can there be a market for used digital content?

[Greg Anos]

There's no such thing a used data. Complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, or even purchased from the copyright holder/agent or from somebody else, but no used. Each copy is just as shiny as the first one, forever....

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Firstly, please link or quote where I stated anyone should be "stripped" of their rights. Can't do it? Of course not, because your claim that I did is simply another lie.

Your first post. It's the simply consequence of your campaign against user's rights. You won't admit it, of course, but your contention is clearly from what you typed that the delivery method controls the rights, not the utility of the method or the public interest.

If you truly believe consumers will not have to change at all in the digital age then good for you.

Again, you lie, badly, because you don't have a point to make. I never stated this, but the simple fact is that the law is quite clear - you don't inherently lose any rights because of the delivery method.

I suggest you get on your big fluffy pink elephant and bound off to have tea with the fairies as that is where you so obviously belong.

Kids, this is a prime example of why "don't do drugs" is a good idea. I'm sorry, I have no intention of joining in your delusions.

It is not a lie, you have used the music industry as an analogy before.

In specific contexts which are not related to this point and do not in any way support your contention or your actual claim.

Will Godwins law be invoked next?

Again, that's your ball not mine. You seem to be confused.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There's no such thing a used data. Complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, or even purchased from the copyright holder/agent or from somebody else, but no used. Each copy is just as shiny as the first one, forever....

Exactly. And the interface between a mixed scarcity and a post-scarcity environment is always going to be messy.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There's no such thing a used data. Complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, or even purchased from the copyright holder/agent or from somebody else, but no used. Each copy is just as shiny as the first one, forever....

The ebooks that I have bought said that they were new, but the electrons were all pre-owned The edition of Plato that I bought, in particular, was a mere shadow of its ideal form - not shiny at all.

[pilotbob]

OK.... I think we have had enough of the personal insults flying back and forth here.

If it is not possible to discus and debate the topic without the slurs and insults the thread will be closed.

BOb
Moderator

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

The ebooks that I have bought said that they were new, but the electrons were all pre-owned The edition of Plato that I bought, in particular, was a mere shadow of its ideal form - not shiny at all.

But you can't buy the ideal form...All the ones you can buy are just as non-shiny as the others....

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/pro...?do=ignorelist

BOb

Thankyou Bob.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There's no such thing a used data. Complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, or even purchased from the copyright holder/agent or from somebody else, but no used. Each copy is just as shiny as the first one, forever....

Yes exactly. Just another example of how digital media is different to analogue media and why it will be treated differently. Anyone deluded enough to think everything will stay the same must either be a publisher or off with the fairies.

And consumers have never had the right to sell "new" media full of content that they do not have the copyright to.

Mind you, for those who would imply I am "advocating" something I am not or who would go even further and simply lie about what I have stated let me be clear. I am not advocating anything, merely stating a fact.


Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

Your explicit and repeatedly stated support for limiting user rights based only on the medium which data is supplied in, regardless of other concerns such as user rights and fair use, is not "necessary" unless you chose to believe the line given by big media hook, line and sinker.

The only fact is that you are trying to state as a fact what is no more and no less than the blatantly anti-consumer line which has produced such gems as restrictive DRM, regional restrictions and the ACTA, and you are supporting the very reasoning which produced them - your so-called "opposition" to those technologies is completely inconsistent with your actual party line.

If big media wants to alter the rights concerning media, they either need to drastically drop their prices to account for the fact that they are delivering a far less usable product or to give the user other rights more appropriate to the medium rather than the selfish "gimmie" approach which you are stating is somehow a "fact".

Strangely enough, outside America, that approach gets remarkably little support. From anyone outside the political process or paid by big media. (They pay a lot of people, of course, but...)

In the longer run, all you are going to achieve by pushing that line is the radicalism of a younger generation against copyright, and a blanket private copy exemption from them as a result.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

The ebooks that I have bought said that they were new, but the electrons were all pre-owned The edition of Plato that I bought, in particular, was a mere shadow of its ideal form - not shiny at all.

But is an electronic copy of The Republic any more of a "shadow" than a paper copy?

[GlenBarrington]

As a producer of what is described as intellectual property (photography, computer software), I think the whole idea of intellectual property is not only dying, but is becoming increasingly unenforceable.

DRM is really just an effort to continue the concept of IP. It is ultimately doomed to fail for no other reason than to be effective, it has to be inconvenient enough that it isn't worth the effort of copying. And at some point, the inconvenience will outweigh the desire to use the qualities the intellectual property represents.

We need a different way to encourage people to produce what we now describe as intellectual property. As a political conservative, I LIKE capitalism (and the US Constituion-as much a world treasure in my mind as the US Declaration of Independence. If you haven't read either one, look them up, they are both very short and very understandable to modern readers ).

Maybe we need to broaden our definition of just what Capitalism is.

Money isn't the only way to quantify self interest. Maybe we aren't looking granularly enough. Maybe we are stopping at money as the primary motivator just because that is what we are used to. Maybe there are other motivators just as effective and easier to manage in a digital age.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

We need a different way to encourage people to produce what we now describe as intellectual property. As a political conservative, I LIKE capitalism

I suspect the majority of people feel, Glen, that capitalism is all well and good - up to a point. All companies have a goal of trying to dominate their market, but should they succeed in doing so, and establishing an effective monopoly in that market, then laws are required to prevent them from exploiting that monopoly against the best interests of the consumer. DRM is a good example of capitalism (the effective monopoly of the book publishing market by a handful of publishers) acting against the interests of the consumer. In that respect, capitalism is not good.

[Iphinome]

Glen are you suggesting a Whuffie economy?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

All companies have a goal of trying to dominate their market, but should they succeed in doing so, and establishing an effective monopoly in that market, then laws are required to prevent them from exploiting that monopoly against the best interests of the consumer.

Not all companies want to dominate the market; some are content to be one option among many, and trust that their features will draw enough paid attention to keep them in business. Not every mom-and-pop store wants to become Walmart (Tesco?); not every traveling circus dreams of growing into Disneyland.

I'm at Dreamwidth in part because they *don't* want to be the "biggest and best" social networking site on the web. They're not trying to replace Twitter or Myspace or even Livejournal whose software they're based on.

Baen, as far as I know, isn't trying to be the only bookseller online, or even the only publisher of science fiction. It'd like to be bigger, but not necessarily the only one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not all companies want to dominate the market; some are content to be one option among many, and trust that their features will draw enough paid attention to keep them in business. Not every mom-and-pop store wants to become Walmart (Tesco?); not every traveling circus dreams of growing into Disneyland.

True. But it is as an irony of capitalism that people are told that "world domination" is a desirable goal, and yet the consequences of that are so clearly undesirable that we actually have laws to protect consumers from it, just in case anyone should actually succeed.