Quote:
Originally Posted by starrigger
It is a commonly used phrase. Ask around Hollywood.
|
Why would asking around Hollywood be any indication as to if a phrase is common or not? what an odd statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrigger
I disagree with pretty much everything in the above paragraph. There's such a thing as using semantic distinctions to obscure plain language truth, and that's what I see this argument as being. It's something at which some lawyers excel.
Anyway, I have no desire to drag this particular topic around the block one more time. We can agree to disagree, or I'll be in the next room having a beer while the rest of you argue about it. Meanwhile, I'll still be curious to see how the original topic turns out.
|
It is a disappointment that you would be so dismissive (nor do I understand the relevance of the comment about lawyers?). I obviously contend differently - that the parties who promote such messages are in fact the ones obscuring things. Considering that the whole concept of intellectual property rights (which haven't existed forever) are based on the law and clarity of language I find this position a little funny, if not ironic. More so the presentation of a notion that an entity’s claim of ownership with regards to non-physical objects is some time old universal truth, morally and ethically infused, as opposed to a rather modern construct of law and social contract (and let’s be honest the export of western (and of late predominately US) values).
It's also a shame that you did not clarify your "irrelevant" statement with regards to rogue_librarian's proposition of the difference between physical and digital objects.
Anyway, yes we have gone on a tangent (and I can agree to disagree which should be obvious). As to the original post, I don't think we will gain any real clarity of the success. It will really depend by what metric E-read chooses to see/define such.