I said:
See, I don't believe that an ebook is the publisher's property, to do with as it wishes. The copyright law gives the publisher the right to decide NOT to sell the book. But it does not give it the right to sell the book to you, but not to me. Once the publisher decides to sell a book, it has to treat all buyers equally. If it decides not to, it has no moral claims to make against any buyer. (I'm not even sure if it has any legal claims, but that's a different thread...)
Then Good Old Neon said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
I’m sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous - please show me where in life’s little handbook it says your heart must be given all that it desires, your every want and need catered to. Are you done? That’s right, it doesn’t.
|
The first difficulty with your position is that what I said is to some extent, y'know, the "law." A publisher (or writer) simply does
not have an absolute right to control all uses of a book. What the copyright law gives is a
limited right. That limited right includes the right not to publish or sell the book - as I admit.
But that limited right does
not include the right to prevent "fair use" of the book. So once a book is published, all the "fair use" aspects of the law come into play.
So it seems to me that the only real difference between your position and mine is that I think that "fair use" incorporates a duty for the publisher to sell the book to anyone who has the money to pay for it, and you don't.
I fail to see what is so "ridiculous" about that.
But what do you really believe? For example, do you think that the copyright law gives Amazon the right to sell a book only to a person who first buys a Kindle? You do? Then, how about only to a person who first stands on his head while drinking a glass of water? Yes?
If that is your belief, it seems to me that it is your position, not mine, which is "beyond ridiculous."