How totally ridiculous! A child can understand the difference between you loaning a single copyrighted book to 200 people and and duplicating 200 pirated books and giving them away. You hang yourself with this lame notion. Speculation, not an argument. Kindle has rules that you agreed to when you signed on. They obviously have to take steps to protect themselves from pirate like yourself. How are you supposed to assure Kindle that your have deleted your original and have no backup copies. This is less of a copyright issue, than a security issue for an electronic bookstore that provides you a service. Personal opinion, not shared by most. I work with publishers frequently and their model is evolving, not dying. But copyrights evolve, too, they don;t just disappear for your convenience, cheapskate. Attempting to change the subject. I don't blame you, but libraries are huge assets to universities, cities, and society in general. Start a new thread if you want to take on libraries. Good luck with that. You just aren't paying attention. I'm explaining the good reasons that the laws are there. The whole issue is about copyright, which is a law. You can't try to exclude it from the debate just because you are losing it so badly.
not speculation. kindle does in fact restrict loaning. and these are books i legally own and have paid for. i never agreed to anything. its simply about maximizing revenue. the question for us is whether we side with the reading public, or the profiteering corporations. i loaned a book once, a kindle book, then another amigo asked to borrow it, i couldnt! it was terrible and i hated it. makes me want an open platform. that woud change the revenue model, like the device would cost more, not subsidized by the profit from the media. but that is ok. it would mean more profit and jobs in the hardware, and fewer in the distribution of media, but that isnt my concern. (why i say my concern, i mean society)
I don't know about ya'll, but if someone loans me a book, I'm not gonna go out and buy it to phucking stare at it....
1. I can't stop murder either, so why don't we just make it legal? (here I have applied an argument as ridiculous as your comparisons of music to potatos) and 2. You persist in equating everything on the internet to be "information." There is a big difference between, say, a hurricane forecast, which by all means should be spread as quickly and widely as possible, and the latest RATM recording, which is the product of the band's work and their intellectual property to be sold (or given away if they wish) as they please. We've had at least 13 years, which is about when Napster in its original "p2p file sharing" format came into existence. Man has understood what is right and wrong for much longer than that. Couldn't agree more. You have information that will help people survive a blizzard, or identify a serial killer, or help us find the WMD's in Iraq, by all means, share away. But the only people who gain from music "sharing" (stealing) is the music thief, at the expense of the musician. Music is the product of someone's hard work and creativity. It is not information. Does this mean you've given up on your potato replicator? Star Trek fans the world over will be so disappointed. Of course they're different. Music is not tangible; it is, however, the result of someone's intellectual process, and that person has a right to be compensated for distributing the result, if he so chooses. You've thrown an apple and a banana onto the table and asked me to prove they are oranges. Copyright does not guarantee anyone a living. It allows the creator to retain the right to attempt to profit from his work. You forgot to finish the sentence....."and if I don't want to pay for it, I can always steal it, and there's nothing you can do about it." To repeat what Red has stressed ad infinitum, changes in technology do not mean we redefine right and wrong. Because I can't condone a thief telling me he has the right to steal.
