I don't think I should have to pay for my e-Books

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Shakespeare and Dickens both wrote entirely for money. Dickens was obsessed with money, from his childhood experiences of the debt problems suffered by his father. I think most people would accept that both Shakespeare and Dickens were pretty good writers, despite their perverse desires to make a living from their writing.

Does the fact that most people accept the idea that they were good writers actually make them good writers though? Who is this most anyway? A percentage of the population that is capable of reading their work? If at least 20% of the people who have read a work by an author call the work good, is the work good?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Who is this most anyway?

Most is the sensible older brother of this We you're always quoting.

[VydorScope]

There are three definitions competing here:

Good = any given reader's opinion of the work. This will vary across the entire spectrum for any given book. For example my first book currently has 14 five star reviews, and 5 one star reviews. So for some the book was "good" for others it was not.

Good = Lots of people bought the book. The Christian Bible is the best selling book of all time, but it is probably fairly low down on the "people have actually read the book" list. This is true of many of the "best sellers" out there. They are called "good" because the market as determined them be highly sellable.

Good = Some scholars and other erudites have labeled it good. This is most of your classics like Moby Dick, Shakespeare, and so on. I would guess most people have never read them, and they are often free to acquire, but have achieved "good" status because someone that people think should know, said they were.

Frankly, I only care about the first definition.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright law has no specific exemption (in the US or UK; less sure about other places) for personal copies for noncommercial use. If you make a copy, you are potentially in breach of copyright. Keeping or removing the original doesn't change the act of making the copy.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

It does in both the US and the UK. It is not breach of copyright if you legally hold title to anything that you duplicate - as long as you don't part with the original so as to lose your legal status.

The UK doesn't have an outright exemption (though my understanding is that in the US, "fair use" allows for personal copies, and "fair dealing" in the UK allows for some personal copying). According to the Copyright basic facts PDF from the UK Intellectual Property Office:

Just buying a book, CD, video or computer program does not give you the right to make copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things generally belongs to the copyright owner, so you will need their permission. Photocopying a work, scanning it to produce an electronic copy, and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (for example, on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work, so you will usually need permission to do these things.

There have been at least two reviews of copyright law in recent years that have suggested making it legal to make copies for personal use, and I'm reasonably sure that the governments of the time promised to enact those recommendations. That hasn't happened yet, though.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

There are three definitions competing here:

Good = any given reader's opinion of the work. This will vary across the entire spectrum for any given book. For example my first book currently has 14 five star reviews, and 5 one star reviews. So for some the book was "good" for others it was not.

Good = Lots of people bought the book. The Christian Bible is the best selling book of all time, but it is probably fairly low down on the "people have actually read the book" list. This is true of many of the "best sellers" out there. They are called "good" because the market as determined them be highly sellable.

Good = Some scholars and other erudites have labeled it good. This is most of your classics like Moby Dick, Shakespeare, and so on. I would guess most people have never read them, and they are often free to acquire, but have achieved "good" status because someone that people think should know, said they were.

Frankly, I only care about the first definition.

No, there's a fourth definition:

Good = It's stood the test of time. Dickens wasn't a "highbrow" writer; he was writing serials for weekly or monthly magazines - the "soap operas" of his day. Shakespeare even more assuredly wasn't - he was writing popular entertainment for the masses. The reason that both have remained popular for such a long time is that they were writing about the human condition, and that's timeless. I don't need someone in an ivory tower to tell me that "Great Expectations" is a great novel - I've read it myself many times and I know for myself that it's a great novel. There are few, if any, writers, who have created as many characters as Dickens which have entered the popular culture of the English-speaking world. If we say that someone is a "Scrooge", we all know what that means even if we haven't personally read "A Christmas Carol". He was truly one of the greatest novelists ever to write in English, and THAT's why his books are (rightly) regarded as timeless classics.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, there's a fourth definition:

Good = It's stood the test of time. Dickens wasn't a "highbrow" writer; he was writing serials for weekly or monthly magazines - the "soap operas" of his day. Shakespeare even more assuredly wasn't - he was writing popular entertainment for the masses. The reason that both have remained popular for such a long time is that they were writing about the human condition, and that's timeless. I don't need someone in an ivory tower to tell me that "Great Expectations" is a great novel - I've read it myself many times and I know for myself that it's a great novel. There are few, if any, writers, who have created as many characters as Dickens which have entered the popular culture of the English-speaking world. If we say that someone is a "Scrooge", we all know what that means even if we haven't personally read "A Christmas Carol". He was truly one of the greatest novelists ever to write in English, and THAT's why his books are (rightly) regarded as timeless classics.

So true Harry.
And Alexandre Dumas did the same. He wrote serialized stories for the masses.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

I'm always a bit confused why people seem to have a need to come up with alternate explanations (that often involve high-brow conspiracies) for a "classic's" continued popularity. Occam's razor and all.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, there's a fourth definition:

Good = It's stood the test of time. Dickens wasn't a "highbrow" writer; he was writing serials for weekly or monthly magazines - the "soap operas" of his day. Shakespeare even more assuredly wasn't - he was writing popular entertainment for the masses. The reason that both have remained popular for such a long time is that they were writing about the human condition, and that's timeless. I don't need someone in an ivory tower to tell me that "Great Expectations" is a great novel - I've read it myself many times and I know for myself that it's a great novel. There are few, if any, writers, who have created as many characters as Dickens which have entered the popular culture of the English-speaking world. If we say that someone is a "Scrooge", we all know what that means even if we haven't personally read "A Christmas Carol". He was truly one of the greatest novelists ever to write in English, and THAT's why his books are (rightly) regarded as timeless classics.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Occam's razor and all.

Occam's razor hasn't been sharpened since forever. It is now Occam's butter knife. I don't think I should have to pay for it.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Occam's razor hasn't been sharpened since forever. It is now Occam's butter knife. I don't think I should have to pay for it.

Someone around here is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, there's a fourth definition:

Good = It's stood the test of time. Dickens wasn't a "highbrow" writer; he was writing serials for weekly or monthly magazines - the "soap operas" of his day. Shakespeare even more assuredly wasn't - he was writing popular entertainment for the masses. The reason that both have remained popular for such a long time is that they were writing about the human condition, and that's timeless. I don't need someone in an ivory tower to tell me that "Great Expectations" is a great novel - I've read it myself many times and I know for myself that it's a great novel. There are few, if any, writers, who have created as many characters as Dickens which have entered the popular culture of the English-speaking world. If we say that someone is a "Scrooge", we all know what that means even if we haven't personally read "A Christmas Carol". He was truly one of the greatest novelists ever to write in English, and THAT's why his books are (rightly) regarded as timeless classics.

This presupposes that time has meaning, or if you prefer, a reference point, which it does not.

I dislike Dickens and Shakespeare, to me they are not very good. I will most likely not read their works even though they are available for free. I am not sure what this means.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

This is most of your classics like Moby Dick, Shakespeare, and so on. I would guess most people have never read them . . .

And I would guess that loads of people bought Harry Potter books and never read them.

Unlike most classic novels, Moby Dick has never been a bestseller. But it might be that people who buy Moby Dick are more likely to finish it than people who buy Harry Potter books. We just don't know.

Right now I am reading Wandering Star, published in 1911. Does that make it a classic? Don't know, don't care, it is wonderful.

And I can assure Giggleton that Sholem Aleichem wouldn't have written it without copyright

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This presupposes that time has meaning, or if you prefer, a reference point, which it does not.

I dislike Dickens and Shakespeare, to me they are not very good. I will most likely not read their works even though they are available for free. I am not sure what this means.

Yeah, I disagree with HarryT. I think his "4th" definition is really my 3rd one dressed up in fancier cloths. I have read Dickens, and others of the "classics" and I do not see how they are all that much better then the best authors we have today. BUT this is all subjective so there is really no right or wrong.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Yeah, I disagree with HarryT. I think his "4th" definition is really my 3rd one dressed up in fancier cloths. I have read Dickens, and others of the "classics" and I do not see how they are all that much better then the best authors we have today. BUT this is all subjective so there is really no right or wrong.

No, they are really quite different. "It's stood the test of time." isn't remotely the same as "Some scholars and other erudites have labeled it good." A work that has stood the test of time is one that readers have continued to read over long periods of time. Scholars calling it good doesn't make people read it.

Shakespeare is still performed 400 years later. Part of that is because is can be performed for free, but that's not all of it, there are a vast number of playwrights whose work could be performed for free, but they are rarely performed. People adapt Shakespeare for movies, and people pay to watch. People know the basic plots of the stories, even if they haven't seen or read one of his plays (plays are really meant to be wached rather than read). People routinely quote Shakespeare, and the references are understood.

I'm not saying that people have to like Shakespeare, or Moby Dick or Dickens. There are classics that I don't like, but this doesn't make them bad books, or mean that I am wrong not to like it. Their enduring popularity isn't due to academic decree. Academics can make people study a fossil, but can't make it live.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No, they are really quite different. "It's stood the test of time." isn't remotely the same as "Some scholars and other erudites have labeled it good." A work that has stood the test of time is one that readers have continued to read over long periods of time. Scholars calling it good doesn't make people read it.

Shakespeare is still performed 400 years later. Part of that is because is can be performed for free, but that's not all of it, there are a vast number of playwrights whose work could be performed for free, but they are rarely performed. People adapt Shakespeare for movies, and people pay to watch. People know the basic plots of the stories, even if they haven't seen or read one of his plays (plays are really meant to be wached rather than read). People routinely quote Shakespeare, and the references are understood.

I'm not saying that people have to like Shakespeare, or Moby Dick or Dickens. There are classics that I don't like, but this doesn't make them bad books, or mean that I am wrong not to like it. Their enduring popularity isn't due to academic decree. Academics can make people study a fossil, but can't make it live.

Yes interpretations of Shakespeare are still being performed, but did not Shakespeare interpret those who came before him?

That link for wandering star lists print copies of the book for sale at 1 penny a piece.