The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[Tim32127]

I wonder what world some people live in.
If you think takeing a book without paying for it is ok then do it.
Saying you are doing it to hurt the big bad c.e.o. is the bigest pile of crap I've ever herd.
In the real world the c.e.o. is the last person in a company to lose their job when things get tough.
Tim..
p.s. I hope whatever you do for a living is the next industry to go through changes

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Or find it in a box of free books near my mailbox (my apartment complex often has freebies near the mailboxes).

...okay, I'm moving to (checks location tag) California, ASAP.

May take me time to find gainful employment, but to paraphrase the old saying, "Books will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no books."

[raven312]

I don't even buy books at the $9.99 price point, as I have been fortunate enough to find most of what I want to read for $6.00 or less (and I love the classics.) I have over 60 books that I have yet to read. I read 2-3 books concurrently so I imagine that I'll chip away at this but not fast enough to justify spending $12-$15 for a new book. There are VERY FEW books that I've ever had to have upon first release, but there have been some. Those were usually heavily discounted, though. I can't recall ever spending face price for a hardcover. I can definitely wait.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Again, the individual files do not belong to you. You own the copyright. So long as you still own the copyright, you have lost no property.

You are simply wrong. You are attempting to justify theft with an incorrect definition of property that no longer fits the current digital media format.

[ShadowAuthor]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Mr. Author creates a work. The moment it is fixed in a tangible format it automatically belongs to society (it is now firmly in the public domain). After all, as Mr. Author has has created his work in close co-operation with society it follows that naturally, Mr. Author cannot claim exclusive rights over his creation. He has utilised the education society has given him, made use of the conventions of the culture of the society he lives in and his creation is inseparable from the norms and values of others (past and present) who live in the same society. We thank Mr. Author for his gift.

Oh, the things people will tell themselves to justify their actions...

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's not, neither is knowing that you have stolen something without paying a fair price for it.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend it is wrong?

Leaving aside the emotive words 'stolen' and 'wrong' for the time being, what exactly would you consider to be a 'fair price'?

The true market price under real competition, the artificial price under monopoly conditions or, some morally ambiguous equivalent to the gratuity box as found in restaurants that would serve to salve some people's ethical considerations?

Do you agree that the fair price for a dead author is zero?

[guyanonymous]

But think of the dead-author's great grandchildren....or the corporation that bought the rights!

[kennyc]

How about $13, like 13 posts.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

But think of the dead-author's great grandchildren....or the corporation that bought the rights!

and all those poor long-suffering pirates without a thing to read.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You are simply wrong. You are attempting to justify theft with an incorrect definition of property that no longer fits the current digital media format.

No. I am not trying to justify anything. And I am using a definition of property that is based in reality.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No. I am not trying to justify anything. And I am using a definition of property that is based in reality.

A reality that has changed and law, morals and definitions have not kept up with.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

A reality that has changed and law, morals and definitions have not kept up with.

Nope.The definition of property does not change just because you wish it to. The copyright holder never could claim ownership over the individual paper copies; he can't claim ownership of the digital ones, either.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Nope.The definition of property does not change just because you wish it to. The copyright holder never could claim ownership over the individual paper copies; he can't claim ownership of the digital ones, either.

It will change, it's inevitable. It's already changing, you can see it right here.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It will change, it's inevitable. It's already changing, you can see it right here.

Yes, societal consensus is turning against IP.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Well, except when it isn't. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which selling a book second-hand is illegal.

Yeah, what I wrote applies to the first sale of the book, not second hand sales.