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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Unless both sides agree to vary the terms of the contract. Which is what happened.

Your representatives in your Congress agreed to vary the terms on your behalf.

At what compensation to the public?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

By the same concept, a mortgage is a property, as well. So you believe that the government should be able to extend the terms of a mortgage, to suit the needs of the mortgage owner?

Yes, a mortgage is definitely a property; they are bought and sold quite regularly. However the government didn't set the length of my mortgage, the bank and I agreed via contract, and provisions existed to change or otherwise renegotiate the length. The government did set the length of my copyright and I know they could change it without reference to me* (although I don't expect they will do so to in the immediate future) and I will arrange my situation accordingly.

* Yes, in theory my representative casts a vote on my behalf, but in reality my representative has no idea I exist.

It's all very well to get upset about property values changing outside your control, but then copyright is hardly the only example of this (eg: all those people that lost out in the housing market crash). I don't think any of us seriously expect the government will suddenly make copyright worthless. I suspect only a very few of us seriously expect government might make copyright perpetual. That copyright might extend beyond its current most common base of life+70 is feasible, but I think it is highly unlikely in most places, although I'm not placing bets on U.S.A., especially not at the moment.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

"since the statute of 8 Anne, the literary property of an author in his works can only be asserted under the statute. . . . That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, or by improperly obtaining a copy endeavours to realise a profit by its publication cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world."

Even this ruling supports the concept that copyrighted "property" is different from what is commonly thought of as property.

Ralph--

You're taking that out of context. Please read the entire case, and what McLean was talking about. This was a case about "dueling" copyrights. I'm not saying that you're misreading it--but you're misreading it, by not reading it in the context of the entire case being discussed.

And nobody here said that copyright was tangible property. So what? What's that got to do with anything in this conversation? What, exactly, is your point? Stocks and bonds aren't "tangible" property, in the sense of diamonds or furs or houses, but I suspect you wouldn't want someone taking the ones that belonged to you, either.

Hitch

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Ralph--

You're taking that out of context. Please read the entire case, and what McLean was talking about. This was a case about "dueling" copyrights. I'm not saying that you're misreading it--but you're misreading it, by not reading it in the context of the entire case being discussed.

And nobody here said that copyright was tangible property. So what? What's that got to do with anything in this conversation? What, exactly, is your point? Stocks and bonds aren't "tangible" property, in the sense of diamonds or furs or houses, but I suspect you wouldn't want someone taking the ones that belonged to you, either.

Hitch

But Hitch, I don't expect bonds (which have a payoff date) to continue in perpetuity. Nor do i expect that the payoff to keep being extended, over and over again.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Really? Explain to me the difference. Both are defined term contracts. One between a lender and a person, and the other between a creator (sic) and the sum of all people in a jurisdiction.

What a government (or any other entity) can|should|may do with said property has zero bearing on whether or not it can be considered "property" (legally or etymologically). We already have different forms of property that are treated differently by governments. So you claiming a mortgage can qualify as "property" (abeit a "different kind") is well and good, but asking what that would mean in terms of potential governmental treatment of same "does not follow." It could mean anything. Just like it already does. There is no hard and fast property to government treatment formula.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What a government (or any other entity) can|should|may do with said property has zero bearing on whether or not it can be considered "property" (legally or etymologically). We already have different forms of property that are treated differently by governments. So you claiming a mortgage can qualify as "property" (abeit a "different kind") is well and good, but asking what that would mean in terms of potential governmental treatment of same "does not follow." It could mean anything. Just like it already does. There is no hard and fast property to government treatment formula.

Which means there is no "hard and fast" limitation to what the government can do. . .

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But Hitch, I don't expect bonds (which have a payoff date) to continue in perpetuity. Nor do i expect that the payoff to keep being extended, over and over again.

As long a company is in existence my stocks would continue in perpetuity.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Which means there is no "hard and fast" limitation to what the government can do. . .

Right. Though why that's relevant to why copyright IS or ISN'T property completely eludes me. First you argue something isn't property because "government" ... and then you argue government might <something> because "property." The entire thread of your "argument" (a word I'm going to use loosely) is very difficult to cling to. It's like you're asking if I walk to school or pack my lunch.

Since what is property and what the government can (or does) do with property are two distinct discussions, I fail to see why you insist on conflating them.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by gmw

Yes, a mortgage is definitely a property; they are bought and sold quite regularly. However the government didn't set the length of my mortgage, the bank and I agreed via contract, and provisions existed to change or otherwise renegotiate the length. The government did set the length of my copyright and I know they could change it without reference to me* (although I don't expect they will do so to in the immediate future) and I will arrange my situation accordingly.

* Yes, in theory my representative casts a vote on my behalf, but in reality my representative has no idea I exist.

It's all very well to get upset about property values changing outside your control, but then copyright is hardly the only example of this (eg: all those people that lost out in the housing market crash). I don't think any of us seriously expect the government will suddenly make copyright worthless. I suspect only a very few of us seriously expect government might make copyright perpetual. That copyright might extend beyond its current most common base of life+70 is feasible, but I think it is highly unlikely in most places, although I'm not placing bets on U.S.A., especially not at the moment.

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. (Just like your car loan isn't property, nor your credit card debt.) In common law, a mortgage is an estate, create by a conveyance (deed) which secures an act (repayment of lent amounts). A Mortgage is NOT property, and please, don't conflate it with such.

Yes, they are bought and sold, just as are other instruments, which are also not property in the sense you're trying to assign to them.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What a government (or any other entity) can|should|may do with said property has zero bearing on whether or not it can be considered "property" (legally or etymologically). We already have different forms of property that are treated differently by governments. So you claiming a mortgage can qualify as "property" (abeit a "different kind") is well and good, but asking what that would mean in terms of potential governmental treatment of same "does not follow." It could mean anything. Just like it already does. There is no hard and fast property to government treatment formula.

Because, again, mortgages are not properties. They are financial instruments created by lenders. Because they are construed as being important to the citizenry, for all the obvious reasons, they are REGULATED by government, presumably to help borrowers and homeowners. Of course, we all know how that's worked out in the past, but again--not property, and subject to regulation.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Which means there is no "hard and fast" limitation to what the government can do. . .

Voters determine what government can and cannot do, and if necessary, rebellion. That's the limitation. Jefferson said it best, as we all know--we get the government we deserve.

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

I did not mean I agree with the notion of mortgage-as-property. I was merely pointing out that arguing for the notion based on different definitions and legal findings is all well and good. And that ultimately its inclusion or exclusion in the Property Party has very little to do with how a government might choose to treat "mortgage."

"If mortgage = property, then what does that mean the government would do with it" is not a solvable formula.

[mrpotts]

I store all my books as PDFs and on my local storage, backed up on disk and on the cloud. Years worth of tech manuals with detailed notes are not to be trusted to unknown individuals running a company focused on financial profit.

Before I buy any books, and I do, I always search for the title with a pdf extension. 60-70% of the time, a pdf opens with the book. Perfectly legal on my part and I have zero moral issue with it, and I think you are silly if you do. If I find I’m reading an author a lot I’ll go out of my way to buy from them directly. But my first obligation is to the finances of my family as opposed to an unknown author without the sense to protect their work. I wouldn’t want it done to me, but again family finances come first.
Just my 2cents
Phil

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I did not mean I agree with the notion of mortgage-as-property. I was merely pointing out that arguing for the notion based on different definitions and legal findings is all well and good. And that ultimately its inclusion or exclusion in the Property Party has very little to do with how a government might choose to treat "mortgage."

"If mortgage = property, then what does that mean the government would do with it" is not a solvable formula.

I agree, and I know that. I was just...clarifying, before, like the whole "copyrights aren't property" discussion, we didn't go down a rabbit hole of "well, *I* think that yadda=yidda, therefore..."

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by mrpotts

I store all my books as PDFs and on my local storage, backed up on disk and on the cloud. Years worth of tech manuals with detailed notes are not to be trusted to unknown individuals running a company focused on financial profit.

Before I buy any books, and I do, I always search for the title with a pdf extension. 60-70% of the time, a pdf opens with the book. Perfectly legal on my part and I have zero moral issue with it, and I think you are silly if you do. If I find I’m reading an author a lot I’ll go out of my way to buy from them directly. But my first obligation is to the finances of my family as opposed to an unknown author without the sense to protect their work. I wouldn’t want it done to me, but again family finances come first.
Just my 2cents
Phil

So, since you want the books, and apparently, can't afford them, you take them sans payment, because the author was stupid enough not to protect them with DRM? That's your argument?

Rather than simply going without, as you can't afford it by buying it properly?

Hitch

[Greg Anos]

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. (Just like your car loan isn't property, nor your credit card debt.) In common law, a mortgage is an estate, create by a conveyance (deed) which secures an act (repayment of lent amounts). A Mortgage is NOT property, and please, don't conflate it with such.

Yes, they are bought and sold, just as are other instruments, which are also not property in the sense you're trying to assign to them.



Because, again, mortgages are not properties. They are financial instruments created by lenders. Because they are construed as being important to the citizenry, for all the obvious reasons, they are REGULATED by government, presumably to help borrowers and homeowners. Of course, we all know how that's worked out in the past, but again--not property, and subject to regulation.



Voters determine what government can and cannot do, and if necessary, rebellion. That's the limitation. Jefferson said it best, as we all know--we get the government we deserve.

Hitch

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.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by mrpotts

Before I buy any books, and I do, I always search for the title with a pdf extension. 60-70% of the time, a pdf opens with the book. Perfectly legal on my part and I have zero moral issue with it, and I think you are silly if you do.

Moderator Notice
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.