Free Magazines on your laptop?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is absolutely not "OK" to link to illegal material. Whether or not the copyright holder "suffers" or "benefits" from the copying is entirely irrelevent. Illegal material is inappropriate for MR. Full stop!

Harry, that is the point I was trying to make. I was trying to show the inconsistency if Mygazines was OK but Harry Potter was not when there really is no difference between the two. I do not want my words that you quoted to be seen as approval of illegal copying, which I do not support.

[WillAdams]

On a rather different note, http://www.qmags.com has offered some free magazines (legitimately, as free samples) and provides a fair number of trade magazines for free (I get _Computer Graphics Weekly_ from them).

William

[Charles Patrick]

Those of you who want to read magazine content on your mobile devices may have an interest in this product:

Http://www.News2PDF.com

I'm one of the people working on it, and I'd like to hear your comments.

Thanks

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No they are not stupid. If they permit this copyright violation without expressly agreeing to it, it will be thrown in their face should they try to enforce another violation. There are cases that say once you waive your rights consider them unenforceable everywhere.

That's how trademark works, but not copyright. The copyright owner can grant or forbid any number of uses without affecting the right to do the same in the future. Copyright is not a "use it or lose it" right. Copyright is "the right to decide;" trademark is "the right to associate your label with your products."

If your label gets associated with other products and you don't stop it, you've lost that right. If, however, you *decide* to allow some uses of your material (possibly because it'd cost more to litigate than you're losing from the use thereof), you have exercised your copyright; you can't lose it through inaction.

This is an important point in copyright discussions, because there are some authors & publishers who mistakenly think that they do have to enforce their rights on small, not-economically-problematic violations. (Or large, costing-them-millions violations, but there's usually not much of a debate about whether to go after those.)

(IANAL)