svv1999 at hotmail.com
Sun May 11 03:07:53 PDT 2008
Yigal Chripun wrote:
> in what way did I disrespect the publisher?
Because the copyright notice of the book in question contains the
will of the copyright owners, that no one is allowed to "transmit"
"without the prior written permission of the copyright owners and
the publisher". Please recognize the last three words of the
> Where does it say that that specific publisher has a legal right
> to be the sole publisher of the work?
The copyright owners are not required to state such.
> what if I asked Lars directly for a copy of
> the book? what if Lars is my neighbor and I prefer to pay him
> directly than drive to the mall to buy his book in the book
That depends on the contracts of Lars with the publisher. If those
contracts forbid Lars to act on his own, he probably will do so.
> it's just that they are no longer the only medium to distribute
> one's creation.
The copyright owners, not the readers, _should_ have the right of
choosing the channels of distribution. This goes and _should_ go
that far, that some days ago, some resellers of some product were
forbidden by court to distribute the product over Ebay; this because
the maker argumented, that Ebay is by far not as representative as
the showrooms of a specialised shop.
> My point was that the torrent link by itself is not illegal. there
> are both legal and illegal uses for that same torrent link.
I disagree. As already stated by me, torrents do not contain any
additional intellectual properties and therefore _should_ be legal
only, when the copyright owners of the original content allow them.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn