The issue isn't ownership of the file, it's the act of copying. If the Kindle owner made copies of Hemingway's works in the U.S., then he would get in trouble.
"The issue isn't ownership of the file, it's the act of copying."
On top of my head I can't see how you own a book if others can copy and distribute it. For practical purposes, the point of owning is that you can control distribution, charge for it or, say, not allow someone to do a movie based on it.
" When you say "own," do you mean "legitimately posess" or "hold copyright on"? I think GP is talking about the former."
Let's leave theories aside. I own a book when I decide when /how /where /if to print. If you can legally get it, modify and distribute it for free, I lose sales. That's almost certain. So if the government doesn't protect my book /song /movie the same way it protects your iPhone or vacation home, how do I own it?
(I understand what the law and constitution say, I just disagree, especially for certain works.)
I think the confusion is because you're conflating "ownership" with "copyright."
I buy a book in the store, I own the book. You create a story, you have the right to limit copies of that story. You can sell it, or you can let it sit unpublished in your desk.
Once you sell a copy of your book, you no longer "own" that book, you sold it. If your story was an iPhone or vacation home, that would be the end of it.
Most governments have decided to give you a copy right, where you limit the right to copy your work for a limited time. It's not the same as ownership. If I buy a book from you, you can't come back into my house with the police and take it back. But copyright gives you the right to come into my house with the police if I'm making unauthorized copies of your book.
