cogitate further on the meaning of this.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If we are simply tossing out names for things then that is fine, but as to the crux, does this thing require IP legislation?

Did we call the codex an etching on a stone tablet? Or the scroll a codex??

No, we did not. Digital thought transfers (formerly known as ebooks) are not books!! Therefore copyright should not apply, we do of course have to cogitate further on the meaning of this.

Copyright has applied to things that aren't books for centuries. Copyright applies to paintings, photographs, staues, music, architecture.

Your search for excuses to not pay for stuff other people created isn't over yet.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If we are simply tossing out names for things then that is fine, but as to the crux, does this thing require IP legislation?

Did we call the codex an etching on a stone tablet? Or the scroll a codex??

No, we did not. Digital thought transfers (formerly known as ebooks) are not books!! Therefore copyright should not apply, we do of course have to cogitate further on the meaning of this.

You must first cogitate before further cogitating is possible. A couple of inane statements does not indicate previous cogitation. But by all means you really should cogitate.

Helen

[JSWolf]

A book is a book. Using the terms eBook and pBook differentiate electronic books vs. print on paper books.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

You must first cogitate before further cogitating is possible. A couple of inane statements does not indicate previous cogitation. But by all means you really should cogitate.

Helen

For some reason, Giggles reminds me of a very not safe for work comic. You were warned. Very, very, very not safe for work.

http://oglaf.com/submission/1/

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by taustin

Copyright has applied to things that aren't books for centuries. Copyright applies to paintings, photographs, staues, music, architecture.

Your search for excuses to not pay for stuff other people created isn't over yet.

It seems to me that only the photograph approaches the infinitely instantaneous availability that is inherent in the digital transfer of ideas. Yes photographs can be copyrighted currently, but that is for another forum...

You misunderstand my approach, it is my belief that no one can create anything as everything has already been created.

But as to the OP, I think it is obvious none of us have an answer. But I think we should err on the side of sharing at the moment.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes photographs can be copyrighted currently,

No. Photographs are automatically copyrighted, the moment they are created, as is anything else that qualifies for coypright protection.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

You misunderstand my approach,

I think I understand your approach perfectly. You want stuff you can't afford, so you try to justify taking it without paying for it.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

it is my belief that no one can create anything as everything has already been created.

If that were true, then, by your logic, there is no reason for you to even desire anything that is still under copyright because everything has already been created. Find something in the public domain. By your logic, whatever you want must be there.

If you actually believe what you're spouting.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But as to the OP, I think it is obvious none of us have an answer. But I think we should err on the side of sharing at the moment.

That would be because you want stuff you can't afford, and want to take it anyway, without paying for it.

The French Revolution did away with copyright. Basically, nothing new was published until it was brought back. Your approach was tried. And failed. Spectacularly.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by taustin

The French Revolution did away with copyright. Basically, nothing new was published until it was brought back. Your approach was tried. And failed. Spectacularly.

Or did they not create because they did not have enough to eat?? Were the creators in need of compensation so that they could afford bread?? Was there any bread at the time??

I think you are being a bit simplistic, nothing was published?? Perhaps the big publishers saw no profit in publishing and perhaps the big publishers should not be publishing...

Everything is going to be fine, Everything is moving along as it should.