To rephrase a quote attached to the identity of one of the biggest contributors to e-book content here:

“Of this argument there is no end.”

There really are irreconcilable views here that I think can be summed up, LOL, by two opposite definitions of the term “copyright.”

One the one hand you have those that feel that they have the right to a copy of every authors work. If the cost to purchase the book, set by the author and his publisher, does not exceed the amount they wish to pay then they will purchase a legitimate copy. If the price exceeds his or her individual wish for what it should cost they feel justified in going to a 'pirate' site.

On the other hand you have those that feel that the author has the right to control the sale and distribution of his or her work, including the cost to purchase a copy. Don't like the price don't buy the book and read something else.

The issue of copyright duration is an interesting topic. To me it should extend over authors lifetime and not beyond. It seems a no brainer to me that while an author is alive her should retain control of the distribution and use of his work. Longer then that does nothing to encourage creativity.

Yes, every book is to some extent derivative of previous literature just as every painting is derivative of the images on the cave walls of Lascaux, every invention is derivative of the first piece of stone flaked into a cutting tool, etc. Copyright promotes new ideas and creativity.

To the person who compared Rosa Parks risking arrest and other consequences by refusing to sit at the back of the bus to downloading from a pirate site because the cost of legitimate copy is more than you want to pay; am I spelling this correctly? Chutzpah.

Finally regarding the article that started all this. When this issue gets into a court of law of course the second definition of copyright given above will apply; that is the law.