So you feel nausea when you’ve been thoroughly refuted and have no valid arguments of your own? You shouldn’t. Why can’t you just admit it when you’re wrong. Are you one of those people who would rather drive around for hours, instead of asking for directions, and trying to convince yourself that you aren’t lost when it’s obvious to everyone else that you are?

I’d be very interested to know why you’ve been fighting so hard against getting closer to the truth. And why have you consistently insisted on being so vague where it matters (and where I’ve asked you to be specific) and pointlessly specific where it doesn’t matter? And why have you refused to answer my questions (which have been tries to clear up things)?

Is it because you really have no arguments supporting your point of view, but yet you feel (or want to believe) that it’s the correct one? Or is it just that you really, really want my point of view to be something that you do have arguments against, even though it isn’t? Or has all this just been some sick experiment to see how much I can take before I give up and declare you unable to understand anything?

I would like to get answers to these questions, too (in addition to all my earlier ones), but since you seem to refuse to answer any questions (lest we might get somewhere?), I won’t have my hopes up. Do prove me wrong, though.

And by the way, in which country did you spend the first 18 years of your life?

Regards,
Scott

I can use whatever definition I want of any word I want, as long as everybody involved knows what is meant by it, which is why I explained precisely that! You can suggest I use a different word for what I mean, but you can not dictate what I mean by what I say!

You insisting on keeping a term I’m using ambiguous when I try to remove ambiguity from what I try to communicate is one of the worst behaviors I’ve ever seen in a debate, and I’ve seen, heard, and even been part of, a great many. IMO it’s way, way worse than using ad hominem arguments or even personal insults.

Why don’t you go to your library and get some books on debating and/or philosophy? Read some Plato, some Socrates.

> A book is palapable to the touch
> [irrelevant ramblings]
> A manuscript, once it becomes a book
> under copyright law has [a] purchase price.
> It [I assume this "it" refers to "book"
> and not to "purchase price", but please
> correct me if I'm wrong] meets all the
> necessary definitions and it is a tangible
> asset as well when used as a noun.
>
> Your whole argument as to it being
> intangible is ridiculous.

Where have I claimed that a book or a manuscript is intangible? I have claimed no such thing. The only way you could possibly even begin to think that would be if you can’t see a difference between a book and the copyright of it. Is this the case?

Considering you’ve said this
> If you make a copy of it and give the
> original book back to the owner, then
> you have stolen the right of the author
> to control the printing of that book.
you seem to understand that it’s not the book that’s been stolen, but why then are you now talking about the book again? Your writings simply lack information that would make sense of them. I urge you to be more precise, include all relevant quotes and exclude everything irrelevant to the arguments being debated.

It’s difficult for me to show you exactly where your errors are since you refuse to show what you are arguing for or against, even though I’ve asked you to.

> No strawmen standing in the field here.

I see only straw-men and irrelevant ramblings (mostly definitions and statements only vaguely related to the discussion).
“Your whole argument as to [a book] being intangible is ridiculous.” is a prime example of one of your straw-men, as I’ve never argued for such a thing.

You are obviously having great difficulty to form a train of thought, so please, please, please would you quote each relevant, and only the relevant, text needed to follow your train of thought? Please! E.g., in the straw-man above you should have quoted my argument for a book being intangible.

> But watch out, the tilled field of [...]

Sorry, I did not get that at all. It looks highly irrelevant, and if so then leave it, but if it isn’t irrelevant then please explain more directly.

Let’s try to make this debate actually go somewhere.

Why don’t you start by quoting one of my claims from http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6327#comment-279557 and make a counter-argument, adding relevant quotes and excluding irrelevant text as needed by your counter-argument? Try to make this form a proof that stands on its own (i.e., that I don’t have to read any other post to understand what you mean), and preferably as short as possible, but not shorter.

Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
Possible to touch.
Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
Law That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

n.
Something palpable or concrete.
tangibles Material assets. ”

A book is palapable to the touch, placed on a disk it is palpabe as well.

It is possible to understand the unique nature of the book, one can realize the story within one’s mind, put it to physical reality, submit a manuscript, edit, revise, re-write to the galley stage, and the corrected gallies can be made palapable and remain recognizable during the whole process.

A manuscript, once it becomes a book under copyright law has monetary value–it’s called the purchase price.

It meets all the necessary definitions and it is a tangible asset as well when used as a noun.

Your whole argument as to it being intangible is ridiculous.

No strawmen standing in the field here.

But watch out, the tilled field of your argument is full of greenish brown pancakish object ranging from dessicated to soft and squishy, try not to step in them.

Scott

It seems we’re using different definitions of the word “tangible”.

I’ve been using this definition:
“1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.” (dictionary.com)

Now, re-read my claims with this fact in mind and if you still disagree then please make a new argument for your claims or against mine.

(I’m sorry for sometimes (or maybe even often) not getting all nuances of the English language. It’s not my first language, and not even my second, but my third, and I have not studied the language in great detail.)

> Even if you don’t like to admit. I assume
> you are mostly a software designer or
> programmer who believes strongly in
> open code.

I don’t have a problem admitting what I am. However, what I do or don’t believe about source code is completely 100% irrelevant to whether “IP theft” is similar to “car theft” or not.

> The author of a book or a screenplay
> has the right to put his work in the public
> domain–but it’s his/her choice to do so.
> You would take that choice away for
> everyone.

That is utterly irrelevant to the current debate.
Why on earth do you think “Although copyright infringement is illegal it’s not by nature similar to theft of material property.” implies “Copyright infringement should be legal.”?
I’m not arguing against copyright now.

For the mother of all that is holy, actually read to what I’m writing and STOP MAKING STRAW-MEN!

> > tell which claim you are arguing for or against
[...]
> There I have argued against the basis
> of your whole argument

Where? Against what argument? Be specific! And how about answering all the questions that I’ve asked and you just keep ignoring? You are being most uncooperative.

Data records have no artistic value, no value at all except to those who own those files and those owners have a right to consider their data files proprietorial.

If you have an idea or notion about a book or screenlay the IDEA is not a tangible property. Once the actual text begins to hit paper or be stored digitally under current law copyright is automatic and copyright is tangible property.

Even if you don’t like to admit. I assume you are mostly a software designer or programmer who believes strongly in open code. It’s the creator’s right to make his code open or reserve it to himself or his company. The author of a book or a screenplay has the right to put his work in the public domain–but it’s his/her choice to do so.

You would take that choice away for everyone.

There I have argued against the basis of your whole argument–as I’ve been doing all along.

Scott

So???
Do keep in mind that book is not “intellectual property”. The contents of it might be, though, but that’s information/data and thus intangible.

A book or script IS a tangible property.

Regards (fewer and fewer all the time),
Scott

No, I think I’m wrong on that point. You have, namely your claims that there is no relevant difference between intangible property and tangible property. However, since you have not provided any arguments for it, while I have provided arguments against it, I’m not sure it counts as an argument. But even if it’s not valid is still might count, so, to be truthful, I’ll have to change my statement to “You have still not provided any founded arguments [...]“.

It most certainly is not “direct theft of revenue”.
I once copied a CD from a friend. Nobody lost any revenue what so ever because of it. The one who sold me the blank CD got some revenue and I got some music, but nobody lost revenue or music, since I would never have bought that CD.
This case in point completely refutes your claim as such, so either refute my rebuttal or don’t use the same claim again.

> because you are taking ownership of
> copyright away from the author and the
> publisher.

I have already shown that this ownership is not taken away from the author, and you have not refuted that. Understand that you can’t use that in an argument until you have provided a rebuttal for my rebuttal of it.

Not only do you seem to think that you saying something makes it so, but you also seem to think that you ignoring something makes it not so. Why would you believe you are the one defining truth? Do you think you’re God?

> I encourage you to try the experiment with
> [...] someone with the clout to take you to
> court and pound you with lawyers and see
> how you do proving your point of view in a
> U. S., Canadian or UK court.

Huh? Why on earth would anyone in court claim that “theft” in “IP theft” is closely related to the homograph in “car theft”? Certainly they would argue that it constitutes breaking the law, and they would be correct, and I fully agree.
I think you are very, very confused.

> Put some real balls behind it and charge
> money for your unauthorized copies,
> just to cover your ‘expenses’. [...]
> You would also be thoroughly crushed
> by the courts.

That has absolutely nothing to do what we’re debating here. Copyright infringement being illegal does not as such imply that it’s similar in nature to theft of physical property. If it did then it would follow that everything illegal (e.g. killing, trespassing, speeding, …) would be similar in nature to theft of physical property. I claim that the only think everything illegal have in common is being illegal.

Stop making straw-man arguments!

You have still not provided any arguments for why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property, you have not refuted any of my claims and you have not refuted any of my counter-arguments to your claims.
You’re not debating, or even discussing, you’re just trolling.

Regards,
Scott

But the claim was made that a book publishing business could not survive if legally enforceable monopoly rights to intellectual property expired in a year or two. But regardless of whether you think it is ethical or not, enforceable monopoly rights pretty much vanish the second you publish something these days (just look at how successful trademark and copyright law has been in preventing illegal electronic versions of the Harry Potter books from surfacing online).

Business models for fiction, movies, music etc. which rely on the ability of publishers to enforce said monopoly rights are doomed. We’ve had an ongoing decade-long experiment on the ability of publishers to exclude illegal distribution channels; it has been an utter failure and everyday the options consumers have to circumvent legal distribution channels only increase.

From Wikipedia~ Please note that quoting here constitutes ‘fair use’ doctrine and is not an infringement of copyright

Distributing copies of a book copyrighted without permission is direct theft of revenue

No, it is not. If you think it is, please provide data from actual research.

A review may or may not cause revenue loss but regardless it is not theft.

According to your previous definition it is theft. If potential loss of revenue is not theft, then copyright infringement is not theft. Hey, how convenient it is then that your hallowed courts of law make a distinction between theft and copyright infringement…

Anyway, I am glad to see that copyright is such a hot topic. I have always been a little hesitant to blog much about it here, since it seemed a little tangential to the digital library. Now I think I will be a subject for my entries at the Teleblog more often. Stay tuned.