[Doonge]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Eg, look at the "Kindle Store Terms of Use" at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

Look at item 1, "Use of Kindle Content". It says:



(Emphasis mine)

This makes it absolutely clear that you are buying a licence, does it not?

Really, if people don't take the trouble to learn what it is that they're buying, that's entirely their own responsibility. If I can find these conditions, so can anyone else.

I don't see how that rebuke what I said, as I specifically laid that out. You are just repeating yourself without taking into consideration what I said, so where is the respect here?

And with the greatest respect, if you are unable to grasp what I say in my tiny post, why would you assume that, on top of reading legalese, people would understand it?



edit:
Quoting you

You can't have it both ways: if intellectual property can't be owned, you can't own an ebook.

If intellectual property can't be owned (hypothesis), it doesn't say anything about ebook as ebook can still be owned (and duplicated at will), regardless of intellectual property (well, especially if intellectual property is not a legal set of rule).
You could say however that with intellectual property, "owning" ebook becomes an ambiguous term, so two people could argue endlessly if they don't define what they mean by owning. And a moderator would smack them down unless the moderator himself is one of the two arguing ambiguous words without defining them.