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

[gmw]

While there can be differences in interpretation between contexts (in this case we have legal, accounting/economics and conversational contexts), I am not aware of any substantial differences in the case of "property" nor "assets". Property is a thing* or things owned, assets are property of value**. Everywhere I look I see confirmation of these basic definitions. If there is a real difference in interpretation in some locales then that would be interesting to know, but such a claim needs substantiation.


* If you want to claim copyright is not a "thing" then perhaps you can tell us what you think it is that could conceivably not be a thing. Beware: even the 1925 American dictionary I have here includes "conceived to be distinct" in its definition of "thing" - thingness was not limited to the physical realm even then.

** Sure, legal and accounting add the requirement that assets are able to be used to pay liabilities, but that just means there are some things we might speak of as assets in general conversation that are not legally part of our assets. That doesn't apply to this conversation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And then, of course, there's the tons of people who have no difficulty understanding that copyright can--both legally and generally (by pre-1970s dictionary definitions)--be considered "property." Considering it so doesn't break the world. And it certainly doesn't cause me any conversational grief. *shrug*

Whatever, you continue to ignore the point and I suspect that is intentional.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

While there can be differences in interpretation between contexts (in this case we have legal, accounting/economics and conversational contexts), I am not aware of any substantial differences in the case of "property" nor "assets". Property is a thing* or things owned, assets are property of value**. Everywhere I look I see confirmation of these basic definitions. If there is a real difference in interpretation in some locales then that would be interesting to know, but such a claim needs substantiation.


* If you want to claim copyright is not a "thing" then perhaps you can tell us what you think it is that could conceivably not be a thing. Beware: even the 1925 American dictionary I have here includes "conceived to be distinct" in its definition of "thing" - thingness was not limited to the physical realm even then.

** Sure, legal and accounting add the requirement that assets are able to be used to pay liabilities, but that just means there are some things we might speak of as assets in general conversation that are not legally part of our assets. That doesn't apply to this conversation.

Once again, the point is that words can be used as a rhetorical device. The term intellectual property is a rhetorical device meant to leave the reader/listener with the idea that an idea/government granted monopoly should be treated the same as what most consider property such as land or a house, i.e. the copyright holder has a moral right to that monopoly for longer and longer periods of time.

Way back when the original statute of Anne was debated, one of the rhetorical devices used to get sympathy for the idea was one of Milton's heirs was in the poor house. If only you pass this, then such situations would not occur, they said, ignoring the fact that Milton himself sold Paradise Lost to a publisher and even if the law had been in place when Milton wrote Paradise Lost, the heir would have been no better off. Thus, the poor widow and orphans argument that still gets trotter out for extending copyright yet again goes all the way back to the beginning of assigning a copyright to the actual author rather than to some well connected printer or publisher which was the origin of copyright.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Once again, the point is that words can be used as a rhetorical device. [...]

I'm not denying that, but you have utterly failed to convince me that this is the case here.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And then, of course, there's the tons of people who have no difficulty understanding that copyright can--both legally and generally (by pre-1970s dictionary definitions)--be considered "property." Considering it so doesn't break the world. And it certainly doesn't cause me any conversational grief. *shrug*

Oh so that's how we measure the things. They're okay if they don't break the world and don't cause you any conversational grief. Good to know!

Barry

[leebase]

Originally Posted by mrpotts

That's ridiculous. I've not mentioned anything about piracy, only searching for a book title. Want to go to court over this? You will loose because internet searches are not illegal, nor is saving data from a publicly available web page. Want to kick me off this forum? I've been a low-level contributing member since 2010, if you do, I never should have been here in the first place.

Phil

Actually, saving data from a publicly available website can indeed be illegal. What is a music file but data? An ebook is data. And you can indeed be sued for downloading copyrighted material. You can also lose your right to access the internet...sure hope your town has more than one internet provider in case you get banned for downloading copyrighted material.

Just google Napster and the RIAA

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

ignoring the fact that Milton himself sold Paradise Lost to a publisher and even if the law had been in place when Milton wrote Paradise Lost, the heir would have been no better off.

Of course they were. A copyright protection made the copyright liquid and the authors were able to make much better deals with publishers than Milton did.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Of course they were. A copyright protection made the copyright liquid and the authors were able to make much better deals with publishers than Milton did.

Not really, the publishers guild still had a monopoly on publishing. Milton actually got paid a pretty good price for the time period. He was paid 5 pounds in up front money, then paid another 5 pounds once 1,300 copies were sold and would have been paid another 10 pounds if 2,6000 copies were sold. His widow was paid 8 pounds once the second and third editions were printed. There just weren't that many books sold back then.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by barryem

Thanks. I think I saw that at one time but I don't remember even what it was about.

Barry

It was about an hour and forty-eight minutes.

Thank you! I'll be here all week!

[rogueconnecticut]

I'm always a bit surprised at the prices of some ebooks, especially when the cheaper version on Amazon is actually the softcover version. I would read so much more if a lot of ebooks weren't a ripoff.

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by rogueconnecticut

I'm always a bit surprised at the prices of some ebooks, especially when the cheaper version on Amazon is actually the softcover version. I would read so much more if a lot of ebooks weren't a ripoff.

New sold by Amazon, or used sold by a third party? I don't pay that much attention to the different prices, but don't often see Kindle books costing more than the new print version.

Even so...you implying that cost justifies piracy?

Adding...my public library has a great selection of digital books, so many of the books I read are borrowed.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

New sold by Amazon, or used sold by a third party? I don't pay that much attention to the different prices, but don't often see Kindle books costing more than the new print version.

They are out there though. I just bought a book the other day published by one of the biggies. I bought the book because it was on sale, but the regular listed digital price was a dollar more than the paperback. I can't remember which book or I'd link to it.

[Deskisamess]

They are out there though.

Sure, but it used to be a frequent complaint of users on the old Amazon forum, but most posters couldn't back up their rants about digital books always costing more than print versions. Many times they were looking at prices for used books, and many times had not really done serious price checking.

My POV is that digital books are worth more than print version because of the benefits they offer.

Given the tread topic, the question to rogueconnecticut is, is high price a defensible motivation for piracy?

[DiapDealer]

Yep. Even around here, people always tried to suggest that ebooks being priced higher than their print counterparts was a rampant problem. It never really was. Beside all the apples-to-oranges comparison (huge sales on print editions vs non-sale-priced ebooks), there was also the "nickel-and-dimers" ($0.99 here or there doesn't really constitute a "price difference" in my opinion).

[barryem]

I'm always browsing Amazon's Kindle books and looking at information and prices on books I've heard about. I probably spend from 30 minutes to an hour doing that every day, sometimes more. And I don't find ebook prices to be higher, generally than print books. But sometimes they are.

I agree that it's not often enough to be called anything like rampant, occasionally would describe it better, it's still a bit jarring when I do see it. It does cost less to make and sell an ebook once there's a print book. Also there's the long tail of the ebook, which should affect pricing.

We live in a capitalist society and cost isn't always what determines price. Demand is probably the more important factor. Whim is probably a factor at times, as well. And that's as it should be. But when you're looking at a page with both formats and the ebook costs more it's disconcerting. The sellers aren't taking into consideration the appearance of cheating. I think it's bad marketing. Of course my marketing experience ended after my first day of running an after school lemonade stand so I may not be an expert.

Still, it does look bad even if it's not bad. It's about greed and that's what makes capitalism work. But in this case it's in your face greed. It's ugly.

Barry