I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sorry Hitch, you are wrong. If i buy a mortgage, (or another bond, for that matter) that mortgage is an asset to me. I can sell it, get the payments from it, bequeath it, and use it for collateral for another loan. Same as any other asset. It is a wasting asset, i.e. it will go away after a particular period, but then again so does copyright. . .

Like copyright, it is not a physical asset, but it is an asset nonetheless. And as an asset, it is property.

If a mortgage is a construct of a lender, a copyright is a construct of a government. Neither one has any physical reality. either they both are property or neither are property.

Sorry, Ralph, but it is you who are wrong. Yes, mortgages are bought and sold, like all OTHER financial instruments. But they are not property, in the sense of the discussion that we're having here. You can place a mortgage upon property--but they are NOT PROPERTY in any definition or legal sense of the word. They are financial instruments, which are a whole other thing--contracts. That's all they are.

I'm not a lawyer--but I spent 3 decades running the Litigation Strategy Division of a major RE Development firm. I ran up to 40 lawyers at any given moment, and I've spent my life with my nose in Statutes and law. You can argue all you want, but they are simply contracts. And just like any other contract can be assigned, bought or sold, so can mortgages.

Please, if you don't want to believe me, ask any attorney. But this whole "because we THINK X, we can categorize stuff as Y" conversation is getting a bit tedious. You can think whatever you want, but it doesn't make it so.

Hitch

[Bilbo1967]

Hmm..telling Ralph he's wrong. This should be fun

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Hmm..telling Ralph he's wrong. This should be fun

I'm just correcting a point of law. Obviously, Ralph is entitled to *feel* about that law, or how the law views it, or Congress, etc., however he wishes.

Hitch

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

Okay, so we agree on that much. It's a shame really, I had hoped a misunderstanding on this level might have offered common ground on the property discussion. Wishful thinking, I guess.



This really is tin-foil hat territory. There is absolutely nothing about treating a right as a property that in any way alters whether government will or will not extend that right. Copyright is treated as a property by business, and the law, because that is what is necessary to transact business. Business that owns valuable copyright will try hard to retain that valuable thing whether it is referred to as property or not.



A dictionary seems an odd place to look for legal definitions, but if you insist:

One 1925 American dictionary (The New Universities Dictionary) defines property as "exclusive right of possession; the thing owned". (Quoting the relevant sense only.)

One 1946 English dictionary (Odhams Dictionary of the English Language Illustrated) defines property as "a thing or things possessed". (Quoting the relevant sense only.)

No help for you in either of these, since neither attempts to limit what can be possessed in order to be considered a property. (Note: In case you're tempted to go there, "thing" includes the definition (from the OED): "that which is or may be in any way an object of perception, knowledge, or thought" That's fairly comprehensive, it certainly includes the possibility that a right may be possessed, so no help for you there either.)


Not that it matters. As I said earlier, copyright will continue to be treated as a property by all affected parties. Bystanders can call it whatever they want.

I see, so disagreement with you equals tin foil hats. I must have simply imagined the US extending copyright in 1976 from 28+28 to 75 or life+50, and then extending it again in 1998 to 95/120 or life+70. Gee so glad to hear that it was all my tin foil hat that made me imagine all of that.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Sorry, Ralph, but it is you who are wrong. Yes, mortgages are bought and sold, like all OTHER financial instruments. But they are not property, in the sense of the discussion that we're having here. You can place a mortgage upon property--but they are NOT PROPERTY in any definition or legal sense of the word. They are financial instruments, which are a whole other thing--contracts. That's all they are.

I'm not a lawyer--but I spent 3 decades running the Litigation Strategy Division of a major RE Development firm. I ran up to 40 lawyers at any given moment, and I've spent my life with my nose in Statutes and law. You can argue all you want, but they are simply contracts. And just like any other contract can be assigned, bought or sold, so can mortgages.

Please, if you don't want to believe me, ask any attorney. But this whole "because we THINK X, we can categorize stuff as Y" conversation is getting a bit tedious. You can think whatever you want, but it doesn't make it so.

Hitch

And what is a copyright but a CONTRACT? Which was my original point. A contract between a creator and a government, which both grants and enforces the contract!

A copyright is no more property than a bond is a property. Either both are or they aren't.

Please show me, in functional description the difference. Not verbal terminology, which has been used sloppily for centuries, but actual functional differences.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by mrpotts

Before I buy any books, and I do, I always search for the title with a pdf extension... I have zero moral issue with it, and I think you are silly if you do... I wouldn’t want it done to me, but again family finances come first.

"Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
— Seneca the Younger

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
— Leviticus

"Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
— Jesus (Luke and Matthew)

"As you would have people do to you, do to them"
— Mohammad

"Those acts that you consider good when done to you, do those to others, none else."
— Taittiriya Upanishad

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
— Buddha

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."
— Confucius

"Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you."
— L. Ron Hubbard(!) The Way to Happiness

"The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'!"
— Wanda

Where do you get your morals from?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And what is a copyright but a CONTRACT? Which was my original point. A contract between a creator and a government, which both grants and enforces the contract!

It's a CONTRACT that our governments, since the 1500's, define as property. That's the difference, Ralph. You simply disagree with the concept--which is your right. But your disagreement doesn't change the law, and how each is construed.

A copyright is no more property than a bond is a property. Either both are or they aren't.

Sorry, them's the laws.

Please show me, in functional description the difference. Not verbal terminology, which has been used sloppily for centuries, but actual functional differences.

"Functional differences" aren't actually the point. Contracts, for all intents and purposes, are the functional basis of almost ALL law. Real Property rights and privileges, personalty, etc., are all based on contract law, when you get right down to it.

An "instrument" generally almost always deals with a right to payment. A bond, a stock, a mortgage, etc. An instrument may or may not be the result of a contract. If John sells me a bond, and he defaults on it, I may, or may not, have a right to try to collect on it. A copyright, in and of itself, carries no right of payment, no promise therefor. It's simply the PROPERTY which can subsequently be licensed to someone else--for a right to payment. That's the biggest difference, between your two examples. The bond is not, itself, the property which is subsequently sold or licensed or mortgaged, for money--it's the promise. The copyright IS the property, not the promise. See?

By the same logic that you used ("A copyright is no more property than a bond is a property. Either both are or they aren't."), just because a mortgage deals with real property in its contract, and your marriage has a contract, a marriage is a real estate deal! Oh, wait...that's not right! :-)

• Marriage is, actually, nothing more than a contract. That contract does not give you property rights (in this day and age) over your spouse. The other party to the contract (the state, BTW) doesn't get property rights over YOU.
• A mortgage contract, while not conveying direct property rights, allows the mortgage lender to take the property in the event of default. That default is defined by the Promissory Note, which is another element of the contract. (And so is a Deed, etc., etc. etc.)
• A copyright enables the person who holds it to license the creative property, and collect royalties therefrom.
• All are different "types" of contracts, basically. That doesn't make them the same thing.

Is your marriage the same property right, as a copyright? As your mortgage? No? Can you assign your wife or SO, to someone else, willy-nilly? No? But, wait, that's a CONTRACT! That makes it the same as a mortgage, right?

No, it doesn't. (This is why laypeople really need attorneys when they start to deal with legal constructs...)

A contract is nothing more than an agreement by and among two or more people to do, or NOT DO, a specific thing. That's it. Contracts can be conditional, they can be certain; they can be consensual, or real. They can be constructive, or divisible or indivisible. Express and implied. Gratuitous or onerous...there's a thing called a "quasi-contract." Need I go on?

The essential parts of a contract are that the parties have to be competent; there's a subject of the contract, the agreement, and legal consideration. There's also the "mutuality of obligations," which means that both parties have to be obliged to perform a given task or thing, and those things need to be somewhat equivalent, (for example, a bank gives gives you X dollars, and the home that you get is of an approximate value thereto, for example).

Just because financial instruments represent one type of contract, and the "contract" between a copyright holder and the State another (an implied contract, in fact, as opposed to a "real" contract, which is what real property contracts are...) doesn't make them the same thing, legally or in practice. As I pointed out, marriage is a contract; a deed is a contract (of purchase of real property), a muni bond is a contract, and so on. They're not the same thing--and neither does it mean that a bond and copyright are the same thing. Or not the same thing.

Hitch

[DNSB]

Would it make everybody/anybody feel happier if we referred to copyrights as intangible assets or insisted on "intellectual property" as distinct from "real" property?

In today's world, it's hard for anyone to say with a straight face that intangible assets do not have value and are not susceptible to theft as much as any other class of property.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Hitch

• Marriage is, actually, nothing more than a contract. That contract does not give you property rights (in this day and age) over your spouse. The other party to the contract (the state, BTW) doesn't get property rights over YOU.

Is your marriage the same property right, as a copyright? As your mortgage? No? Can you assign your wife or SO, to someone else, willy-nilly? No? But, wait, that's a CONTRACT! That makes it the same as a mortgage, right?

The status of a wife depends on where in the world you live. There are still places where a wife is considered the husband's property.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Hold it! No, no and no. A Mortgage is not a property. A mortgage, under law, is a financial instrument which is secured by property. That's not the same thing. [...]

Hitch

I don't know enough law to argue the point "under law", and I can see that mortgages, being contracts, may exist where simple ownership does not apply. However, it is (or was) common enough for mortgages to exist were one side is said to own the mortgage. Thus, under the English language definition of "property", even if not the law, a mortgage can be "the thing owned" - which is all that is required for me to call it "property" in a non-legal sense.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I see, so disagreement with you equals tin foil hats. I must have simply imagined the US extending copyright in 1976 from 28+28 to 75 or life+50, and then extending it again in 1998 to 95/120 or life+70. Gee so glad to hear that it was all my tin foil hat that made me imagine all of that.

No, it's not disagreement that makes me think of tin-foil hats, it's statements like this one:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

[...] The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum. [...]

with no evidence to back it up. This statement shouts "conspiracy theory" to me. Show me evidence that that sentence more than a "rhetorical device" itself and I'll happily agree that tin-foil hats can be removed.

[mrpotts]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You may not have issue with pirating content, but MobileRead does. MobileRead takes copyright very seriously.

MobileRead will not encourage or condone copyright infringement. If you boast about how you wilfully pirate content again you will be suspended from MobileRead.

That's ridiculous. I've not mentioned anything about piracy, only searching for a book title. Want to go to court over this? You will loose because internet searches are not illegal, nor is saving data from a publicly available web page. Want to kick me off this forum? I've been a low-level contributing member since 2010, if you do, I never should have been here in the first place.

My morality resides with the law, by my choice, or else I'd move countries. If it's legal, it's legal - period, and morality is a fools game. The fact is I am a very moral person and I live by spiritual morals daily. But my morality is based in practical, common sense governed by being a human living in this world. Are you paying more taxes then you need to? Do you use public services more then others, more then average? Shouldn't you volunteer more taxes for this use, wouldn't that be the societal moral thing to do? Shouldn't US congress people not be able to profit from insider stock trading based on information garnered from their publicly elected position? Isn't that immoral? Are these actions Christian? Yet it happens every week.

Regarding those religious quotes, don't bother. Religion is a morality of convenience and a fools game. Christianity is based on a book articulated and written by disciples and disciples of those disciples, not on Christ himself, who I believe, was a beautiful man. If you are following the bible, you are following a fairy tale and this truth will become evident, crystal-clearly evident, in a very precise moment of your life.

FYI, most of what I read are programming and engineering books which are open source, or released for free online, &/or published on Medium. I'm not downloading NY Times bestsellers when they come out, nor do I want to. There's the library to read anything current, which, BTW, is free.

Phil

[barryem]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

"Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
— Seneca the Younger

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
— Leviticus

"Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
— Jesus (Luke and Matthew)

"As you would have people do to you, do to them"
— Mohammad

"Those acts that you consider good when done to you, do those to others, none else."
— Taittiriya Upanishad

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
— Buddha

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."
— Confucius

"Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you."
— L. Ron Hubbard(!) The Way to Happiness

"The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself'!"
— Wanda

Where do you get your morals from?

"There's a sucker born every minute"
-- P. T. Barnum

Barry

[barryem]

I think before we decide of copyright is property we have to first decide if we're talking about philosophy or law.

In the non-legal world property is that which you can stand on or hold in your hand or keep in a bottle and copyright doesn't allow for any of this.

The legal term might be different. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. In a philosophical sense I'd argue that copyright is not property although I can see reasonable arguments for the opposite point of view.

Anyway, it's probably worth deciding the context before you discuss the definition.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

In the non-legal world property is that which you can stand on or hold in your hand or keep in a bottle

Nope.

Your desire to restrict property to the physical plane is not even backed up by most dictionary definitions.

[Sirtel]

What I always notice in discussions about piracy and the moral/ethical side of it, is that people most vehemently condemning illegal downloading and file-sharing are almost always from relatively wealthy old democratic countries (US, UK, the rest of the Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia etc). The countries where there has never been any lack of availability of digital goods, compared to the rest of the world. What's rarely discussed here and elsewhere is that the mindset in other parts of the world is quite different. I highly doubt that an average internet user in, for example, an African country where most western ebooks, movies and games are not available at all or their price is prohibitive, would think twice about the morality of copyright infringement. And if you say to that person that he/she is not entitled to digital goodies just because his/her country is not part of the select few, what do you think the response would be?

Speaking about mindsets, my generation here in Estonia grew up in Soviet Union. Where stealing (mostly from the state, because most property belonged to the state) was not a way of life, it was the way of life. If you stole on a large scale, you usually got caught and the punishment was severe. But mostly everyone stole from the regime on a small scale, when there was a chance to do so, and those who didn't were regarded as fools. That was the mindset my generation grew up with and naturally it made people pretty cynical.

It didn't make them inherently crueler or more heartless. But very few people here (and probably elsewhere in Eastern Europe) who are approximately my age would think twice about downloading a file from the internet. So what if an unknown author somewhere far away won't get paid? Tough, but that's life. They wouldn't bother to justify it. If someone asked them why they did it, that someone would be regarded as an idiot. The file was already there, why not? If someone lectured them about the immorality and entitlement of illegal downloading, they'd just laugh.

That mindset is slowly changing with younger generations who were born in a free country. And even those same people who don't bat an eye at pirating also buy many of their digital goods now legally, it's not an either/or situation anymore. Netflix has been legally available here for a while now and this has certainly reduced movie pirating. Still, illegal downloading probably remains quite rampant here for a while yet.