[msundman]

Originally Posted by Alan

Of course you do. Every time you buy something there is a contract between you and the seller. Every time you buy your groceries there is a contract between you and the supermarket. It might no be in writing, but it is certainly a verbal contract.

That's utter BS. E.g., children can buy stuff, but children can't agree legally on contracts.

I don't believe for a ns that anyone at your grocery has told you what you must and can't do with your groceries that you buy there.

Originally Posted by Alan

You inherit the terms on which the author released his work to the public. By buying and reading the book you agree to the terms, given on the front pages of each book (where it talks about copyright). If you don't like it, don't buy or read it.

More BS. I have never agreed to anything when I've bought any books, yet the book stores have sold the books to me and let me read them. If I were to ask for my contract at that 2nd-hand bookstore I'm sure they would look at me as if I was a complete nutcase. And I would be.

If the government hadn't taken my natural copying-rights away from me then I would be free to copy a book as I see fit if I get my hands on it (unless I have agreed to some anti-copying contract when obtaining it, but I probably wouldn't agree to something like that).

Also, you seem to be under the impression that the "Copyright (C) ..." text on the front pages of a book actually means something significant normally. The reality is that everything non-trivial* is copyrighted (i.e., no need to put a copyright disclaimer on stuff), and even if I put a copyright disclaimer on something trivial* it doesn't make it copyrighted.

(* there are certain rules for what is copyrightable and what is not, and it's not as simple as "trivial/non-trivial", but all that's irrelevant here)

Originally Posted by Alan

The government only decided about default rules that would apply to that pamphlet. If the author of that pamphlet grants you other rights (more or less), he can freely do so.

In other words, the government has taken most of my natural rights from me and given them to the authors. The authors can choose to give a small part of them back to me or they can, and mostly do, choose not to.

Still, the government hasn't taken all my natural copying-rights away from me. I still have some left, in the form of "fair use" (which, of course, many publishers hate and try to circumvent by using DRM).

Originally Posted by Alan

So again, the author of any work is free to apply whatever rules to his work he wants.

Yes, but my point is that it is not the author's right to decide what I can do with the books I've bought (without me agreeing on any special terms). That is, unless the government has specifically taken that right from me and given it to the author to do with it as he pleases (which usually is to give the general public the finger and saying "screw you, I'm not giving you anything the government has stolen from you and given me").

Originally Posted by Alan

You came up with an answer like: Make cars cost less and they won't be stolen anymore.

No, I did not. My answer was more like: "Make cars both cheaper and more expensive so that it fits everyone." Actually it's not very far from how many things are done now. E.g., car manufacturers make one engine design and then sell it for less or for more, depending on the buyer (usually putting in some small crippling system into the ones to be sold cheaper, which, ironically, might make them more expensive to build). Computer CPU/GPU manufacturers do the same thing (usually just disabling a part of the chip and sell those chips cheaper).

I expect authors to get paid more with the system I outlined than if the current system is used for many more years. My system also has the nice feature that good authors are rewarded more, since my system depends on good content and not just good marketing.

Originally Posted by Alan

I should have asked for a reasonable alternative.

You are the one being unreasonable, wanting sellers to have utter dominion over buyers. You are probably also in favor of other monopolies and price-fixing and other anti-consumer stuff. After all, hindering such things is just more government meddling.

Traditionally the buyers have to be completely and utterly dependent on the goodwill of the sellers and more or less have faith in the truthfulness of the marketing. The sellers can dictate almost whatever they want and the buyers can only choose between agreeing on the sellers' awful terms or to get nothing. If there was an infinite diversity among sellers then this would be no problem, since then the buyer could just choose another seller, but in reality the sellers often aren't a very heterogenous bunch.

I can understand that people who have been brought up in this post-industrial world just assume that this is how things are done. But I can't understand how anyone who really thinks about it could actually come to the conclusion that this is ethical and moral, right and just, or even for the good of mankind.