Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 1537449" data-attributes="member: 158">My thought is that the sale is still a loss, at least in part, and therefore still breaks the old law of supply and demand. To use the old adage, &quot;calling it as one sees it,&quot; if it's a loss, it's a loss, whether in whole or in part. Reading a book in a library, or thumbing it in a bookstore, is both legal and permissible by all three parties concerned - vendor, reseller, and consumer. In other words, when the reseller buys the book from the vendor, it's theirs to sell or give away - or even return, by the funky laws that govern book sales. That copy and that license has been transacted, and the only contract to worry about then is between reseller and consumer. Now, if you make a copy of said work, there's a NEW contract to deal with - between you and the vendor, and it's been breached.Again, this is what I'm seeing by my reasoning, and it still breaks the basic law of supply and demand to say one doesn't want a thing - and then still take it anyway. I'm not trying to comment on ethics of it, because that's an issue that alone could bring entirely new laws to alter the way things are done about it. But just given the basic social and economic contracts that govern the situation as-is, I still have to just call it as I see it, and agree to disagree that &quot;there is no loss if someone supposedly wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get a copy through illegal download.&quot;Oh, and in answer to the question that &quot;if I read the book in the store, is it illegal copying?&quot; If I had eidetic memory, it could be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 1537449, member: 158"] My thought is that the sale is still a loss, at least in part, and therefore still breaks the old law of supply and demand. To use the old adage, "calling it as one sees it," if it's a loss, it's a loss, whether in whole or in part. Reading a book in a library, or thumbing it in a bookstore, is both legal and permissible by all three parties concerned - vendor, reseller, and consumer. In other words, when the reseller buys the book from the vendor, it's theirs to sell or give away - or even return, by the funky laws that govern book sales. That copy and that license has been transacted, and the only contract to worry about then is between reseller and consumer. Now, if you make a copy of said work, there's a NEW contract to deal with - between you and the vendor, and it's been breached. Again, this is what I'm seeing by my reasoning, and it still breaks the basic law of supply and demand to say one doesn't want a thing - and then still take it anyway. I'm not trying to comment on ethics of it, because that's an issue that alone could bring entirely new laws to alter the way things are done about it. But just given the basic social and economic contracts that govern the situation as-is, I still have to just call it as I see it, and agree to disagree that "there is no loss if someone supposedly wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get a copy through illegal download." Oh, and in answer to the question that "if I read the book in the store, is it illegal copying?" If I had eidetic memory, it could be. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification