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

[Jozawun]

[QUOTE=taustin;2239797][QUOTE=Jozawun;2239665]First, I've seen this statement before.

Your ignorance of the subject is not my problem. If you want to argue a subject, you should learn about it first. (I'm not the only one to mention this, in this thread, after all.)

In my previous posts I pointed out 2 things:
1. There may have been other reasons for the lack of books published in France in the short period you were talking about (1789-1793).
2. The lack of copyright protection in 19th century USA did not stop English and American writers from continuing to pour out the classics.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by taustin

I dispute that "think" describes what you do, but that pretty well sums up why I, and likely most others, except Giggles, don't take you seriously.

I find it amusing (and bemusing) how shrill, abusive and irrelevant the comments always become after a while in Giggleton's threads, especially from copyright apologists and those determined to go down fighting in the doomed Ship DRM.

[HarryT]

What do you mean by "copyright apologists"? I think the overwhelming majority of people would say that some form of copyright is necessary to protect literary (and other) creative works. And yes, DRM is necessary too, if you want to be able to borrow eBooks from the library, or rent textbooks from Amazon.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

First, I've seen this statement before. I don't know whether it's true or not: I understood that in the early 1790s legislation was passed expressly protecting the rights of authors. But I stand to be corrected.

It is irrelevant as was pointed out in another thread. It was the printers that stopped prinitng books. It was not the author that stopped writing and distributing books. Now when the author can distribute his own books the situation is totally different.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you mean by "copyright apologists"? I think the overwhelming majority of people would say that some form of copyright is necessary to protect literary (and other) creative works. And yes, DRM is necessary too, if you want to be able to borrow eBooks from the library, or rent textbooks from Amazon.

I would mean a person that defend any copyright law. A copyright law cannot be wrong so they must find stranger and stranger arguments for it.

And you are wrong that DRM are necessary. I would say that a lot of other methods would work. You fallacy is arguing from personal ignorance or whatever it is called.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

And you are wrong that DRM are necessary. I would say that a lot of other methods would work. You fallacy is arguing from personal ignorance or whatever it is called.

Could you give an example of a method other than DRM which could be used for textbook rental? Perhaps, as you say, it is ignorance on my part, but I cannot think of a valid alternative to time-limiting DRM for this.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Could you give an example of a method other than DRM which could be used for textbook rental? Perhaps, as you say, it is ignorance on my part, but I cannot think of a valid alternative to time-limiting DRM for this.

For example what is used now for many textbooks. You need a code to do mandatory exercises so you gave to buy the book to get the code.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you mean by "copyright apologists"? I think the overwhelming majority of people would say that some form of copyright is necessary to protect literary (and other) creative works. And yes, DRM is necessary too, if you want to be able to borrow eBooks from the library, or rent textbooks from Amazon.

First, Harry, I would never accuse you of becoming shrill in your defence of copyright, or on any other topic.
The term "apologist" was an irritated slap at those defend copyright unthinkingly and irrationally, as if it were a logical given, or divinely ordained.
However, the fact that a majority (overwhelming or otherwise) think that copyright is necessary is, of course, not a valid argument for its necessity.
A time-limited form of DRM to protect the interests of libraries and other book lenders is quite a different issue from its use on sold books to preserve revenue streams by preventing the growth of a second-hand ebook market.
It might be justified in this context; though libraries seem to have got along OK for a while now without installing Mission Impossible type self-destruct devices in pbooks.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

It might be justified in this context; though libraries seem to have got along OK for a while now without installing Mission Impossible type self-destruct devices in pbooks.

Don't you know that all librarians have secret identities? It's part of the Librarian Code!

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by 5thWiggle

Don't you know that all librarians have secret identities? It's part of the Librarian Code!

I don't believe this for a minute.





It's not really true, is it?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Could you give an example of a method other than DRM which could be used for textbook rental? Perhaps, as you say, it is ignorance on my part, but I cannot think of a valid alternative to time-limiting DRM for this.

Factor the price of textbooks into tuition, or subsidize the price of textbooks through taxes. We are talking about education after all...

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

I don't believe this for a minute.





It's not really true, is it?

Of course. I shouldn't be telling you this, but a relative of mine is librarian in the research library at a local community college. Apparently the returns shelf swings open to reveal a set of fireman's poles that lead to the "Book Cave". This is where the masks and costumes are kept, and the horses are stabled.

I've been told that it's hardest to get overdue books back from 2nd and 3rd year nursing students, who have developed their own style of martial arts as they are used to patients fighting back. However it's much easier to deal with the Computer Technology students, as a masked, horse riding woman appearing in their rooms has them (well, the males anyway), gibbering in the corners.

Don't let on that you know...

[QuantumIguana]

Yes, publisher's can make money from public domain works. But they don't have to pay the author's estate a cent.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

In the words of Bertrand Russell ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'

So, you can't refute the argument?

Dickens' works may have been pirated in the US, but they were still protected by copyright in England. He made less money than he would have made if his works had been also protected in the US, but he was only able to make a living from writing because of the copyright protection in England.

When Ulysses S. Grant was dying, he wrote his memoirs in order to provide for his family. If his memoir wasn't protected by copyright, anyone could have printed it without paying him or his estate a cent. Without copyright, this work wouldn't have been written, because it wouldn't have served his purpose, as his family couldn't have made money from it.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Jozawun

I think that would be the best way to go.
Love your name, too, it certainly sums up your approach to logic.

Now I'm shaking in my boots at your overwhelming declamation of absolute fact...