Quote:
Originally Posted by Anjohl
The law exists to serve man, not the other way around.
|
What does this even mean? There are two parties (at least) to most legal disputes, and they will likely have a different idea of how they should be "served".
Quote:
And by "definitive" I mean the work, unencumbered by devices which have nothing to do with the work. So your assertion of my incorrectness is invallid. A book written by a writer has no artificial lock to prevent it from being shared. Last time I checked, my copy of Clash of King's didn't require a DNA check to read, nor did it require a receipt. The definitive copy of an electronic work of art is one free of any third party device intended to dissuade sharing. This has *nothing* to do with copyright infringement, theft, etc.
|
Pretending that there is some mythical "definitive" work has *nothing* to do with anything in this conversation, although it may have to do with a conversation on editing and OCR errors. The Gutenberg Bible locked in a rare book library is no more or less definitive because it is behind lock and key.
Quote:
The argument that the publishers use to seek damages is based on a flawed assertion as well, that the decline of sales corelates with the increase in "illegal" downloading.
|
Except that this is not the argument any publisher uses to seek damages. They always seek statutory damages.
Quote:
|
This has not been proven.
|
It doesn't have to be.
Quote:
|
What has been proven is an overall decrease in consumer good purchasing due to the economy, and increased reliance on cheap/free entertainment, including alternate competing forms such as internet news, free ebooks (Gutenberg), etc.
|
As above, this doesn't matter, either.