eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

As for how common, it will absolutely get more common as they have begun to refuse to sell to us, based on location, same as for movies and tv.

Sometimes I wonder who exactly is running all these companies and how out-of-touch they must be? It's like they don't want to make money. There's an ever growing audience for ebooks and they continually ignore that market. I suppose they only see such markets when they're of a significant volume. Well, it's their loss in the long run.

[Blue Tyson]

Certainly not many experts in eBusiness transformation, I would think.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

...
I have never argued for religuious absolutism. I am not a religious person.
...

Uhm, yes, you are. You just can't see it.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Uhm, yes, you are. You just can't see it.

Um, no I'm not.

I can only assume you think I am because I believe there are moral absolutes. For you to come to the conclusion that I am religious because of this you must think that only religious people believe in moral absolutes. Is that that your thinking?

If that is your basis for making the claim you do then I can assure you that you are simply wrong.(sorry if that seems rude)

There are many people who do not ascribe to any religion. There are also many people who do not believe religion is the sole purveyor of right and wrong with regards to morality. Many of both of these groups still believe there is right and wrong though and many still believe there are "absolute rights and wrongs".

One does not have to believe in religion to believe in right and wrong or moral absolutes. It's kind of sad that you seem to suggest otherwise.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Um, no I'm not....

From Merriam-Webster:

-------------------------
Main Entry: re·li·gious
...
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
....
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent, zealous
------------------------

See if you can figure out how I used "religious."

[fugazied]

I have to say, rarely do I pirate ebooks, but I download a LOT of TV shows. Some TV isn't available where I live, so I grab those episodes off the Internet. TV stations are really missing out, if they provided better online options for watching their shows I would use that in a flash.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

From Merriam-Webster:

-------------------------
Main Entry: re·li·gious
...
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
....
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent, zealous
------------------------

See if you can figure out how I used "religious."

I'm guessing you used the definition that best serves your purpose rather than the accepted usage definition.

Arguing "religiously" is an entirely different concept to being a religious person.

If you can not differentiate between the two you ought not to attempt to use the concepts in your arguments.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I'm guessing you used the definition that best serves your purpose....

Generally, literate people do so.

There is often more than one definition. But not, evidently, in your world of simple absolutes. Hence, "religious."

Hence, "talking to you, is like talking to the TV." Sunday morning TV, I might add.

Cheers.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Yes, because my work is, and probably most work is done physically and involves time and labour. I am not a product that is infinitely reproduceable, nor is my time or my labour. Now, if they could clone me, or make a robot copy, then we'd have another argument altogether.

I'm not sure, but I think you're missing the point of the analogy. Regardless of whether you hand copy (e.g, like scribes used to do) or make an electronic copy, you're still using someone else's work. In effect, you are cloning the author's ideas. It's not the act of typing on a word processor that's the author's work. You could literally put a monkey in front of the keyboard to do that, if you fed him/her a steady diet of bananas. It's the content that holds the value and constitutes the intellectual property (which is why people will pay more for an ebook that's got a linked table of contents than they will for a flat ASCII text).

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Generally, literate people do so.

So do those who enjoy enjoy implying one thing whilst saying another so they can always fall back on the idea that there is more than one definition of the word they chose if questioned as to what they meant.

Originally Posted by Sonist

There is often more than one definition. But not, evidently, in your world of simple absolutes. Hence, "religious."

Where did I say there was not more than one definition of any word? Again you resort to constructing straw men. I see a common theme between you and tirsales.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hence, "talking to you, is like talking to the TV." Sunday morning TV, I might add.

Cheers.

I wouldn't know about that as I don't make a habit of talking to my TV, on Sunday mornings or at any other time. If that is something you enjoy doing then that explains alot.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

... I wouldn't know about that as I don't make a habit of talking to my TV, on Sunday mornings or at any other time....

A word of advice:

Do not take reading comprehension tests.

Cheers.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

What I will not accept is someone (seemingly intentionally since they claim to understand english and my point) claiming I am stating something I am not and then proceeding to argue why they disagree with my supposed point. They even went so far as to say I stated something and then quoted a passage of mine(supposedly in support of their claim) which, whilst seemingly similar, was not what they claimed I had stated!

To cite you: Whats your point? "They" appear to be right from my point of view. And more important: Why are you trying to answer to my rhetorical question?

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Then why do you continue to read them? Do you make a habit of doing things that "just suck"?

Because i'm interested in what other posters than you have to say.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And if you are going to claim there are little errors again and again then you should at least have the decency to back up the claim.

See, you did it again. Once again somebody "should" do something in your opinion. Why should i argue against you? It seems to me that you are just interested in being right rather than in real arguing and accepting other peoples opinions.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Oh wait, I guess I'm the only one required to back up claims that others disagree with right?

No, but for some inexplicable reason you are thinking that.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As for making room for other posters, if someone replies to me and I feel like responding to said reply, I will.

Unfortunately. Maybe it's time for me to test MRs "ignore list" feature...

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

A word of advice:

Do not take reading comprehension tests.

Cheers.

Coming from someone who is clearly incapable of comprehesion that is rather funny.

So thanks for the lols.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So perhaps you and tirsales should try reading all my posts in conjunction and fully understanding them rather than taking one particular quote and coming to an assuption about what you think I mean.

Actually, I was basing my opinion on your earlier posts, not an isolated quote as you assume.

The tone you adopt is entirely up to you; but it isn't one that makes me want to reread what you have been writing in the past few days, or seek out what you have to say in the rest of this thread. There is no benefit to me in doing so.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

...

Just like I pictured you must be in real life, rolling on the floor....