And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it will make book publishing more profitable. "
OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill printed books or not ?
On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running > around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they > think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it > will make book publishing more profitable. "
> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill > printed books or not ?
I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, and binding.
So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it doesn't kill the publisher.
> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running >> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they >> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it >> will make book publishing more profitable. "
>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill >> printed books or not ?
> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more > profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, > and binding.
> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it > doesn't kill the publisher.
> John Savard
Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to > buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version > of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
It's certainly true of some fraction of my audience, some of whom have bought TWO e-book versions of my novels AND purchased at least one and sometimes two physical versions.
>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote: >>> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running >>>> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they >>>> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it >>>> will make book publishing more profitable. "
>>>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill >>>> printed books or not ?
>>> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more >>> profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, >>> and binding.
>>> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it >>> doesn't kill the publisher.
>>> John Savard
>> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to >> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version >> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
>> Lynn
> Maybe, but if I've already read a book, and I can conveniently re-read > it, I'd have to *really* like it to buy a dead-tree version and I'd > want it leather-bound with top-quality paper etc etc.
www.lulu.com will do that for you for anything they have in their publishing rights.
Some SF (Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age), have production of solid items virtually free. If you have the rights to print a book you have a copy of, you can do so cheaply.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
On May 4, 9:45 am, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to > buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version > of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
I remember John Dvorak most vividly for a column in InfoWorld where he expressed doubts about IBM going from the keyboard style used with the AT to the model M. For example, why add two function keys - F11 and F12, he asked, when clearly no software would dare to use them, as it wouldn't work with any computer that still had the older keyboards?
Normally, that would have been a very sensible question to ask.
But, in fact, it was a really stupid question - and I was astounded at his ignorance. IBM, before the IBM PC even existed, made a line of terminals for its mainframes that had twelve function keys.
Having only ten function keys on the PC keyboard meant that terminal emulation programs which allowed a PC to connect to an IBM mainframe as a 3270 had to use awkward key substitutions, and could not just use the function keys of the PC as the terminal function keys.
And, of course, the Model M was vitally necessary and long overdue for other reasons - while the AT had improved significantly on the original PC keyboard by correcting the position of the Enter key and of the left-hand Shift key, the Backspace key was now in an inappropriate position. The Model M corrected that, finally putting all the important keys adjacent to the main typing area of the keyboard in their correct classic electric typewriter positions.
> > On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running > >> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they > >> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it > >> will make book publishing more profitable. "
> >> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill > >> printed books or not ?
> > I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more > > profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, > > and binding.
> > So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it > > doesn't kill the publisher.
> > John Savard
> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to > buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version > of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
In my case he is. For example Jim Butcher's new Dresden book _Ghost Story_ is due out in hardback in July, presumably paperback a year later. Normally, I'd wait until the paperback and stick my fingers in my ears whenever someone starts talking about it here or elsewhere.
Now, I'll buy the kindle edition on release and buy the paperback a year or two down the track to fill the collection.
Of course, there are a LOT of books that I'll buy on kindle and never bother getting the physical edition on the grounds they aren't good enough. I'll simply keep soft copies off-kindle somewhere so if I ever get the urge to read them again, they'll be handy.
There are also some books I'll never get on kindle. Pratchett, for example. I love his footnotes and they just don't work as e-books. And don't get me started on fantasy maps on kindle editions...
> On 5/4/2011 12:55 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote: >> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running >>>>> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they >>>>> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it >>>>> will make book publishing more profitable. "
>>>>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill >>>>> printed books or not ?
>>>> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more >>>> profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, >>>> and binding.
>>>> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it >>>> doesn't kill the publisher.
>>>> John Savard
>>> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to >>> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version >>> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
>>> Lynn
>> Maybe, but if I've already read a book, and I can conveniently re-read >> it, I'd have to *really* like it to buy a dead-tree version and I'd >> want it leather-bound with top-quality paper etc etc.
> www.lulu.com will do that for you for anything they have > in their publishing rights.
> Lynn
Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running >> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they >> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it >> will make book publishing more profitable. "
>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill >> printed books or not ?
> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more > profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, > and binding.
> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it > doesn't kill the publisher.
> John Savard
Ebooks might "kill" "fast food" paperbooks, the "disposable" pop fiction that are the equivalent of summer "popcorn" flicks. Meanwhile the major works might become more valuable the way horse and carriage travel is reserved for special occassions in countries were automobiles are commonplace.
On Thursday, May 5, 2011 3:31:53 AM UTC-5, Ken from Chicago wrote: > "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message > news:ips6k5$29i$1@dont-email.me... > > On 5/4/2011 12:55 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote: > >> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote: > >>>> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l....@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>>>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running > >>>>> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they > >>>>> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it > >>>>> will make book publishing more profitable. "
> >>>>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill > >>>>> printed books or not ?
> >>>> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more > >>>> profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, > >>>> and binding.
> >>>> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it > >>>> doesn't kill the publisher.
> >>>> John Savard
> >>> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to > >>> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version > >>> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
> >>> Lynn
> >> Maybe, but if I've already read a book, and I can conveniently re-read > >> it, I'd have to *really* like it to buy a dead-tree version and I'd > >> want it leather-bound with top-quality paper etc etc.
> > www.lulu.com will do that for you for anything they have > > in their publishing rights.
> > Lynn
> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it > bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
You *can*, but it's expensive. And depending on printing tech and paper, possibly not too time-resistant (though fused toner xerography has gotten better over the years).
> "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message news:ips6k5$29i$1@dont-email.me... >> On 5/4/2011 12:55 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote: >>> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running >>>>>> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they >>>>>> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it >>>>>> will make book publishing more profitable. "
>>>>>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill >>>>>> printed books or not ?
>>>>> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more >>>>> profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, >>>>> and binding.
>>>>> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it >>>>> doesn't kill the publisher.
>>>>> John Savard
>>>> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to >>>> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version >>>> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
>>>> Lynn
>>> Maybe, but if I've already read a book, and I can conveniently re-read >>> it, I'd have to *really* like it to buy a dead-tree version and I'd >>> want it leather-bound with top-quality paper etc etc.
>> www.lulu.com will do that for you for anything they have >> in their publishing rights.
>> Lynn
> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
> -- Ken from Chicago
I would think you would need to own the publishing rights. Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:43:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>I would think you would need to own the publishing rights. >Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to also have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
Is there a market for e-scores to be read on pads on someone's music stand? That could be useful - don't print it at all, and maybe even make it smart enough to scroll or page.
Someday, I expect "The Diamond Age" type technology to be real enough that virtual ownership rights are more important than physical ownership rights.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:43:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> > wrote:
>>> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>> I would think you would need to own the publishing rights. >> Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
> Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
> If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to also > have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
> Is there a market for e-scores to be read on pads on someone's music > stand? That could be useful - don't print it at all, and maybe even > make it smart enough to scroll or page.
> Someday, I expect "The Diamond Age" type technology to be real enough > that virtual ownership rights are more important than physical > ownership rights.
To me, it depends if you use your own printer in your home or a commercial printer like www.lulu.com. Most commercial printers will not print something that you obviously do not have the publishing rights for.
On Thursday, May 5, 2011 10:43:41 AM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 5/5/2011 3:31 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message news:ips6k5$29i$1@dont-email.me... > >> On 5/4/2011 12:55 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote: > >>> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote: > >>>>> On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire<l....@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running > >>>>>> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they > >>>>>> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it > >>>>>> will make book publishing more profitable. "
> >>>>>> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill > >>>>>> printed books or not ?
> >>>>> I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more > >>>>> profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink, > >>>>> and binding.
> >>>>> So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it > >>>>> doesn't kill the publisher.
> >>>>> John Savard
> >>>> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to > >>>> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version > >>>> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
> >>>> Lynn
> >>> Maybe, but if I've already read a book, and I can conveniently re-read > >>> it, I'd have to *really* like it to buy a dead-tree version and I'd > >>> want it leather-bound with top-quality paper etc etc.
> >> www.lulu.com will do that for you for anything they have > >> in their publishing rights.
> >> Lynn
> > Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
> > -- Ken from Chicago
> I would think you would need to own the publishing rights. > Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite. So, your basic idea is correct, but there's a special case. (And, technically, you can't then sell off your original, unless you destroy the copy.)
In article <71i5s65rmu972bp9msn6am5473lg0di...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
>If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to also >have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
I believe that that varies by national law. I have the dim memory that Norway and Australia allow or used to allow personal copies and the US doesn't, but I have no sources to point to and don't care to research it, especially while at work.
In article <8642708d-ca62-4e1d-9ddb-1ae83b9a5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts.sf.written@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical copy, >and so naturally falls under copywrite.
"Copyright".
Cite?
"Fair use" appears to be a national concept. For example, if <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada> be believed, Commonwealth countries may have "fair dealing" which differs in some respects from the US; for example, Canadian laws does not expressly protect parody.
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
and later "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: '... reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy ...". But it doesn't say reproduction of an entire work by a private individual, and point 3 would seem to tilt against it.
Tim McDaniel wrote: > In article > <8642708d-ca62-4e1d-9ddb-1ae83b9a5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, > David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts.sf.written@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto > >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical copy, and > >so naturally falls under copywrite.
> "Copyright".
> Cite?
> "Fair use" appears to be a national concept. For example, if > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada> be believed, > Commonwealth countries may have "fair dealing" which differs in some > respects from the US; for example, Canadian laws does not expressly > protect parody.
> 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use > is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. > The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality > of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. > The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the > copyrighted work
> and later "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the > General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of > activities that courts have regarded as fair use: '... reproduction > by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy > ...". But it doesn't say reproduction of an entire work by a private > individual, and point 3 would seem to tilt against it.
> In article <71i5s65rmu972bp9msn6am5473lg0di...@4ax.com>, > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote: >>Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
>>If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to >>also have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
> I believe that that varies by national law. I have the dim > memory that Norway and Australia allow or used to allow personal > copies and the US doesn't, but I have no sources to point to and > don't care to research it, especially while at work.
Actually, DMCA specifically allows that sort of backup (as did Title 17 prior to DMCA). It also prohibits the tools necessary to make them, elsewhere.
Despite the claims of a lot of people who have no clue what they're talking about, US law is still unclear (because it hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet), but is very, very likely to be that yes, we do have the right to make backups of encrypted electronic files, even if we have to break the encryption to do it.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek
> Tim McDaniel wrote: >> In article >> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d-9ddb-1ae83b9a5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googleg >> roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet >> <rec.arts.sf.written@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto >> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical >> >copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>> "Copyright".
>> Cite?
>> "Fair use" appears to be a national concept. For example, if >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada> be >> believed, Commonwealth countries may have "fair dealing" which >> differs in some respects from the US; for example, Canadian >> laws does not expressly protect parody.
>> 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether >> such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit >> educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. >> The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation >> to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect of the use >> upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted >> work
>> and later "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on >> the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples >> of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: '... >> reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace >> part of a damaged copy ...". But it doesn't say reproduction >> of an entire work by a private individual, and point 3 would >> seem to tilt against it.
>> Tim McDaniel wrote: >>> In article >>> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d-9ddb-1ae83b9a5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googleg >>> roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet >>> <rec.arts.sf.written@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto >>> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical >>> >copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (f) would seem to apply rather >directly to digital files.
Thank you both for the citations! It's refreshing to see citations in a discussion.
For the second: I'm not familiar with how to cite and use the US Code, Is <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201--...> the correct section, on Reverse Engineering? I don't have time for more than a quick read, but the quick glance looks like it's more appropriate for reverse-engineering a driver to work on Linux, for example, than making a copy of a DVD. But maybe there are inferences that I haven't thought of.
>>> Tim McDaniel wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d-9ddb-1ae83b9a5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googl >>>> eg roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet >>>> <rec.arts.sf.written@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto >>>> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical >>>> >copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
> I don't have time for more than a quick read, but the quick > glance looks like it's more appropriate for reverse-engineering > a driver to work on Linux, for example, than making a copy of a > DVD. But maybe there are inferences that I haven't thought of.
The DVD isn't the "computer program" it applies to, it's the _data_ it applies to. If you want to play the content of the DVD on a different device, say, your computer, but can't because of DRM, it explicitly allows you to crack the encryption to do so. (A little above that is the section about making or distributing tools to do so, which is fuzzy at best, and is therefore likely to not take precedence of the cited section when it gets to the Supreme Court.)
It's far from resolved in US law, however.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek
>>>> Tim McDaniel wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d-9ddb-1ae83b9a5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googl >>>>> eg roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet >>>>> <rec.arts.sf.written@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto >>>>> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical >>>>> >copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>>>>> "Copyright".
>>>>> Cite?
>>>> In the US, the Audio Home Recording Act (1992) specifically >>>> modified copyright law to permit copying albums to cassettes >>>> for personnel use. >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
>>>TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (f) would seem to apply rather >>>directly to digital files.
>> Thank you both for the citations! It's refreshing to see >> citations in a discussion.
> We violated the laws of creation doing it on usenet, you know.
We violate the laws of usenet by having a civil discussion instead of a raging flamewar filled with ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares disagree with us.
>> I don't have time for more than a quick read, but the quick >> glance looks like it's more appropriate for reverse-engineering >> a driver to work on Linux, for example, than making a copy of a >> DVD. But maybe there are inferences that I haven't thought of.
> The DVD isn't the "computer program" it applies to, it's the _data_ > it applies to. If you want to play the content of the DVD on a > different device, say, your computer, but can't because of DRM, it > explicitly allows you to crack the encryption to do so. (A little > above that is the section about making or distributing tools to do > so, which is fuzzy at best, and is therefore likely to not take > precedence of the cited section when it gets to the Supreme Court.)
> It's far from resolved in US law, however.
> -- > Terry Austin
Yes, the music, movie and book industry would still argue that people don't and shouldn't have the right to copy a work even for merely personal use but should pay for each copy. Some would even want people to pay license fee for each time they view or listen to said work.
It makes as much sense as the cellular carriers charging uses $20 bucks to "tether" your computer to your cell phone as a modem even tho you are already paying for the data--not to mention paying separately for voice and text and data plans since its all data anyway.
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Yes, the music, movie and book industry would still argue that people >>don't >>and shouldn't have the right to copy a work even for merely personal use >>but >>should pay for each copy. Some would even want people to pay license fee >>for >>each time they view or listen to said work.
> The greedy bastards will just have to find some way to live without > the dollars that fail to flow from my pockets into theirs.
> -- > discussion is for the open-minded, argument is for the mind that wants > the light turned out so it can go back to sleep.
NO! You HAVE to pay for their outdated business model! Ya gotta!
