[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You suggested an example of that, giving up the right to resell ebooks because it is inconvenient for companies to track who has the rights to which books.

Again, if you could kindly link or quote where I stated anyone give the right to resell ebooks because it was inconvenient for companies to track who has the rights to which books.

Can't find the quote? That's because I never stated that.

What I did state was simply that I think people will need to give up the right to resell digital books because it just wont work. Digital media is different to physical media and what will work for one may not work for the other.

Just as many here have made the analogy that many buggy whip makers went out of business when the motor car was invented. Would you say those buggy whip makers were forced to give up their right to make a living from making buggy whips because it was inconvenient to the car makers? Of course not. It simply wasn't workable for many people to make a living making buggy whips anymore. Times changed then just as they are changing now. Deal with it as you are so fond of suggesting the publishers will have to do.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Sarcastic, yes. But argumentative? Nope, you're simply projecting - hint for the Americans: Sarcasm | Attack.

I stated your response was argumentative and rhetorical to which you replied "that's the great thing about sarcasm".

Certainly seems to me you were agreeing your posts were argumentative. If not, please clarify what you meant about the great thing about sarcasm being it is rhetorical and argumentative.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You go on in the same vein, refusing to acknowledge the wider implications of the policies you're advocating. It's not an unreasonable extrapolation, bluntly, given the actions of media companies over the years.

Advocate: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument.

I am not advocating any policies. I am merely sharing my view on a particular topic. I never stated whether I supported the end result I see coming or whether I thought it was bad thing. I merely stated I believed people will need to give up the idea they can sell their digital files on some sort of second hand market.

As for acknowledging any "wider implications", you have not actually put forward any. You have merely attempted to suggest I was claiming something I am not.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And why should people "have to accept" anything which disallows them from using their rights,

Times change, deal with it.

You keep advocating that publishers need to change, well I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you but so will consumers.

You so often suggest the music industry as an analogy for where the book industry will need to go, well how much of a market is there for second hand digital music files? Was anyone "forced to give up their rights" or did the market place simply change?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

is not substantially cheaper and is usually actually of poorer quality. This is no more and no less a call for failure on the part of the ebook industry, as happened a decade ago. Why does that need to occur again, precisely? (Renting me an ebook will only get me to pay rental prices...)

My very first post, which you obviously didn't read very well, stated that I believe the solution to be making digital books available at a price that people no longer care if they can re-sell it or not. And even though I did not state specifically in my first post(my bad), I have stated, to you specifically and to others on this board, many many times in the past that I also believe DRM and geo-restrictions need to go and that quality needs to improve.

So how exactly am I advocating people should have to put up with something that is "not substantially cheaper and is usually actually of poorer quality"?

Or were you just trying to be argumentative again by suggesting that is what I am advocating?

Cheers,
PKFFW