Harry Potter EBooks?

[Byron Collins]

Hi All,

Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:

http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html

Regards,
Byron Collins
Kentucky, USA

[F***@2020ok.com]

We don't think so.

***@2020ok.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://2020ok.com The Largest Collection Of Free Online Books On Earth!

Byron Collins wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
> If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html
>
> Regards,
> Byron Collins
> Kentucky, USA

[Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]]

afaik, to date, no legal copies of any Harry Potter book have been
available in ebook format... would be due to the decision of Rowling
and/or her publisher(s)

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

[Harry Hazardous]

Byron Collins wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
> If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html
>
> Regards,
> Byron Collins
> Kentucky, USA
>

For illegal copies, try alt.binaries.ebooks and so forth.

[Alkinoos]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:14:03 -0700, "Byron Collins"
<***@clarksville.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
>If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
>
>http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html

This is silly. She has no reason to pay attention to any petitions.

If you want to do something, improve the quality of the underground
e-books.

Dave

When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll
be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October
2, 2002

[Sky_rider]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:47:22 -0500, Alkinoos
<dsuemeacustomerofcomcast.net> wrote the following in ink distilled
from the fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:14:03 -0700, "Byron Collins"
><***@clarksville.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
>>If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
>>
>>http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html
>
>This is silly. She has no reason to pay attention to any petitions.
>
>If you want to do something, improve the quality of the underground
>e-books.

Not that I wish to take away her money... but I think an individual
who is paid AU$47 million for one days takings can afford the drain
caused by people leeching illegal e-books...

... in fact I think she could give probably the next one away and
*still* male millions off it :)

Trouble is of course it isn't JKR who'll be kicking up a fuss, it's
the publishers :)
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]]

>> can afford the drain caused by people leeching illegal e-books... <<

What have you have produced in your life and existance that you can
afford to allow to be leeched by individuals who feel they have the
right to take parts of your life without paying for them?

Flowers from your yard, gas from your vehicle, code you have written,
tools left unsecured, a purse on the front seat, a wallet taken from a
crowded event, your child's shoes or their gameboy at school, etc, etc?

We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
the same violations are visited on ourselves.

I agree that the publishers are far from guiltless, but there are other
options to deal with them such as fostering alternatives such as
micropayments to help put them out of business before their time.

Beverly Howard

[AaronJ]

"Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:

>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>the same violations are visited on ourselves.

I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.

Other than legality what is the difference?

Money of course...

[jeff]

AaronJ wrote:
> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:
>
>
>>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>>the same violations are visited on ourselves.
>
>
> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>
> Other than legality what is the difference?

In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
live in a country ruled by law?

Jeff

[Nicolas George]

jeff wrote in message <42dbe4e8$0$16752$***@newscene.com>:
>> Other than legality what is the difference?
> In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
> live in a country ruled by law?

You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.

The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author. As I
said in my previous message, the question wether downloading the book from
underground sources causes harm to the author depends on what one would have
done if one could not download it: buy it or not.

But the law can not juge on "what would you have done if". Thus, the letter
of the law is either more strict, or less strict than its spirit.

Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
example by asking borrowing fees in libraries. Most of today IP law has been
designed before the information technologies development, and can not be
well suited for new technologies.

When a law is no longer adapted to the common situation, there is a
tolerance to its application, until new trends become obvious and the law
can be revised.

[AaronJ]

Nicolas George <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote:

>You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.
>
>The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author.

Actually it is mostly to prevent the harm to the publisher.
The author gets but a small percentage.

>Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
>example by asking borrowing fees in libraries.

Yep, if they thought they could get away with it, library borrowing would be as
illegal (immoral?) as downloading... ;)

[H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Nicolas George <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote:
>
>>You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.
>>
>>The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author.
>
> Actually it is mostly to prevent the harm to the publisher.
> The author gets but a small percentage.
>
>>Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
>>example by asking borrowing fees in libraries.
>
> Yep, if they thought they could get away with it, library borrowing would
> be as
> illegal (immoral?) as downloading... ;)

And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
charge.

Ike

www.eickleberrybooks.com

[AaronJ]

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <***@comcast.net> wrote:

>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
>charge.

Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
authors work free of charge...

[Tim McKenny]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
> read the
> authors work free of charge...

Yeah, but do you keep the book?

[AaronJ]

"Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:

>"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
>> read the authors work free of charge...
>
>Yeah, but do you keep the book?

No, I don't keep the library book, and likewise I don't keep the ebook file...

[jeff]

AaronJ wrote:
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
>>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
>>charge.
>
>
> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
> authors work free of charge...

That's because the publisher gives you permission. This is not a tough
concept, folks. If the owner of the intellectual property grants you
access, then you have legal access. If not, then you do not. What part
of this is unclear?

Jeff

[AaronJ]

jeff <***@invalid.spam> wrote:

>AaronJ wrote:

>>Is that not the definition of a Library?
>> I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
>> authors work free of charge...

>That's because the publisher gives you permission.

Yes, downloading ebooks is illegal. Nobody here disputes that.

>This is not a tough concept, folks.

Trouble is that you're not getting the concept of reality vs legality.
Here is the original question:

(1) I go to the library, borrow a book, read it for free, and return the book.
(2) I go to the net, download the book, read it for free, and erase the book.

*OTHER THAN LEGALITY* - what is the difference? In REALITY there is no
difference. In either situation you read the authors material and no one gets
paid.

Yes I know that the book industry may lose money if thousands do it. I imagine
that before the net they lost money because thousands (on a national scale) did
it in libraries... ;)

[jeff]

AaronJ wrote:
> jeff <***@invalid.spam> wrote:
>
>
>>AaronJ wrote:
>
>
>>>Is that not the definition of a Library?
>>>I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
>>>authors work free of charge...
>
>
>>That's because the publisher gives you permission.
>
>
> Yes, downloading ebooks is illegal. Nobody here disputes that.
>
>
>>This is not a tough concept, folks.
>
>
> Trouble is that you're not getting the concept of reality vs legality.
> Here is the original question:
>
> (1) I go to the library, borrow a book, read it for free, and return the book.
> (2) I go to the net, download the book, read it for free, and erase the book.
>
> *OTHER THAN LEGALITY* - what is the difference? In REALITY there is no
> difference. In either situation you read the authors material and no one gets
> paid.
>
The difference, once again, is PERMISSION. This is MUCH MORE than a
legal difference. It involves the implied de-facto social contract
under which most civilized people agree to function. Societies seem to
automatically align in these ways, for the purpose of promoting harmony.

I sense by your questions that you're not into subtlety. Here's a
clue... Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and because of this,
simple black-and-white answers are always suspect.

Jeff

[Harry Hazardous]

jeff wrote:
> AaronJ wrote:
>
>> jeff <***@invalid.spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> AaronJ wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Is that not the definition of a Library?
>>>> I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
>>>> authors work free of charge...
>>
>>
>>
>>> That's because the publisher gives you permission.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, downloading ebooks is illegal. Nobody here disputes that.
>>
>>
>>> This is not a tough concept, folks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Trouble is that you're not getting the concept of reality vs legality.
>> Here is the original question:
>>
>> (1) I go to the library, borrow a book, read it for free, and return
>> the book.
>> (2) I go to the net, download the book, read it for free, and erase
>> the book.
>>
>> *OTHER THAN LEGALITY* - what is the difference? In REALITY there is no
>> difference. In either situation you read the authors material and no
>> one gets
>> paid.
>>
> The difference, once again, is PERMISSION. This is MUCH MORE than a
> legal difference. It involves the implied de-facto social contract
> under which most civilized people agree to function. Societies seem to
> automatically align in these ways, for the purpose of promoting harmony.
>
> I sense by your questions that you're not into subtlety. Here's a
> clue... Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and because of this,
> simple black-and-white answers are always suspect.
>
> Jeff

The point is, you have to care in the first place. I make my
justifications so I feel better about myself, then I don't care.

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
SNIP

> Trouble is that you're not getting the concept of reality vs legality.
> Here is the original question:
>
> (1) I go to the library, borrow a book, read it for free, and return the
> book.
> (2) I go to the net, download the book, read it for free, and erase the
> book.
>
> *OTHER THAN LEGALITY* - what is the difference? In REALITY there is no
> difference. In either situation you read the authors material and no one
> gets
> paid.
>
> Yes I know that the book industry may lose money if thousands do it. I
> imagine
> that before the net they lost money because thousands (on a national
> scale) did
> it in libraries... ;)

There is a "real" difference you have failed to recognize. If you borrow a
book from the library you are the only person that can read that book.
Millions of people can download e-books from the net simultaneously and
therefore it's a matter of scale. For example, if I poke you with a sharp
pin you might bleed a little but you would probably live. Even if I poke
you, then an hour later another person pokes you and this goes on for
thousands of hours you would still probably live. But, if a million people
all poked you with a sharp pin simultaneously you stand a good chance of
dieing.

If everyone felt that it was OK to download e-books from the Internet it
would create a real situation in which the copyright holder would be
financially impacted whereas borrowing a book from the library has built-in
checks and balances in that only one person at a time can borrow the book
forcing other people who don't want to wait to go out and buy the book.

If you limit the scope to a single person, then yes, there is little
difference but the Internet doesn't limit access to a single person.

TC

[AaronJ]

"Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There is a "real" difference you have failed to recognize. If you borrow a
>book from the library you are the only person that can read that book.
>Millions of people can download e-books from the net simultaneously and
>therefore it's a matter of scale.

Yes I have agreed from the beginning of this discussion that there is a matter
of scale involved, and that is the reason the industry may someday have reason
to be concerned. They can tolerate it if you get one piece of candy (library)
but don't want you to get the whole box (downloading). I don't blame them.

>If everyone felt that it was OK to download e-books from the Internet it
>would create a real situation...

Yes, if ebook reading were more popular then there might now be a problem
similar to what the music industry is experiencing. But the truth is most people
hate to read a book on a PDA or computer. A paper book is still a far better
experience. So the problem is really not much of a problem yet. But I expect the
new upcoming technology I've been reading about to change that shortly.

>If you limit the scope to a single person, then yes, there is little
>difference but the Internet doesn't limit access to a single person.

There is *no* difference in the principle of what is being done, that is reading
a book for free. Technology has simply made it easier and faster to do, and laws
have made it illegal...

[Alex R. Mosteo]

AaronJ wrote:
> "Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There is a "real" difference you have failed to recognize. If you borrow a
>>book from the library you are the only person that can read that book.
>>Millions of people can download e-books from the net simultaneously and
>>therefore it's a matter of scale.
>
>
> Yes I have agreed from the beginning of this discussion that there is a matter
> of scale involved, and that is the reason the industry may someday have reason
> to be concerned. They can tolerate it if you get one piece of candy (library)
> but don't want you to get the whole box (downloading). I don't blame them.

But more than a matter of scale is a matter of intrinsics. The digital
world is not like the real one and so these analogies are flawed to some
extent. There's a reason why copyright infringment is not the same as
stealing (I'm not entering in the debate of which of these is more a
wrongdoing).

Indeed it's understandable that the industry is scared of internet, but
that's the way it is and if you formerly could lend your book to a
friend, now you can give it to a million. I mean, you *can* do it with
total ease. Why you shouldn't do it is another matter (laws aside. In my
country it is still legal, for example).

Obviously there has to be compensation for work. I however think that
extending real world behavior to the digital one is doomed to fail or to
create a very unpleasant world of total government control. In the end,
I think it all boils down to the matter of pay-per-single-copy. Maybe in
the future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.

>
>
>>If everyone felt that it was OK to download e-books from the Internet it
>>would create a real situation...
>
>
> Yes, if ebook reading were more popular then there might now be a problem
> similar to what the music industry is experiencing. But the truth is most people
> hate to read a book on a PDA or computer. A paper book is still a far better
> experience. So the problem is really not much of a problem yet. But I expect the
> new upcoming technology I've been reading about to change that shortly.
>
>
>>If you limit the scope to a single person, then yes, there is little
>>difference but the Internet doesn't limit access to a single person.
>
>
> There is *no* difference in the principle of what is being done, that is reading
> a book for free. Technology has simply made it easier and faster to do, and laws
> have made it illegal...

[AaronJ]

"Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote:

>The digital world is not like the real one and so these
>analogies are flawed to some extent.

Analogies are always flawed, but the basic truth can still there. Whether you
pass the library book around among many people, make several paper copies on a
copy machine, or use digital copies, you are still allowing several people to
use the authors work for free. When the author/publisher gets no pay for a
reading, no matter how it is accomplished...

>There's a reason why copyright infringment is not the same as stealing

Depends on where you are. In my town copyright infringements is a civil law
whereas stealing is a criminal law. So technically (here) it is not stealing.
But I think that for discussion purposes we can use the dictionary definition of
"steal" which is "to take the property of another unlawfully".
It sure seems to fit...

>Indeed it's understandable that the industry is scared of internet,

I don't blame them. A good analogy here would be with a tsunami... ;)

>I think it all boils down to the matter of pay-per-single-copy.

Question is, how long do you have to pay? One complaint often heard is that the
length of a copyright keeps being extended simply to enrich an already rich
corporation. Mickey Mouse was recently extended. He is already a billionaire
many times over... ;)

>the future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
>something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.

I don't believe that much in the goodness of people. If they can get it for free
and don't think that they will be caught, many will. However if the publishers
were to sell their stuff at a reasonable price downloading would surely slow. I
recently paid US$17 for the digital book YOU-The Owner's Manual. I thought that
was a bit high for a digital copy, don't you?

[Alex R. Mosteo]

AaronJ wrote:
> "Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote:

>>the future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
>>something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.
>
>
> I don't believe that much in the goodness of people. If they can get it for free
> and don't think that they will be caught, many will. However if the publishers
> were to sell their stuff at a reasonable price downloading would surely slow. I
> recently paid US$17 for the digital book YOU-The Owner's Manual. I thought that
> was a bit high for a digital copy, don't you?

I don't disagree on the goodness part. If alternate methods have to
appear, they would be able to cope with this, or triumph in despite of this.

[Aaron Ginn]

AaronJ <***@noemail.com> writes:

> "Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> >The digital world is not like the real one and so these
> >analogies are flawed to some extent.
>
> Analogies are always flawed, but the basic truth can still there. Whether you
> pass the library book around among many people, make several paper copies on a
> copy machine, or use digital copies, you are still allowing several people to
> use the authors work for free. When the author/publisher gets no pay for a
> reading, no matter how it is accomplished...


All of your examples involve materials which are in scarce supply -
books, papers for the copy machine, the copy machine itself, etc - and
therefore have value (think the law of supply and demand). Digital
copies are not scarce in any way. A digital file can be copied an
infinate number of times without cost. That's why copyright
infringement is not equivalent to stealing.


> >There's a reason why copyright infringment is not the same as stealing
>
> Depends on where you are. In my town copyright infringements is a civil law
> whereas stealing is a criminal law. So technically (here) it is not stealing.
> But I think that for discussion purposes we can use the dictionary definition of
> "steal" which is "to take the property of another unlawfully".
> It sure seems to fit...


Ideas are not property. Government force simulates scarcity which
makes ideas *seem* like property. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"He who receives an idea from me receives it without lessening me,
as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening
me."

You have no intrinsic right to profit from an idea, especially when it
limits my ability to use my own *real* property. For example, suppose
you and I both independently invent a perpetual motion machine and
solve the world's energy problems forever. I choose to take that
knowledge and build and sell perpetual motion machines. You, OTOH,
file a patent and restrict my ability to produce and sell such a
machine without paying you a royalty. You are limiting my ability to
use my own scarce resources - my tools, my land, my labor - for my own
profit. Even worse, you're *profiting* off my resources. What's fair
about this scenario?


--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
-- Ambrose Bierce

[AaronJ]

Aaron Ginn <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>All of your examples involve materials...
>That's why copyright infringement is not equivalent to stealing.

According to my Palm's M-W Collegiate dictionary (digital - US$22) you may be
right. All the definitions of "steal" seem to require *property* to be taken,
and all the definitions of "property" seem to require "matter" or "material
objects" to be involved.

>Ideas are not property.

But... I keep seeing that phrase "intellectual property". So my dictionary may
not be the last word. New technologies bring new words and phrases into use
causing the language (and the dictionary) to change.

Dictionary aside, as often as I see the words 'downloading', 'pirate', 'warez',
and 'stealing' in the same paragraph, I think the *general consensus* is that
the word stealing fits...

>You have no intrinsic right to profit from an idea,

The copyright was created to give the writer a limited time monopoly in which to
profit from his work. Without this profit motive most would probably not waste
their time writing, and the public would be poorly served. So in this sense
copyright is good. The question many have however is how long should the
monopoly be allowed to last before the book enters the public domain.

>suppose you and I both independently invent a perpetual motion machine...

Lets save patents for another day... ;)

[Aaron Ginn]

AaronJ <***@noemail.com> writes:

> Aaron Ginn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All of your examples involve materials...
> >That's why copyright infringement is not equivalent to stealing.
>
> According to my Palm's M-W Collegiate dictionary (digital - US$22) you may be
> right. All the definitions of "steal" seem to require *property* to be taken,
> and all the definitions of "property" seem to require "matter" or "material
> objects" to be involved.
>
> >Ideas are not property.
>
> But... I keep seeing that phrase "intellectual property". So my dictionary may
> not be the last word. New technologies bring new words and phrases into use
> causing the language (and the dictionary) to change.


You've read Orwell I assume? Language can be twisted to justify
virtually anything.


> Dictionary aside, as often as I see the words 'downloading', 'pirate', 'warez',
> and 'stealing' in the same paragraph, I think the *general consensus* is that
> the word stealing fits...


The general consensus is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is not
theft. The owner of a copyright is not deprived of any property when
a person engages in copyright infringement. The owners of said
copyrights want the general public to equate copyright infringement
with theft in order to appeal to their sense of guilt. Unfortunately
for them, the majority of the public sees through this and
understands that downloading a song, movie, or program is really
no big deal.

If your business model is at odds with the current technological
conditions, perhaps your business model needs to change.

Please note I've made no judgements on the morality of copyright
infringement. I've merely stated it is not equivalent to theft.


> >You have no intrinsic right to profit from an idea,
>
> The copyright was created to give the writer a limited time monopoly in which to
> profit from his work. Without this profit motive most would probably not waste
> their time writing, and the public would be poorly served. So in this sense
> copyright is good. The question many have however is how long should the
> monopoly be allowed to last before the book enters the public
> domain.


Wow. It's a wonder Mozart or Beethoven ever composed anything. Or
Dante, Shakespeare, Chaucer, etc. The vast majority of the tripe
today that is protected by copyright pales in comparison. Your
premise is wrong. Artists write, compose, or paint simply because
they can and must. Hacks hind behind copyright protection.


> >suppose you and I both independently invent a perpetual motion machine...
>
> Lets save patents for another day... ;)


Why? It's exactly the same principle as copyright - appealing to
government force to protect an idea.


--
"He who receives an idea from me receives it without lessening me,
as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening me."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[AaronJ]

Aaron Ginn <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Language can be twisted to justify virtually anything.

Yes words can be used in different ways in order to persuade. I would suggest
that your use of the word "twisted" is a good example of how language can be
twisted in a way to show your point of view... ;)

>The owner of a copyright is not deprived of any property when
>a person engages in copyright infringement.

True. He is deprived of no property. He is the victim of copyright infringement
and can take legal action against you to deprive you of *your* property.

>If your business model is at odds with the current technological
>conditions, perhaps your business model needs to change.

Yup - change my business model because people break the law.

>I've made no judgements on the morality of copyright infringement.

So, is breaking the law moral in your opinion?

[Tony Clark]

"Aaron Ginn" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@gmail.com...
SNIP

>
> Ideas are not property. Government force simulates scarcity which
> makes ideas *seem* like property. To quote Thomas Jefferson:
>
> "He who receives an idea from me receives it without lessening me,
> as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening
> me."
>
> You have no intrinsic right to profit from an idea, especially when it
> limits my ability to use my own *real* property. For example, suppose
> you and I both independently invent a perpetual motion machine and
> solve the world's energy problems forever. I choose to take that
> knowledge and build and sell perpetual motion machines. You, OTOH,
> file a patent and restrict my ability to produce and sell such a
> machine without paying you a royalty. You are limiting my ability to
> use my own scarce resources - my tools, my land, my labor - for my own
> profit. Even worse, you're *profiting* off my resources. What's fair
> about this scenario?
>
>
What makes you think you have no right to profit from an idea? Henry Ford
profited from his idea of an automated vehicle, Thomas Edison profited from
his idea of an electric light bulb. The problem with your patent idea is
that if in fact your inventions were created concurrently and you can prove
that then you would share the patent with the other person. If the designs
are truley unique from each other they both can be patented. Plus I believe
patents only protect the patent holder against someone copying the idea and
trying to market it commercially. You can always make one for home use.

TC

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
SNIP

>
>>I think it all boils down to the matter of pay-per-single-copy.
>
> Question is, how long do you have to pay? One complaint often heard is
> that the
> length of a copyright keeps being extended simply to enrich an already
> rich
> corporation. Mickey Mouse was recently extended. He is already a
> billionaire
> many times over... ;)
>

While I tend to agree with you I am also a capitalist and I think that as
long as people will pay then Mickey (or whomever) should be able to collect
the revenue and benefits.

>>the future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
>>something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.
>
> I don't believe that much in the goodness of people. If they can get it
> for free
> and don't think that they will be caught, many will. However if the
> publishers
> were to sell their stuff at a reasonable price downloading would surely
> slow. I
> recently paid US$17 for the digital book YOU-The Owner's Manual. I thought
> that
> was a bit high for a digital copy, don't you?

I couldn't agree more especially on your first point. If you leave it up to
the charity of the community most authors and publishers will wind up in the
unemployment line pretty quickly. I truly believe that publishers (music,
books, magazines etc..) are missing the boat by trying to price material the
same way as paper copies. Digital media should be infinitely cheaper to
produce.

TC

[AaronJ]

"Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>While I tend to agree with you I am also a capitalist and I think that as
>long as people will pay then Mickey (or whomever) should be able to collect
>the revenue and benefits.

If you are a pure through and through capitalist then you should believe in
*no* government interference at all, that is no copyright protection period.
After all, a copyright is simply a government authorized monopoly. We
capitalists know that monopolies stifle competition don't we? They cause higher
prices and less choice, right?

Heck without that copyright monopoly I'll bet there are lots of publishers that
could get that new Potter book out for half the price. And I'll bet there are a
lot of authors out there that could even write better Potter books and get them
out once a week. Just you watch pure capitalism work... ;)

But of course I'm being facetious. In exchange for the copyright protection the
law originally put a *reasonable* time limit on that protection. After the
author got his just profits the property was opened up to competition. For
ebooks that means really lower prices (US$zero) with places like Project
Gutenberg. If those thousands of books were still copyright projected in
perpetuity as you suggest... 8-O

And just maybe if Mickey had lost his monopoly, I would be able to get a coke at
Disneyland for under 3 bucks... ;)

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.fan.harry-potter Tony Clark <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: "AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
:> "Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote:
:>
: SNIP
:
:>
:>>I think it all boils down to the matter of pay-per-single-copy.
:>
:> Question is, how long do you have to pay? One complaint often heard is
:> that the
:> length of a copyright keeps being extended simply to enrich an already
:> rich
:> corporation. Mickey Mouse was recently extended. He is already a
:> billionaire
:> many times over... ;)
:>
:
: While I tend to agree with you I am also a capitalist and I think that as
: long as people will pay then Mickey (or whomever) should be able to collect
: the revenue and benefits.

So the Shakespeare and Chaucer literary estates should
still be collecting royalties?

:>>the future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
:>>something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.
:>
:> I don't believe that much in the goodness of people. If they can get it
:> for free
:> and don't think that they will be caught, many will. However if the
:> publishers
:> were to sell their stuff at a reasonable price downloading would surely
:> slow. I
:> recently paid US$17 for the digital book YOU-The Owner's Manual. I thought
:> that
:> was a bit high for a digital copy, don't you?
:
: I couldn't agree more especially on your first point. If you leave it up to
: the charity of the community most authors and publishers will wind up in the
: unemployment line pretty quickly. I truly believe that publishers (music,
: books, magazines etc..) are missing the boat by trying to price material the
: same way as paper copies. Digital media should be infinitely cheaper to
: produce.

Prohibition of transcription to digital format without consent
should be strictly enforced.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[AaronJ]

Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:

>Prohibition of transcription to digital format without consent
>should be strictly enforced.

Easy to say, hard to do. With music and video, they can at least encrypt the
digital disc and *attempt* to avoid illegal digital copies. With paper books all
you need to make a digital copy is a scanner. How do you encrypt a paperback...

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.fan.harry-potter AaronJ <***@noemail.com> wrote:
: Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
:
:>Prohibition of transcription to digital format without consent
:>should be strictly enforced.
:
: Easy to say, hard to do. With music and video, they can at least encrypt
: the digital disc and *attempt* to avoid illegal digital copies. With paper
: books all you need to make a digital copy is a scanner. How do you
: encrypt a paperback...

It's because it has become so easy to do
that it needs to be fought so hard.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Louis Epstein <***@main.put.com> wrote:
>
>>Prohibition of transcription to digital format without consent
>>should be strictly enforced.
>
> Easy to say, hard to do. With music and video, they can at least encrypt
> the
> digital disc and *attempt* to avoid illegal digital copies. With paper
> books all
> you need to make a digital copy is a scanner. How do you encrypt a
> paperback...

There are ways, look at paper money. You don't see that being easily copied.
I think the key is to encumber the distribution as well as find a compromise
that is financially attractive to the copyright holder to legally distribute
in electronic format while at the same time making it desirable to the
consumer to purchase electronic media instead of paper. One reason why
people don't run around making paper copies of books is that it's too
expensive or rather the price of the hard copy book is low enough to
encourage most people not to make paper copies. The same could be done
digitally.

Cheers
TC

[Tony Clark]

"Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:***@mailinator.com...
SNIP

> But more than a matter of scale is a matter of intrinsics. The digital
> world is not like the real one and so these analogies are flawed to some
> extent. There's a reason why copyright infringment is not the same as
> stealing (I'm not entering in the debate of which of these is more a
> wrongdoing).
>
> Indeed it's understandable that the industry is scared of internet, but
> that's the way it is and if you formerly could lend your book to a friend,
> now you can give it to a million. I mean, you *can* do it with total ease.
> Why you shouldn't do it is another matter (laws aside. In my country it is
> still legal, for example).
>

It's legal to copy copyrighted material and distribute it without
compensating the copyright holder in your country? Interesting. What country
is that?

> Obviously there has to be compensation for work. I however think that
> extending real world behavior to the digital one is doomed to fail or to
> create a very unpleasant world of total government control. In the end, I
> think it all boils down to the matter of pay-per-single-copy. Maybe in the
> future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
> something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.
>

How about pay-per-use? After all that is what paying for a book is really
all about. The price of books most likely is built upon the assumption that
more than one person will read the material. If the cost of an ebook was say
$1.00 US maybe it would be worth it to pay the dollar and not bother
dowloading copies that are filled with errors and misspellings.

I agree that the pricing model for paper books doesn't seem appropriate for
electronic versions. Clearly there are certain costs that are eliminated
with electronic versions such as the distribution, shipping and pringing
costs.

TC

SNIP

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Tony Clark wrote:
> "Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:***@mailinator.com...
> SNIP
>>Indeed it's understandable that the industry is scared of internet, but
>>that's the way it is and if you formerly could lend your book to a friend,
>>now you can give it to a million. I mean, you *can* do it with total ease.
>>Why you shouldn't do it is another matter (laws aside. In my country it is
>>still legal, for example).
>>
>
> It's legal to copy copyrighted material and distribute it without
> compensating the copyright holder in your country? Interesting. What country
> is that?

In Spain we have the law given right to private copy, which is different
from backup copies and applies at least to music and movies (not sure
about books but I suppose so, being copyrighted art works) but not to
software. Under this right, which takes precedence over the right of the
copyright holder, I can get a copy from some source (for example a
friend, not my own book I purchased) and it is legal, as long as it is
not for profit, the original opus has been released to the public, and
I'm not doing public distribution (i.e. putting a projector in my town
square).

If you can read Spanish you have a starting point here:

http://www.nosoypirata.com/definiciones.php#copia-privada

There's compensation for authors in the form of taxes on any blank CD,
printers, xerox machines and so on. The tax on CDs is being fought now,
since their uses nowadays are much broader than just to copy music.
Indeed the profits seen for the "spanish RIAA" just from CDs are growing
like crazy, and I bet this is just a matter of the generalization of use
of CDs for photos, backup copies, etc. Even the courts of law, which are
obliged to use CDs for recording of sessions, are now paying this tax.
I'd bet that CDs used for music are a marginal part (this is true at
least in my circle of relatives) since people just downloads mp3 and
keeps them in the computer or the portable player, but rarely burns them
to disk). Nowadays, more than half the value of a blank CD is due to
this tax.

Anyways, I believe that this right to private copy is not so rare in
Europe. I think it came to Spain inspired from French legislation, but
this could be innacurate.

>>Obviously there has to be compensation for work. I however think that
>>extending real world behavior to the digital one is doomed to fail or to
>>create a very unpleasant world of total government control. In the end, I
>>think it all boils down to the matter of pay-per-single-copy. Maybe in the
>>future there will be more sponsorship, or community patronage, or
>>something else that would fit naturally with the digital nature of things.
>>
>
>
> How about pay-per-use? After all that is what paying for a book is really
> all about. The price of books most likely is built upon the assumption that
> more than one person will read the material. If the cost of an ebook was say
> $1.00 US maybe it would be worth it to pay the dollar and not bother
> dowloading copies that are filled with errors and misspellings.

I'm not a fan of pay-per-use. I like to keep my things around and come
back to them later. Of course if the price were as low as you say and
the supply where guaranteed, I could change my habits. I don't see the
industry going for such lows though.

> I agree that the pricing model for paper books doesn't seem appropriate for
> electronic versions. Clearly there are certain costs that are eliminated
> with electronic versions such as the distribution, shipping and pringing
> costs.

We'll see. There's this great struggle between the easy distribution
once something is digitalized and traditional business on distribution.
I'm not sure how this will pan out for us regular users, but undoubtly
this will be solved for good or bad in a few years.

[Tony Clark]

"Alex R. Mosteo" <***@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:***@mailinator.com...
SNIP

>
> In Spain we have the law given right to private copy, which is different
> from backup copies and applies at least to music and movies (not sure
> about books but I suppose so, being copyrighted art works) but not to
> software. Under this right, which takes precedence over the right of the
> copyright holder, I can get a copy from some source (for example a friend,
> not my own book I purchased) and it is legal, as long as it is not for
> profit, the original opus has been released to the public, and I'm not
> doing public distribution (i.e. putting a projector in my town square).
>

Interesting. Here in the US you can only make a private "archive" or backup
copy if you own the material. I didn't understand what you meant by "the
original opus has been released to the public". If your talking about public
domain works then yes we can make any number of copies of that material here
in the US but I suspect that is not what you are talking about.
Interestingly enough, the right to make archive copies applies to music and
software but I don't think that it applies to books. Partly because no one
has taken the case to court. It would make sense to be able to make a
digital copy of a book or document especially if that document is important
or valuable such that handling it would devalue it over time.

> If you can read Spanish you have a starting point here:
>
> http://www.nosoypirata.com/definiciones.php#copia-privada
>
> There's compensation for authors in the form of taxes on any blank CD,
> printers, xerox machines and so on. The tax on CDs is being fought now,
> since their uses nowadays are much broader than just to copy music. Indeed
> the profits seen for the "spanish RIAA" just from CDs are growing like
> crazy, and I bet this is just a matter of the generalization of use of CDs
> for photos, backup copies, etc. Even the courts of law, which are obliged
> to use CDs for recording of sessions, are now paying this tax. I'd bet
> that CDs used for music are a marginal part (this is true at least in my
> circle of relatives) since people just downloads mp3 and keeps them in the
> computer or the portable player, but rarely burns them to disk). Nowadays,
> more than half the value of a blank CD is due to this tax.
>
> Anyways, I believe that this right to private copy is not so rare in
> Europe. I think it came to Spain inspired from French legislation, but
> this could be innacurate.
>

We fought the added taxes on tapes and CD some years ago aruging that we had
a right to make archive copies as I mentioned above. Also how do you account
for using a blank tape for personal recordings and not for copying
commercial material? In your example it sounds like copyright holders are
getting compensated even if the device isn't used for copying. Seems like no
one has a good answer on this one.

TC
SNIP

[Aaron Ginn]

"Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Aaron Ginn" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@gmail.com...
> SNIP
>
> >
> > Ideas are not property. Government force simulates scarcity which
> > makes ideas *seem* like property. To quote Thomas Jefferson:
> >
> > "He who receives an idea from me receives it without lessening me,
> > as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening
> > me."
> >
> > You have no intrinsic right to profit from an idea, especially when it
> > limits my ability to use my own *real* property. For example, suppose
> > you and I both independently invent a perpetual motion machine and
> > solve the world's energy problems forever. I choose to take that
> > knowledge and build and sell perpetual motion machines. You, OTOH,
> > file a patent and restrict my ability to produce and sell such a
> > machine without paying you a royalty. You are limiting my ability to
> > use my own scarce resources - my tools, my land, my labor - for my own
> > profit. Even worse, you're *profiting* off my resources. What's fair
> > about this scenario?
> >
> >
> What makes you think you have no right to profit from an idea? Henry Ford
> profited from his idea of an automated vehicle, Thomas Edison profited from
> his idea of an electric light bulb. The problem with your patent idea is
> that if in fact your inventions were created concurrently and you can prove
> that then you would share the patent with the other person. If the designs
> are truley unique from each other they both can be patented. Plus I believe
> patents only protect the patent holder against someone copying the idea and
> trying to market it commercially. You can always make one for home use.


You have no right to profit from an idea because in order to profit
from an idea, you must appeal to government interference in order to
do so. When you appeal to government, you are enforcing your will on
everyone else. Not to mention that every on of your examples used
basic scientific principles that were freely available due to the
countless men and women who toiled in laboratories in order that we
all may understand the world we live in. Why should Edison and Ford
get to profit freely off all that hard work simply because they live
in an age where we accept government protection of ideas?

As for your quaint notion of proving who perfected an idea, that
situation always boils down to who has the most money and the best
lawyers. The little guy who has the fewest resources will always be
sqaushed by the big guy, and political machinery is the boot that does
the squashing.

--
"To take from one...in order to spare to others...is to violate
arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every
one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
>>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
>>charge.
>
> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
> read the
> authors work free of charge...

No, your tax dollars go to paying for the library and all the books within,
unless you're a child who doesn't work and pay taxes. In that case your
mommy and daddy pay taxes so you can read books from the library.

TC

[Sky_rider]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:29:18 GMT, "Tony Clark"
<***@hotmail.com> looked at Ron with an evil Grint in
his eye and said :
>"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <***@comcast.net> wrote:

>>>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
>>>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
>>>charge.

>> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
>> read the
>> authors work free of charge...

>No, your tax dollars go to paying for the library and all the books within,
>unless you're a child who doesn't work and pay taxes. In that case your
>mommy and daddy pay taxes so you can read books from the library.

Are you saying orphans can't use public libraries?? Cos if you
are..... !!!
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tony Clark]

"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...


>
> Are you saying orphans can't use public libraries?? Cos if you
> are..... !!!
> --
> Skyrider
>
LOL

Everyone knows orphans can't read......

TC

[AaronJ]

"Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, your tax dollars go to paying for the library and all the books within,

If you're saying that the library must buy the book (and pay the author) so that
many people can borrow it and read it for free, then likewise the person who
scans the paper book must buy it (and pay the author) to digitize/upload it so
that many people can read it for free.

If you claim the person is scanning a book he got for free, or even passing on
an ebook he got for free, then again my library does the same thing with donated
(free) books they in turn pass on for the borrowers to read for free...

Try as you might, other than scale and legality there is no difference...

[Sky_rider]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:23:40 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<***@comcast.net> wrote the following in ink distilled
from the fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:
>"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> Nicolas George <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote:

>>>You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.

>>>The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author.

>> Actually it is mostly to prevent the harm to the publisher.
>> The author gets but a small percentage.

>>>Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
>>>example by asking borrowing fees in libraries.

>> Yep, if they thought they could get away with it, library borrowing would
>> be as
>> illegal (immoral?) as downloading... ;)

>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
>charge.

In case you missed it, one post reminded people I have several years
worth of intellectual property open for public view at my slang
dictionary site (http://www.ops.org) despite it having been published.

I have a vested interest in making the site 'fee paying' in some way
to persuade people to go buy the book... but I don't. It's effectively
available free of charge.
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tony Clark]

"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
SNIP

>
> In case you missed it, one post reminded people I have several years
> worth of intellectual property open for public view at my slang
> dictionary site (http://www.ops.org) despite it having been published.
>
> I have a vested interest in making the site 'fee paying' in some way
> to persuade people to go buy the book... but I don't. It's effectively
> available free of charge.
> --

Making it available was your choice as the copyright holder of that
material. Many authors do the same at sites like Baen books.

TC

[Tony Clark]

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote in message
news:dbgpjc$3f4$***@biggoron.nerim.net...
SNIP

> You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.
>
> The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author. As I
> said in my previous message, the question wether downloading the book from
> underground sources causes harm to the author depends on what one would
> have
> done if one could not download it: buy it or not.
>

With all due respect you are wrong on this point. By downloading the book
you have harmed the author, publisher and others who stand to make money off
the sales of the copyrighted material. Saying that you wouldn't have bought
the book anyway is no excuse for downloadin the illegal material. It's sort
of like saying "I wouldn't have stolen this car if it hadn't of been
unlocked with the keys in the ignition."

> But the law can not juge on "what would you have done if". Thus, the
> letter
> of the law is either more strict, or less strict than its spirit.
>

In this case the intent and spirit of the law are identical. You cannot take
copyrighted material that doesn't belong to you regardless of "what you
might have done.."

> Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
> example by asking borrowing fees in libraries. Most of today IP law has
> been
> designed before the information technologies development, and can not be
> well suited for new technologies.
>

While it's true that some authors and publishers want strict controls over
the distribution of their material still others make some of their works
avaible for free on the net in hopes of attracting people to their other
works which they charge for. Just because the concept of "thou shalt no
steal" came about long before modern technology doesn't make it any less
relevant in today's world. And even though we have the technology to blast
open bank vaults with modern chemical explosives it doesn't give us the
right to employ that technology for illegal purposes.

> When a law is no longer adapted to the common situation, there is a
> tolerance to its application, until new trends become obvious and the law
> can be revised.

Some things will stand the test of time such as laws against lieing,
stealing or murder. Just because the majority of people want something to be
legal doesn't mean it ever will be. I for one wish that book publishers
would embrace some of the new technology and distribute material
electronically. I believe it would actually increase their sales overall and
could also increase profit margins too.

Cheers
TC

[Nicolas George]

"Tony Clark" wrote in message
<T50De.673$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> With all due respect you are wrong on this point. By downloading the book
> you have harmed the author, publisher and others who stand to make money off
> the sales of the copyrighted material. Saying that you wouldn't have bought
> the book anyway is no excuse for downloadin the illegal material. It's sort
> of like saying "I wouldn't have stolen this car if it hadn't of been
> unlocked with the keys in the ignition."

No, your reasoning is bogus. There is a quite good illustratin here: <URL:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050620&mode=classic >:

"Isn't that kind of like saying if I don't give you everything in my wallet
I'm costing you everything in my wallet?"

If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher).

In fact, it is the other way round: if the choice is between reading it for
free and not reading it, the interest of the author is in favor of reading
it for free: because one more reader is one more person that will talk about
the book, that may go to the movie (and pay a place), that may offer the
book to a friend (and one does not give warez as a gift).

Your comparaison with material goods is irrelevent: by stealing a material
good, you prevent its rightful owner from using it. It is not true with
informational goods.

And the point you are missing is that I'm talking ethics, not law.

> In this case the intent and spirit of the law are identical.

No, you are wrong. The spirit of the law is to protect authors against
unscrupulous publishors (and theatre actors), not to protect the publisher
against the public. At the time the law was designed, there was no way the
public could have any other economical influence than buying the book, so it
has not been taken into account at all.

> Just because the concept of "thou shalt no
> steal"

Look in the law, you will not find the word "steal", you will find the words
"copying without the consent of the author". It is a great victory of the
publishers to have people like you using the word steal to speak of that.

In fact, the activity we are talking here is more akin to practising a
workmanship without paying a fee to the relevant guild than to stealing a
chicken.

> Just because the majority of people want something to be
> legal doesn't mean it ever will be.

I thought it was the meaning of democracy. I must have been wrong.

> I for one wish that book publishers
> would embrace some of the new technology and distribute material
> electronically. I believe it would actually increase their sales overall and
> could also increase profit margins too.

I agree, but it does not contradict my ethical statement.

In fact, I find it somewhat an argument ethically pro the illegal copying:
if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books), there
is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.

And it has legal grounds too: there are sometimes (in some patents laws for
example) where someone has a monopoly on something, but if he does not
exerce it at reasonable conditions, he loses it (or is forced to concede it
cheaper that he could have).

[[e-mail]]

Nicolas George wrote:

> If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
> all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
> or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher).

Sorry, but that's a rationalization that a thief would find comforting.

You could apply it to almost anything you'd like to have, but don't want
to (or can't) pay for.

If everyone were to decide that they will only "read it for free", then
few things would be written. Authors have to eat, too. If they can't
make their livings by writing, few of them will write.

Yes, I know, there are lots of folks who believe that "intellectual
property" is a faulty concept. They're right. But like democracy, it
works better than all the alternatives encountered so far.

[Nicolas George]

"***@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" wrote in message
<dUdDe.63$***@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
> Sorry, but that's a rationalization that a thief would find comforting.

No. That is an argument at the ethic level, not the legal level. In
particular, it can only be juged by oneself, in front of ones own
conscience. You may pretend that it is an afterwards rationalization, but
you can not know.

I can turn the question the other way round:

First situation, first version: A raises a chicken. A sells the chicken to
B. B eats the chicken.

First situation, second version: A raises a chicken. A sells the chicken to
B. C steals the chicken to B. C eats the chicken, B is hungry.

Second situation, first version: A writes a book. A sells a copy of the book
to B. B reads the book. C plays to Frozen Bubble all night.

Second situation, second version: A writes a book. A sells a copy of the
book to B. B copies the book and gives the copy to C. B and C read the book.

In the first situation, the ethic ground to avoid the second version is that
B suffers from hunger because he has lost his chicken (one may mention that
in the first situation, C is probably hungry, the difference is that he may
have money to buy a chicken for himself).

Can you state the ethic ground to avoid the second version in the second
situation?

> You could apply it to almost anything you'd like to have, but don't want
> to (or can't) pay for.

No, it can only be applied if me having it or not does not change anything
at all for anyone else.

Let me state some hypotetic situations, and I'd like you to tel, in each
case, if it is ethically wrong, or not.

1. I download the book from an underground site, but I do not read it at
once, since I really am taken in a video game. A few hours later, I feel
guilty about downloading the book, I erase it and I buy a rightful copy.

2. I download the book from an underground site, I read it at once, and
since I enjoy it, I buy a rightful copy of it in order to properly have it.

3. I download the book from an underground site, but I do not read it at
once, since I really am taken in a video game. A few hours later, a friend
tells me it is crap, I erase it and do not read it.

4. I download the book from an underground site, I read it at once, and find
it is crap. I erase the file.

5. I try to download the book from an underground site, but can not find it.
I do not read it, until maybe a few months later, when I can borrow it from
the library as it is no longer the rush.

6. I try to download the book from an underground site, but can not find it.
I buy a rightful copy of it.

7. I download the book from an underground site, read it, enjoy it, but do
not buy a rightful copy of it.

I will say my vision of the ethical wrongness of all these points, but not
right now, I want others advices before.

> If everyone were to decide that they will only "read it for free", then
> few things would be written.

Well, if everyone were to decide that they will become physician, we would
not find much bread to eat, would we? The only conclusion to such statements
is: "if everyone" arguments are no good.

Economy does not work like this. Economy works because there are several
different people, that place different limits to the price they are willing
to pay for differents products. That is true for books as well as for
anything else.

I can tell you some personnal thresholds: I am willing to pay 70 euros to
own a copy of _Unix Network Programming_ or _Kaze no Tani no Nausicaä_, but
I would not own nor read the last Dan Brown even for free (I read one once,
it was crap, I will re-read Umberto Eco instead of reading others).

As for _Harry Potter_, I may spend up to 20 euros to buy it as a gift to
someone. I would buy a copy for myself up to aproximately 3 euros, and I may
accept a 0.50 euros library fee to only read it. Wether I will read it soon,
in more time or not at all is for now undecided.

Tha point is that I find UNP or Nausicaä more valuable than Harry Potter. I
am sure that the parents of a ten years old boy would think differently.

> Authors have to eat, too. If they can't
> make their livings by writing, few of them will write.

Would you please tell that to the thousands of authors that lived in the
centuries before the invention of the intellectual property laws, and the
thousands of nowadays authors wo do not earn enough authors fee to buy
paper?

> Yes, I know, there are lots of folks who believe that "intellectual
> property" is a faulty concept. They're right. But like democracy, it
> works better than all the alternatives encountered so far.

It worked better as long as the public had no means to be anything else than
a client. That is true. Now, I can see that it has totally gone mad.

[[e-mail]]

Nicolas George wrote:

>> Authors have to eat, too. If they can't
>>make their livings by writing, few of them will write.
>
>
> Would you please tell that to the thousands of authors that lived in the
> centuries before the invention of the intellectual property laws, and the
> thousands of nowadays authors wo do not earn enough authors fee to buy
> paper?

Uh, what centuries were those?????? Which thousands of authors were
those????

Even in ancient Greece and Rome, writers were paid for their writing.
They were paid by their patrons.

There have always been a few people who were independently wealthy, and
wrote without caring about being paid. I wouldn't want to rely on a
stable of authors so puny.

[John W. Kennedy]

***@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org wrote:
> Nicolas George wrote:
>
>>> Authors have to eat, too. If they can't make their
>>> livings by writing, few of them will write.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you please tell that to the thousands of authors that lived in the
>> centuries before the invention of the intellectual property laws, and the
>> thousands of nowadays authors wo do not earn enough authors fee to buy
>> paper?
>
>
> Uh, what centuries were those?????? Which thousands of authors were
> those????
>
> Even in ancient Greece and Rome, writers were paid for their writing.
> They were paid by their patrons.

Precisely. Writers had to make a career of sucking up to the idle rich,
in hopes of being tossed a bone.

Most noble Lord Ticklebottom,

The entire world is already aware that you possess the
courage of Lancelot and the nobility of Arthur, to which only
your own brilliant poetical compositions could ever be an
adequate match, so that I am most ashamed that a mere turd
such as myself should even think of approaching you with my own
miserable compositions, except that I know that your character
is such that you always take pity on every filthy beggar that
dares to approach you.... [And so on and so on and so on for,
typically, about 500 to 1000 words....]

Playwrights were an exception, since they could be paid by the theatres.

> There have always been a few people who were independently wealthy, and
> wrote without caring about being paid. I wouldn't want to rely on a
> stable of authors so puny.


--
John W. Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)

[Nicolas George]

"***@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" wrote in message
<o%hDe.16389$***@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
> Uh, what centuries were those?????? Which thousands of authors were
> those????
>
> Even in ancient Greece and Rome, writers were paid for their writing.
> They were paid by their patrons.

The intellectual property as we know it dates back about two centuries (a
bit more, time pases...). One can give a date: 1777, and and a name:
Beaumarchais.

Before that, authors had no rights whatsoever after they have published
their work. As you say, they were paid by patrons. It was by no means a
right to be paid.

The intellectual property laws were an improvement to the authors-publishers
relations: publishers had now to pay the authors. It now poisons the
publishers-public relations.

[David Loftus]

> if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books), there
> is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.


Ermm . . . desire confers a right?

This is the rationale a rapist might employ for ravishing his
neighbor's daughter with impunity.

[Nicolas George]

"David Loftus" wrote in message
<***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Ermm . . . desire confers a right?
>
> This is the rationale a rapist might employ for ravishing his
> neighbor's daughter with impunity.

There is always the question: whom does it cause harm? It's strange, I
thought I had already told it in this thread.

[michael]

"David Loftus" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books),
there
> > is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.
>
>
> Ermm . . . desire confers a right?
>
> This is the rationale a rapist might employ for ravishing his
> neighbor's daughter with impunity.

his neighbour is a pimp? whoda thunk it? are daughters intellectual property
or just plain old property? stealing a paperback from a drugstore is somehow
equivalent to rape? how about raping an orphaned person? who gets hurt there
and how?

your analogy is most thought-provoking... no more downloading for me...
(would wearing a condom make a difference?)


michael

[Tony Clark]

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote in message
news:dbirkl$10oh$***@biggoron.nerim.net...
SNIP

>
> No, your reasoning is bogus. There is a quite good illustratin here: <URL:
> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050620&mode=classic >:
>
> "Isn't that kind of like saying if I don't give you everything in my
> wallet
> I'm costing you everything in my wallet?"
>

Sorry but I don't agree that the reference is applicable here. You failed to
quote the second panel in which the person refers to downloading free
software. We are not talking about downloading free e-books here.

> If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
> all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
> or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher).
>

Well I think the courts have proven you wrong on this point. EG the case
against Napster and the users of Napster.

> Your comparaison with material goods is irrelevent: by stealing a material
> good, you prevent its rightful owner from using it. It is not true with
> informational goods.
>

I didn't make the comparison to material goods I simply stated that
informational works produce revenue just like a job, or if you like material
goods. So while you might not be depriving the owner of the use of the
information you are most certainly depriving the owner from collecting
revenue from the sale of the information. And that is what the judicial
system calls damages which are fully recoverable in a civil suit.

> And the point you are missing is that I'm talking ethics, not law.
>
>> In this case the intent and spirit of the law are identical.
>
> No, you are wrong. The spirit of the law is to protect authors against
> unscrupulous publishors (and theatre actors), not to protect the publisher
> against the public. At the time the law was designed, there was no way the
> public could have any other economical influence than buying the book, so
> it
> has not been taken into account at all.
>

Check this link for an overview of what a copyright is
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

You will notice that it not only covers the authors but also give them the
power to

"... authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

This would cover and protect publishers as well. Also note "In the case of
works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be
the author." So in effect the publisher can become the author if the writer
is hired to write a book which is frequently the case.

>> Just because the concept of "thou shalt no
>> steal"
>
> Look in the law, you will not find the word "steal", you will find the
> words
> "copying without the consent of the author". It is a great victory of the
> publishers to have people like you using the word steal to speak of that.
>

In case you don't have a dictionary here's a definition of stealing from the
web:

"the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".

Play whatever word games you like but reproducing copyrighted material
without consent seems to fit the definition of stealing to me (and many
other people too).

SNIP

>
>> Just because the majority of people want something to be
>> legal doesn't mean it ever will be.
>
> I thought it was the meaning of democracy. I must have been wrong.
>

Perhaps in a true democracy, which we don't have here in the United States
(or anywhere else for that matter), the majority rules. In a legal system
like the US we have controls that prevent the "tyranny of the masses". Case
in point, the majority of people in the US were agreeable to laws based on
legal concepts like "Separate but Equal" which discriminated against people
base on race. The Supreme Court ruled this was violation of people's civil
rights and the laws were struck down. The majority rules only when it
doesn't violate another person's rights.

>> I for one wish that book publishers
>> would embrace some of the new technology and distribute material
>> electronically. I believe it would actually increase their sales overall
>> and
>> could also increase profit margins too.
>
> I agree, but it does not contradict my ethical statement.
>
> In fact, I find it somewhat an argument ethically pro the illegal copying:
> if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books),
> there
> is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.
>
Many people have tried to justify their illegal actions based on ethics. To
me that's a very slippery slope. Better to work to change the law than to
try and rationalize breaking the law. The one area that I think is somewhat
questionable for printed material is making "archival" copies for personal
use. This has already been covered for cable and broadcast programming (VCR
taping), audio recordings (cassette tapes) and computer SW (making backup
copies) but for some reason it hasn't been ruled on with respect to books
and magazines. It would seem that there is legal precedence for this but I
don't know that it's been tested in court.

Cheers
TC

[Nicolas George]

"Tony Clark" wrote in message
<FElDe.764$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> Sorry but I don't agree that the reference is applicable here. You failed to
> quote the second panel in which the person refers to downloading free
> software. We are not talking about downloading free e-books here.

When one would not have bought the book anyway (and whatever anyone says,
one knows if for oneself a given book is worth buying or not), it is the
very same.

> Well I think the courts have proven you wrong on this point. EG the case
> against Napster and the users of Napster.

Bis repetita. I am talking ethics, not law. Courts rulings do not bind
anyone at the ethic level.

> So while you might not be depriving the owner of the use of the
> information you are most certainly depriving the owner from collecting
> revenue from the sale of the information.

When one would not have bought the book anyway, one is not depriving the
author of anything.

> This would cover and protect publishers as well.

This does not disprove my point.

> In case you don't have a dictionary here's a definition of stealing from the
> web:
>
> "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".
>
> Play whatever word games you like but reproducing copyrighted material
> without consent seems to fit the definition of stealing to me (and many
> other people too).

Copying something does not take anything to anyone.

> Many people have tried to justify their illegal actions based on ethics. To
> me that's a very slippery slope. Better to work to change the law than to
> try and rationalize breaking the law.

You missed a point: the law is not able to judge on some criteria. Consider
two people in fromt of their computer, who thinks (honestly, for
themeselves):

A: "I really want to read Harry Potter. I'll buy it tomorrow first thing.
Hey, what do I find on this warez site? I can download Harry Potter for
free. Cool, that will save me fifteen bucks."

B: "Harry Potter is not bad, but I can't see the point of all that fuss. If
I find it at the library, I may read it, but I'll have to wait, because all
volumes at the library are borrowed. Hey, what do I find on that warez site?
I can download Harry Potter for free. Well, I have almost finished my last
novel, why not read it that way?"

My entire point is that A is ethically wrong while B is ethically ok, since
it does not change anything at all for anyone else than B.

But for the law, the situations are exactly the same: the book is
downloaded, read, but not bought, and A is able to lie and pretend he tought
like B. Both situations must be either allowed or forbidden the same way.

[Tony Clark]

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote in message
news:dblrvq$29bb$***@biggoron.nerim.net...
> "Tony Clark" wrote in message
> <FElDe.764$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>> Sorry but I don't agree that the reference is applicable here. You failed
>> to
>> quote the second panel in which the person refers to downloading free
>> software. We are not talking about downloading free e-books here.
>
> When one would not have bought the book anyway (and whatever anyone says,
> one knows if for oneself a given book is worth buying or not), it is the
> very same.

No the difference is that in the case of "free" software (or e-books if you
like) the owner of the copyright has granted you permission to have the
material without paying for it. When it's not free you are taking what is
not yours.
>
>> Well I think the courts have proven you wrong on this point. EG the case
>> against Napster and the users of Napster.
>
> Bis repetita. I am talking ethics, not law. Courts rulings do not bind
> anyone at the ethic level.

Let me remind you what you wrote since you conveniently snipped it

"If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher)."

Whatever your ethical rationalization may be the courts have decided that
you are in fact harming the publisher/author and they are entitled to recoup
those damages. When people cannot agree they take their case to the courts
to decide the matter. You could argue your ethics in front of a judge and
you would lose just like Napster and all the people that were sued for
downloading from Napster.

By the way, how do you harm someone ethically?

>
>> So while you might not be depriving the owner of the use of the
>> information you are most certainly depriving the owner from collecting
>> revenue from the sale of the information.
>
> When one would not have bought the book anyway, one is not depriving the
> author of anything.
>

Twisted logic. You want access to the material without due compensation.
Whether you would or would not have bought the book it irrelevant. You are
getting something (the enjoyment of reading the book) yet the copyright
holder is getting nothing.

SNIP
>
> Copying something does not take anything to anyone.
>

I think you meant "take anything AWAY from anyone". If that's what you meant
to say then yes it does. It takes the revenue that would have been generated
had you legally purchased a copy of the material.

>> Many people have tried to justify their illegal actions based on ethics.
>> To
>> me that's a very slippery slope. Better to work to change the law than to
>> try and rationalize breaking the law.
>
> You missed a point: the law is not able to judge on some criteria.
> Consider
> two people in fromt of their computer, who thinks (honestly, for
> themeselves):
>
> A: "I really want to read Harry Potter. I'll buy it tomorrow first thing.
> Hey, what do I find on this warez site? I can download Harry Potter for
> free. Cool, that will save me fifteen bucks."
>
> B: "Harry Potter is not bad, but I can't see the point of all that fuss.
> If
> I find it at the library, I may read it, but I'll have to wait, because
> all
> volumes at the library are borrowed. Hey, what do I find on that warez
> site?
> I can download Harry Potter for free. Well, I have almost finished my last
> novel, why not read it that way?"
>
> My entire point is that A is ethically wrong while B is ethically ok,
> since
> it does not change anything at all for anyone else than B.
>

Bullshit... B is ethically wrong because you've decided that somehow you
shouldn't have to wait until the book becomes available at the library. You
have decided that you are somehow better than everyone else or more
deserving that anyone else and should not be held to the same standards as
everyone else. You talk about ethics yet you put forth an attitude of
arrogance and elitism.

If you're not interested enough to pay for the book why not borrow a copy
from a friend when they are done reading it?

> But for the law, the situations are exactly the same: the book is
> downloaded, read, but not bought, and A is able to lie and pretend he
> tought
> like B. Both situations must be either allowed or forbidden the same way.

They are both forbidden by law. You are trying to rationalize illegal
behavior saying it makes no difference to the copyright holder when in fact
it would make a significant difference. See my other post about millions of
people downloading e-books from the Internet.

TC

[Nicolas George]

"Tony Clark" wrote in message
<bg%De.1934$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
<snip>
> the owner of the copyright has granted you permission
<snip>
> When it's not free you are taking what is
> not yours.
<snip>
> the courts have decided that
<snip>
> They are both forbidden by law. You are trying to rationalize illegal
> behavior
<snip>

Well, obviously you do not have anough background in political philosophy to
see the difference between law and ethics. EOT for me on that subthread.

[Tony Clark]

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote in message
news:dbqpm0$1a72$***@biggoron.nerim.net...
SNIP

>
> Well, obviously you do not have anough background in political philosophy
> to
> see the difference between law and ethics. EOT for me on that subthread.

Political philosophy? Where does politics come into this discussion? I think
you are the one who is lacking here. I will give you a definition of ethics:

"Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science
(study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is
"good" or "right." "

Generally speaking I think we all agree that doing someone harm is not good
or right and therefore unethical. You have yet to produce a defensable
example of unauthorized use of copyrighted material that is not harmful to
the copyright holder. Just because you don't want to pay for the book
doesn't justify your useage of an illegal copy. It's not only illegal it's
unethical when you consider that there are other legal avenues to acquire
the book without paying for it such as public libraries or borrowing a copy
from a friend.

TC

[Nicolas George]

"Tony Clark" wrote in message
<DmiEe.2608$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>> Well, obviously you do not have anough background in political philosophy
>> to see the difference between law and ethics. EOT for me on that
>> subthread.
> Political philosophy? Where does politics come into this discussion?

You prove my point.

> Generally speaking I think we all agree that doing someone harm is not good
> or right and therefore unethical. You have yet to produce a defensable
> example of unauthorized use of copyrighted material that is not harmful to
> the copyright holder.

Let us be didactic. Let me ask you three question:

1. If me doing something or not does not change anything to you, can one say
that me doing it causes you harm?

2. If I have decided, honestly for myself, that your book is not worth
buying, does it change anything for you or not wether I eventually read it
for free or not at all?

3. If I happen to read your book for free, and without causing any shortage
elsewhere that would cause someone else to buy it, does it change anything
for you wether I get it legally or illegally?

[AaronJ]

Nicolas George <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote:

>3. If I happen to read your book for free, and without causing any shortage
>elsewhere that would cause someone else to buy it, does it change anything
>for you wether I get it legally or illegally?

Yes downloading can cause a $$$ change. Recently I read a digital copy of the
Thornbirds that was acquired on the ebook groups. I never would have bought it
otherwise, but I remembered the TV series from years ago and was curious about
the book. It turned out that I liked it. When telling my wife about it she
decided she wanted to read the book too, but she is one of those people who
hates reading digital books. So I went out and *bought* a paper copy for her
(US$15) (that would not have been otherwise bought. She liked the book so much
that now she wanted the video of the original TV series (US$28). When I got that
I discovered a second sequel video (US$15) which I being the wise person that I
am, got also. I doubt that this happens very often on a large scale, but in my
case downloading can be very expensive for me and very profitable for the
franchise... ;)

[Tony Clark]

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote in message
news:dbtnmi$26el$***@biggoron.nerim.net...
> "Tony Clark" wrote in message
> <DmiEe.2608$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>> Well, obviously you do not have anough background in political
>>> philosophy
>>> to see the difference between law and ethics. EOT for me on that
>>> subthread.
>> Political philosophy? Where does politics come into this discussion?
>
> You prove my point.
>

So now politics equal ethics? Interesting take. So are you talking ethics or
politics? You weaken your arguments when you are inconsistent.

>> Generally speaking I think we all agree that doing someone harm is not
>> good
>> or right and therefore unethical. You have yet to produce a defensable
>> example of unauthorized use of copyrighted material that is not harmful
>> to
>> the copyright holder.
>
> Let us be didactic. Let me ask you three question:
>
> 1. If me doing something or not does not change anything to you, can one
> say
> that me doing it causes you harm?
>

Well let me give you an example. If you are a doctor and I am lying on the
ground bleeding to death and you do nothing is any harm done to me?

> 2. If I have decided, honestly for myself, that your book is not worth
> buying, does it change anything for you or not wether I eventually read it
> for free or not at all?
>

Well the crux of your argument here is that you "honestly" decided that the
book was not worth purchasing. How can we determine that empirically? Before
the advent of e-books on the internet how many times did you go down to the
local library and read a borrowed book as compared to the number of books
you download illegally? I'll bet it's an order of magnitude in difference.
The problem is that technology has now made it much easier and more
convenient for people to get access to copyright material illegally.
Therefore more people will choose not to pay for the material when they can
easily get it for free and this in fact does change the potential revenue
for the copyright holder.

> 3. If I happen to read your book for free, and without causing any
> shortage
> elsewhere that would cause someone else to buy it, does it change anything
> for you wether I get it legally or illegally?

So if I come to your house and borrow your car while you are sleeping I am
doing no wrong since you weren't going to use it anyway. I'll gladly fill it
up with gas when I am done so I guess it's ok huh?

To answer #3. You have caused the shortage by not accessing the material
legally. The exceptions for libraries and personal loans has been determined
not to cause a significant change in the revenue generated from legally
selling the books elsewhere. Mass distribution of the material illegally is
a whole different matter. It's a matter of scale, you can't loan a paper
copy to millions of people all at once. E-books are not limited in this way.

We're starting to circle back around on this. It's clear we disagree on the
ethics and legallity of downloading unauthorized copies of e-books. That's
the beauty of living in a free society. For now you just keep downloading
those e-books and maybe you'll get lucky and get to make a Pepsi commercial
like that young girl who got sued for using Napster.

Cheers
TC

[Nicolas George]

"Tony Clark" wrote in message
<CDxEe.2868$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>> Political philosophy? Where does politics come into this discussion?
> So now politics equal ethics?

Well, maybe if you knew more about political philosophy, for a start you
would know what it is about.

>> 1. If me doing something or not does not change anything to you, can one
>> say that me doing it causes you harm?
> Well let me give you an example. If you are a doctor and I am lying on the
> ground bleeding to death and you do nothing is any harm done to me?

For a start, I suggest you start by learning to understand all the words of
a sentence. In your example, would you say that wether the doctor does
something or not does not change anything for you?

> Well the crux of your argument here is that you "honestly" decided that the
> book was not worth purchasing. How can we determine that empirically?

And thus you prove that you did not understand anything at all. Let me repet
one more time: I am talking ethics, not law. Ethics does not need to
_determine_ something or not because ethics does not give penalties, that is
the role of the low.

> the advent of e-books on the internet how many times did you go down to the

First, let me remind you that I never said I actually do download illegally
books. I never said I do not, I did not say antything at all concerning my
own actions.

> local library and read a borrowed book as compared to the number of books
> you download illegally? I'll bet it's an order of magnitude in difference.

Second, let me telle you this stright away: your bet is plain stupid. The
limiting factor for the number of books I can actually read is neither the
bandwidth of my Internet connection nor the speed of the clerk at the local
library: it is the speed I can read books.

> So if I come to your house and borrow your car while you are sleeping I am
> doing no wrong since you weren't going to use it anyway. I'll gladly fill it
> up with gas when I am done so I guess it's ok huh?

If I don't know about it (so I do not worry), if you do not cause any
accident I would be responsible for, if you do not use the car to commit a
crime so that I would be suspected, if you do not deteriorate the vehicle,
etc., in other words if it does not change anything at all for me, I do not
see why I should care.

Obviously, just using a car causes wear, so your example does not work
anyway.

> We're starting to circle back around on this. It's clear we disagree on the
> ethics and legallity of downloading unauthorized copies of e-books.

Again, you prove you did not understand my position, because I never
questionned the illegallity of such downloading. May I suggest you get some
notions about reasonning and rationnal discussion before the next time you
try to engage in such a discussion?

[Tony Clark]

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote in message
news:dbui16$2fmn$***@biggoron.nerim.net...
> "Tony Clark" wrote in message
> <CDxEe.2868$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>>> Political philosophy? Where does politics come into this discussion?
>> So now politics equal ethics?
>
> Well, maybe if you knew more about political philosophy, for a start you
> would know what it is about.
>

So instead of answering the question you attack me. Good way to make a
point.

>>> 1. If me doing something or not does not change anything to you, can one
>>> say that me doing it causes you harm?
>> Well let me give you an example. If you are a doctor and I am lying on
>> the
>> ground bleeding to death and you do nothing is any harm done to me?
>
> For a start, I suggest you start by learning to understand all the words
> of
> a sentence. In your example, would you say that wether the doctor does
> something or not does not change anything for you?
>

Since you're up for personal attacks perhaps you might learn to spell most
of the words you use in a sentence so people could understand what you are
trying to say. Simply put if the doctor does NOT take action then yes
something does change for me; I will die.

>> Well the crux of your argument here is that you "honestly" decided that
>> the
>> book was not worth purchasing. How can we determine that empirically?
>
> And thus you prove that you did not understand anything at all. Let me
> repet
> one more time: I am talking ethics, not law. Ethics does not need to
> _determine_ something or not because ethics does not give penalties, that
> is
> the role of the low.
>

Ethics is about determining right versus wrong. You seem to be the one who
doesn't understand the discussion. If ethics doesn't determine right or
wrong then what exactly does it determine?

>> the advent of e-books on the internet how many times did you go down to
>> the
>
> First, let me remind you that I never said I actually do download
> illegally
> books. I never said I do not, I did not say antything at all concerning my
> own actions.
>
>> local library and read a borrowed book as compared to the number of books
>> you download illegally? I'll bet it's an order of magnitude in
>> difference.
>
> Second, let me telle you this stright away: your bet is plain stupid. The
> limiting factor for the number of books I can actually read is neither the
> bandwidth of my Internet connection nor the speed of the clerk at the
> local
> library: it is the speed I can read books.
>

It's called a hypothetical situation.

>> So if I come to your house and borrow your car while you are sleeping I
>> am
>> doing no wrong since you weren't going to use it anyway. I'll gladly fill
>> it
>> up with gas when I am done so I guess it's ok huh?
>
> If I don't know about it (so I do not worry), if you do not cause any
> accident I would be responsible for, if you do not use the car to commit a
> crime so that I would be suspected, if you do not deteriorate the vehicle,
> etc., in other words if it does not change anything at all for me, I do
> not
> see why I should care.
>
> Obviously, just using a car causes wear, so your example does not work
> anyway.
>
>> We're starting to circle back around on this. It's clear we disagree on
>> the
>> ethics and legallity of downloading unauthorized copies of e-books.
>
> Again, you prove you did not understand my position, because I never
> questionned the illegallity of such downloading. May I suggest you get
> some
> notions about reasonning and rationnal discussion before the next time you
> try to engage in such a discussion?

You might get an editor with a spell checker. May I suggest that you try to
offer a reasoned rebuttal instead of resorting to personal attacks. It's
usually people that are lacking in logical argument that fall back on name
calling and personal insults.

[Jonathan Buzzard]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:23:03 -0500, jeff wrote:

> AaronJ wrote:
>> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>>>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>>>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>>>the same violations are visited on ourselves.
>>
>>
>> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
>> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>>
>> Other than legality what is the difference?
>
> In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
> live in a country ruled by law?
>

Yes I do. However it is also my democratic right to engage in civil
disobedience against laws that I feel are unjust, provided I am ready to
accept the consequences.

It is a perfectly reasonable point of view to take, that the widespread
breaking of copyright law (in the U.K. that is just about every single
person over the age of about 10) as civil disobedience.

In the end the laws can only work if the majority of people accept and
abide by them. The fact that there is such widespread breaking of
copyright law shows that in it's current form the majority of people do
not accept it as valid.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: [phone]

[AaronJ]

jeff <***@invalid.spam> wrote:

>AaronJ wrote:
>> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>>>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>>>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>>>the same violations are visited on ourselves.
>>
>>
>> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
>> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>>
>> Other than legality what is the difference?
>
>In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
>live in a country ruled by law?

Yes and apparently in a country of illiterates. My post says "other than
legality"...

[Nicolas George]

AaronJ wrote in message <***@4ax.com>:
> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>
> Other than legality what is the difference?

There is a slight difference : while you have borrowed the book, others
people can not read it. If a lot of people ask for the book, the library may
buy more exemplaries.

The real condition is: if you can not read the book now for free (by
borrowing it, which is legal, or by downloading it on illegal sources), what
do you do?

If the answer is that you will wait until you can borrow it, then there is
absolutely no harm caused to the author.

[Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]]

There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.

I do find that it's sometimes difficult to do so, such as out of print
editions where the copyright is still in force... several cases in point
including http://bevhoward.com/ycltf.htm#copyright ;-)

Beverly Howard

[Harry Hazardous]

Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
> ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.
>
> I do find that it's sometimes difficult to do so, such as out of print
> editions where the copyright is still in force... several cases in point
> including http://bevhoward.com/ycltf.htm#copyright ;-)
>
> Beverly Howard

He's right, I feel. Legally, I can't download an e-book to read while on
the treadmill, even if I have a physical copy on the shelf. But I don't
feel that I'm doing anything morally wrong.

Getting out of paying for any of it in the first place, well...

[Sky_rider]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:45:43 -0400, Harry Hazardous
<***@removethis.veryspeedy.net> wrote the following in
ink distilled from the fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:
>Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:

>> There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
>> ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.

>> I do find that it's sometimes difficult to do so, such as out of print
>> editions where the copyright is still in force... several cases in point
>> including http://bevhoward.com/ycltf.htm#copyright ;-)

>> Beverly Howard

>He's right, I feel. Legally, I can't download an e-book to read while on
>the treadmill, even if I have a physical copy on the shelf. But I don't
>feel that I'm doing anything morally wrong.

>Getting out of paying for any of it in the first place, well...

Ok... and look at from another direction.

There are *millions* of HPB books out there. They are not subject to
licence as is MS-PX for example.... they our books so we can do with
them what we wish.

So... we read them... and pass them on to someone - free. This person
has acquired the book for nothing... can read it... and *also* pass it
on. Should they be ethically bound to pay the author or publisher a
'reading fee'??

And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tim McKenny]

"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Ok... and look at from another direction.
>
> There are *millions* of HPB books out there. They are not subject to
> licence as is MS-PX for example.... they our books so we can do with
> them what we wish.

Err... no. Just as being able to own and drive a car doesn't mean you can
now run people over with impunity, ownership of a CD or book doesn't mean
you can commit illegal actions with said CD or book. Note: I'm not saying I
necessarily agree with the laws themselves here... but I do disagree with
your interpretation of them.

> So... we read them... and pass them on to someone - free. This person
> has acquired the book for nothing... can read it... and *also* pass it
> on. Should they be ethically bound to pay the author or publisher a
> 'reading fee'??

If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal
BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while it
is not in your possession. Once your buddy passes it on, it's still legal
because he cannot reread the book or give out additional copies.

> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?

Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person. I
disagree.

[Sky_rider]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:53:39 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
<***@covad.net> wrote the following in ink distilled from the
fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

>"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> Ok... and look at from another direction.
>>
>> There are *millions* of HPB books out there. They are not subject to
>> licence as is MS-PX for example.... they our books so we can do with
>> them what we wish.
>
>Err... no. Just as being able to own and drive a car doesn't mean you can
>now run people over with impunity, ownership of a CD or book doesn't mean
>you can commit illegal actions with said CD or book. Note: I'm not saying I
>necessarily agree with the laws themselves here... but I do disagree with
>your interpretation of them.
>
>> So... we read them... and pass them on to someone - free. This person
>> has acquired the book for nothing... can read it... and *also* pass it
>> on. Should they be ethically bound to pay the author or publisher a
>> 'reading fee'??

>If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal
>BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while it
>is not in your possession. Once your buddy passes it on, it's still legal
>because he cannot reread the book or give out additional copies.

Hmm... I can see where you're coming from, but from that perspective
there should be no reason why I can't make or download e-copies since
I bought the book (well two copies again actually <g>).

>> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!

>> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
>> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?

>Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
>it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
>that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
>when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
>rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.

And if I keep give them carte blanche to wander in at any time and
watch the DVD? The whole copyright issue is bizarre and the laws cant
possibly cover all circumstances and situations..

>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person. I
>disagree.

Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
view the DVD for free... yes I've bought it... but... ?? Also, since I
bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
damage the original... but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it :)
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tim McKenny]

"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

>>If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal
>>BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while
>>it
>>is not in your possession. Once your buddy passes it on, it's still legal
>>because he cannot reread the book or give out additional copies.
>
> Hmm... I can see where you're coming from, but from that perspective
> there should be no reason why I can't make or download e-copies since
> I bought the book (well two copies again actually <g>).

That's not the case at all.

Once your buddy passes a book on (be it purchased or loaned), it's still
legal because he cannot re-read the book or give out additional copies. The
moment you make a copy - either a digital or a physical copy (with, say, a
photocopier) - then yes, you have indeed broken the law unless the copyright
holder (meaning the person who has the legal RIGHT to make COPIES - hence,
copy-right) has explicitly given you permission to do so.

Some people have argued that copyright does (or doesn't) include the ability
to make "archival" copies of legitimately purchased items, but there isn't a
100% accurate ruling on that. Many music, film, and book publishers
strenuously argue that it doesn't; if your CD scratches, your DVD melts, or
your book falls in the tub, they want you to purchase another copy.
(Sidebar: One thing I have read is that IF you make an archival copy of a
copyrighted item, then if you sell or loan out your original copy copy, you
MUST destroy all archival copies you've made until the original is back in
your possession - a law that makes little sense to me.)

>>> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?
>
>>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
>>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.
>
> Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
> together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
> watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!

Er... sorry, but that's not the point at all. Yes, you can have a "DVD
Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you charge
nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition; the
moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in question.
Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.

>>> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
>>> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?
>
>>Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
>>it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
>>that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
>>when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
>>rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.
>
> And if I keep give them carte blanche to wander in at any time and
> watch the DVD?

That's perfectly ok...just as it's perfectly ok for you to loan them the
DVD. It's NOT ok for you to make a copy of the DVD to give them. A large
part of copyright stems from the concept that if you own a licensed copy
(the DVD you bought) you can watch it whenever you wish. Once you make an
illegal duplicate, you're extending that right to someone who has not paid
for it WITHOUT surrendering your licensed copy.

> The whole copyright issue is bizarre and the laws cant
> possibly cover all circumstances and situations..

I could not agree more. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I do NOT
agree with copyright laws in the US - but I do understand them.

>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
>>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
>>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
>>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person.
>>I
>>disagree.
>
> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
> view the DVD for free...

No arguments there.

> yes I've bought it... but... ??

But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
it.

> Also, since I
> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
> damage the original...

As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.

> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it :)

Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
then doing so.

[AaronJ]

"Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:

>merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
>then doing so.

Next time you go to the library, check out the
criminals at the copy machine... ;)

[Tim McKenny]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
>>then doing so.
>
> Next time you go to the library, check out the
> criminals at the copy machine... ;)

I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
entire chapter, for that matter.

[AaronJ]

"Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:

>I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
>entire chapter, for that matter.

Ah. So you don't see all copyright violations as bad then. It only becomes bad
when the quantity increases. Ok to steal a piece of candy, but not the
whole box eh... ;)

[Sky_rider]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:56:52 GMT, AaronJ <***@noemail.com> wrote
the following in ink distilled from the fermented blood of a Norwegian
Ridgeback:
>"Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:

>>I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
>>entire chapter, for that matter.

>Ah. So you don't see all copyright violations as bad then. It only becomes bad
>when the quantity increases. Ok to steal a piece of candy, but not the
> whole box eh... ;)

Works for online material as well... on my sites I often add 'large
quotes' from articles that contain all the salient points, but add a
reference url to the original... it seems this doesn't violate
copyright.

I'm not sure at what point copying sections 'for reference' becomes a
violation of copyright
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
>>entire chapter, for that matter.
>
> Ah. So you don't see all copyright violations as bad then. It only becomes
> bad
> when the quantity increases. Ok to steal a piece of candy, but not the
> whole box eh... ;)

Some works may be copied in part for reference useage and one does not break
any laws doing so. I believe that there is also an exception for quoting a
portion of copyrighted material for review purposes. I think this was added
to the law to protect newspapers and magazines that review books and such.

[AaronJ]

"Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Some works may be copied in part for reference useage
>and one does not break any laws doing so.

I just looked in my PC Magazine and it quite plainly says "Material in this
publication may not be reproduced for any purpose without written permission".
Are they just blowing smoke? Magazines seem to be a regular resident on the copy
machine at my library, put there by the criminals I was mentioning before... ;)

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Some works may be copied in part for reference useage
>>and one does not break any laws doing so.
>
> I just looked in my PC Magazine and it quite plainly says "Material in
> this
> publication may not be reproduced for any purpose without written
> permission".
> Are they just blowing smoke? Magazines seem to be a regular resident on
> the copy
> machine at my library, put there by the criminals I was mentioning
> before... ;)

Well you need to get back to the library and do some review on copyright
laws, but to save you some time here is the relevant section: :):):):)

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
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; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So without knowing what people are making the copies for I can't say if they
are or are not violating the law, but certainly there is a provision for
people to make copies for educational purposes.

TC

[AaronJ]

"Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>So without knowing what people are making the copies for I can't say if they
>are or are not violating the law,

No, you can't tell about individual patrons, but as a general rule I think it's
safe to say that there are copyright violations happening on a daily basis at my
local library copy machine. And they are just as guilty of a copyright violation
as those downloading books. I think that was the point I was trying to make,
although I forget why and to who I was trying to make it... ;)

>but certainly there is a provision for
>people to make copies for educational purposes.

I read the civil code you posted and it seems to confirm what you say. But I
still wonder why a magazine (and it's high priced lawyers) would print that
warning unless they thought they could legally back it up if necessary.

"Material in this publication may not be reproduced for
any purpose without written permission".

[Tony Clark]

"AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> "Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So without knowing what people are making the copies for I can't say if
>>they
>>are or are not violating the law,
>
> No, you can't tell about individual patrons, but as a general rule I think
> it's
> safe to say that there are copyright violations happening on a daily basis
> at my
> local library copy machine. And they are just as guilty of a copyright
> violation
> as those downloading books. I think that was the point I was trying to
> make,
> although I forget why and to who I was trying to make it... ;)

No argument from me on that point. I am sure there are violations occuring
frequently, although on a college campus you would hope most of the material
is being used for educational purposes but who can say for sure? :)

>
>>but certainly there is a provision for
>>people to make copies for educational purposes.
>
> I read the civil code you posted and it seems to confirm what you say. But
> I
> still wonder why a magazine (and it's high priced lawyers) would print
> that
> warning unless they thought they could legally back it up if necessary.
>
> "Material in this publication may not be reproduced for
> any purpose without written permission".

Well the day I understand half of what lawyers do is probably the day I
check into the Funny Farm. LOL. I suspect that warning is meant to cover all
the other instances of copyright infringement which are not covered by Fair
Use. Maybe the lawyers charge by the word and the magazine decided to leave
off the rest of the sentance which should say "....except in those instances
covered by Section 107 of the US Copyright law".

Cheers
TC

[Harry Hazardous]

AaronJ wrote:
> "Tony Clark" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Some works may be copied in part for reference useage
>>and one does not break any laws doing so.
>
>
> I just looked in my PC Magazine and it quite plainly says "Material in this
> publication may not be reproduced for any purpose without written permission".
> Are they just blowing smoke? Magazines seem to be a regular resident on the copy
> machine at my library, put there by the criminals I was mentioning before... ;)

Possibly. They say that you can't reproduce it. Period. But some
reproduction is legally permissible. But they don't say that.

[Nicolas George]

"Tim McKenny" wrote in message
<ab7e2$42dd399c$42a05934$***@msgid.meganewsservers.com>:
> I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
> entire chapter, for that matter.

Did you know that the generalization of availability of photocopy machines
actually increased the textbooks sales?

The principle is that before, people got to the library, read the part of
the book they were interested in, took notes, and got home. With
photocopies, they get to the library, photocopy the part of the book they
are interested in, and keep the photocopy. Thus, they take the habit of
having a copy near at hand. And when the part was to big to be photocopied,
they buy the book.

It does not prove anything, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

By the way, could you remind me when did the VCR kill the cinema?

[Harry Hazardous]

Tim McKenny wrote:
> "AaronJ" <***@noemail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>>"Tim McKenny" <***@covad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
>>>then doing so.
>>
>>Next time you go to the library, check out the
>>criminals at the copy machine... ;)
>
>
> I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
> entire chapter, for that matter.
>
>
>
I've seen people copy entire scores of copyrighted music.

[Sky_rider]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:49:49 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
<***@covad.net> wrote the following in ink distilled from the
fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

>"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...


<snip>

>>>> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

>>>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
>>>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

>> Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
>> together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
>> watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!

>Er... sorry, but that's not the point at all. Yes, you can have a "DVD
>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you charge
>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition; the
>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in question.
>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.

So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!

Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
at the same time.

>>>> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
>>>> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?

>>>Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
>>>it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
>>>that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
>>>when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
>>>rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.

>> And if I keep give them carte blanche to wander in at any time and
>> watch the DVD?

>That's perfectly ok...just as it's perfectly ok for you to loan them the
>DVD. It's NOT ok for you to make a copy of the DVD to give them. A large
>part of copyright stems from the concept that if you own a licensed copy
>(the DVD you bought) you can watch it whenever you wish. Once you make an
>illegal duplicate, you're extending that right to someone who has not paid
>for it WITHOUT surrendering your licensed copy.

>> The whole copyright issue is bizarre and the laws cant
>> possibly cover all circumstances and situations..

>I could not agree more. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I do NOT
>agree with copyright laws in the US - but I do understand them.

Sorry a lot of this is contradictory. In fact from what you've
suggested above, it seems public libraries could simply charge people
a small fee for entry and lend the books out free!!

>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
>>>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
>>>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
>>>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person.
>>>I disagree.

>> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
>> view the DVD for free...

>No arguments there.

>> yes I've bought it... but... ??

>But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
>it.

Yes I can... I can watch it on my premises as often as I wish!

>> Also, since I
>> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
>> damage the original...

>As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
>studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.

>> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
>> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it :)

>Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
>then doing so.

There speaks someone who hasn't got two kids whose mission in life is
to scratch every DVD he buys within minutes of getting them home :)
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tim McKenny]

"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
>>Yes, you can have a "DVD
>>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you
>>charge
>>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
>>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition;
>>the
>>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
>>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
>>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
>>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
>>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in
>>question.
>>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.
>
> So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
> a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
> pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!

Can you expound on this, please? I'm afraid I don't understand where you're
coming from.

I've never heard of a Library charging people for checking out a book or DVD
(not including late fees, of course).

> Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
> of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
> don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
> books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
> at the same time.

Well, of course you can do that. Never said or implied you couldn't.

> Sorry a lot of this is contradictory. In fact from what you've
> suggested above, it seems public libraries could simply charge people
> a small fee for entry and lend the books out free!!

Hang on now... when have I ever said it was ok for libraries to charge
"entry fees"??

And sorry, but I think I've been fairly straightforward. Making a copy of a
book, film, or DVD is completely different than reading, viewing, or
listening to a licensed copy of a copyrighted work.

You do understand the distinction, right?

>>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that
>>>>if
>>>>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that
>>>>copy
>>>>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
>>>>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that
>>>>person.
>>>>I disagree.
>
>>> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
>>> view the DVD for free...
>
>>No arguments there.
>
>>> yes I've bought it... but... ??
>
>>But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
>>it.
>
> Yes I can... I can watch it on my premises as often as I wish!

Ok... stay with me here: if your friend comes over and borrows your DVD -
takes it home to his house for example - how can you then watch that DVD as
often as you wish?

>>> Also, since I
>>> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
>>> damage the original...
>
>>As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
>>studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.
>
>>> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
>>> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it :)
>
>>Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
>>then doing so.
>
> There speaks someone who hasn't got two kids whose mission in life is
> to scratch every DVD he buys within minutes of getting them home :)

You would be correct. If I were to have two such kids, you can bet my DVDs
would not be placed in harm's way.

[Sky_rider]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:25:00 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
<***@covad.net> wrote the following in ink distilled from the
fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

>"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>>>Yes, you can have a "DVD
>>>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you
>>>charge
>>>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
>>>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition;
>>>the
>>>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
>>>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
>>>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
>>>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
>>>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in
>>>question.
>>>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.
>>
>> So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
>> a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
>> pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!
>
>Can you expound on this, please? I'm afraid I don't understand where you're
>coming from.

The library must pay a fee to the author for permission to release a
book for borrowing.

>I've never heard of a Library charging people for checking out a book or DVD
>(not including late fees, of course).

They don't usually charge the borrower... tho they *can*... I'm sure
there's a private socialist library in Clerkenwell that charges
borrowers for loans... anyway... the fees are normally covered in the
UK (and Australia) by the local council who include the costs of
borrowing in the subsidies they pay the library service.

>> Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
>> of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
>> don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
>> books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
>> at the same time.

>Well, of course you can do that. Never said or implied you couldn't.

So the author gets no income... so why can't they sit in my cafe and
read an e-book online... free... makes no difference whatsoever to the
publisher *or* the author... !

>> Sorry a lot of this is contradictory. In fact from what you've
>> suggested above, it seems public libraries could simply charge people
>> a small fee for entry and lend the books out free!!

>Hang on now... when have I ever said it was ok for libraries to charge
>"entry fees"??

I did... if I run a private 'library' masquerading as a cafe... or
similar... and it's legal... then why should the local council not be
able to do the same thing??

>And sorry, but I think I've been fairly straightforward. Making a copy of a
>book, film, or DVD is completely different than reading, viewing, or
>listening to a licensed copy of a copyrighted work.

>You do understand the distinction, right?

I think you're still missing the point :)

>>>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that
>>>>>if you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then
>>>>>loan that copy you just purchased to another person, then it's
>>>>>as wrong as making a physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book
>>>>>and GIVING it to that person. I disagree.

>>>> Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
>>>> view the DVD for free...

>>>No arguments there.

>>>> yes I've bought it... but... ??

>>>But while your friend has your licensed copy you bought, you cannot watch
>>>it.

>> Yes I can... I can watch it on my premises as often as I wish!

>Ok... stay with me here: if your friend comes over and borrows your DVD -
>takes it home to his house for example - how can you then watch that DVD as
>often as you wish?

I'm assuming they are watching it on my premises... or I on theirs...
I can leave it with them and go back there when I like... and watch
it... that way it is possible for *hundreds* of people to watch it...
potentially... and all for the cost of one copy.

>>>> Also, since I
>>>> bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
>>>> damage the original...

>>>As I said before, this is a point VERY open to contention - and the film
>>>studios feel otherwise; that's why the DVDs are copy-protected.

>>>> but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
>>>> to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it :)

>>>Yep. Of course, merely being able to break the law is not a defense for
>>>then doing so.

>> There speaks someone who hasn't got two kids whose mission in life is
>> to scratch every DVD he buys within minutes of getting them home :)

>You would be correct. If I were to have two such kids, you can bet my DVDs
>would not be placed in harm's way.

I thought the same thing... but it seems to be far more difficult to
do in practice than in theory... and I'm not alone in saying this :)
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Tony Clark]

"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
SNIP

>>> So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
>>> a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
>>> pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!
>>
>>Can you expound on this, please? I'm afraid I don't understand where
>>you're
>>coming from.
>
> The library must pay a fee to the author for permission to release a
> book for borrowing.
>
>>I've never heard of a Library charging people for checking out a book or
>>DVD
>>(not including late fees, of course).
>
> They don't usually charge the borrower... tho they *can*... I'm sure
> there's a private socialist library in Clerkenwell that charges
> borrowers for loans... anyway... the fees are normally covered in the
> UK (and Australia) by the local council who include the costs of
> borrowing in the subsidies they pay the library service.
>
SNIP

I don't know about Australian law but the US Copyright laws covers the
exception for libraries as follows:

§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and
archives

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the
provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a
library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of
their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a
work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such
copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if -

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct
or indirect commercial advantage;

(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public,
or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or
archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other
persons doing research in a specialized field; and

Take note of item (1) which expressly forbids the purpose of commercial
advantage and (2) which states that the library must be a public library.
Likewise the Library does not pay the author a fee for lending the book.
They may pay, however, for acquiring a copy of the material in printed form.

In the US Libraries are the exception to the rule, within certain
guidelines.

TC

[Phil Thompson]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:37:25 GMT, Sky_rider <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The library must pay a fee to the author for permission to release a
>book for borrowing.

they do ? oh yes,
http://www.plrinternational.com/background/background.htm
you live and learn.

One of the key distinctions IMO between books in a library and
electronic media is that in the former case there is one physical
thing that can only be in one place at once, whereas with the latter
thousands of copies can be made from one sold or licensed item.

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

[Harry Hazardous]

Sky_rider wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:49:49 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
> <***@covad.net> wrote the following in ink distilled from the
> fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:
>
>
>>"Sky_rider" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?
>
>
>>>>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
>>>>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.
>
>
>>>Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
>>>together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
>>>watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!
>
>
>>Er... sorry, but that's not the point at all. Yes, you can have a "DVD
>>Party" and invite all your friends to watch your DVD (as long as you charge
>>nothing. The moment you do, you're in copyright violation - read the FBI
>>warning at the beginning of that DVD regarding noncommercial exhibition; the
>>moment you charge admission it then becomes a commercial venture ).
>>However... that's completely different than having, say, a DVD Party where
>>after the screening you then make copies of the DVD for everyone to take
>>home to watch at their leisure. Again: the act of
>>watching/reading/listening to a copyrighted work is not what's in question.
>>Making a physical (or digital) duplicate is.
>
>
> So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
> a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
> pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!
>
> Suppose I run a cafe and provide 'reading materials' for visitors free
> of charge? I can still make an income from my cafe... and people still
> don't pay... so I can effectively run a private library (and lend the
> books out if I so wish) not only free of charge but actually earning
> at the same time.
>

How about libraries that *rent* books? If you want it free, you have to
wait until they decide the rental period expires. Much like the *new*
section of VHS and DVD rentals, which is arbitrary.

[AaronJ]

"Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote:

>There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
>ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.

Ok, how about if I borrow the *same* paper library book that I also download as
an ebook. I keep the library book in my possession while I read the ebook on my
Palm. When finished I delete the ebook and return the library book. Am I covered
morally now? There is no financial difference to anybody...

[AaronJ]

Nicolas George <nicolas$***@salle-s.org> wrote:

>There is a slight difference : while you have borrowed the book, others
>people can not read it. If a lot of people ask for the book, the library may
>buy more exemplaries.

Yes, the library impedes the process. But the process is the same nevertheless.

>The real condition is: if you can not read the book now for free (by
>borrowing it, which is legal, or by downloading it on illegal sources), what
>do you do?

There is a third condition. There are many books still in copyright that are no
longer in print. Then what?

>If the answer is that you will wait until you can borrow it, then there is
>absolutely no harm caused to the author.

You could buy it used, but the author gets nothing...

[Andrew Steele ROT-13 encoded]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
***@noemail.com says...
> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>
> Other than legality what is the difference?
>
> Money of course...

Of course its money...

In a library the book has been paid for and in many countries authors
and publishers get fees based on the number of times that their book is
borrowed.

If authors and publishers didn't get paid then they wouldn't publish or
write and then there'd be very few books available and even fewer
available to read by downloading.

There is nothing available for free in life. Either you pay for it
yourself or somebody else pays for it.

Andrew


--
Email address ROT-13 encoded to reduce unsolicited bulk
and commercial Email

***@fcnzpbc.arg

[AaronJ]

Andrew Steele ROT-13 encoded <***@fcnzpbc.arg> wrote:

> in many countries authors
>and publishers get fees based on the number of times that their book is
>borrowed.

In my library and in 99% of the US public libraries, people *borrow* most books
and they can read the authors work for *free*.

>If authors and publishers didn't get paid then they wouldn't publish or
>write and then there'd be very few books available

But of course authors/publishers do get paid. Even with free libraries, free
rereadings of your book by friends, and rereading of used books by many (ever
use the 2 for 1 paperback exchange), the publishers are still making quite a lot
of money.

>and even fewer available to read by downloading.

Downloading scares publishers because it increases the scale. But other than
scale there is absolutely no practical (not legal) difference in the principle
of reading a book over and over for free in the library and reading it over and
over for free by downloading it.

[Sky_rider]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:52:06 -0500, "Beverly Howard
[Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" <BevNoSpamBevHoward.com> wrote the following in
ink distilled from the fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

> >> can afford the drain caused by people leeching illegal e-books... <<

>What have you have produced in your life and existance that you can
>afford to allow to be leeched by individuals who feel they have the
>right to take parts of your life without paying for them?

Well for a start I have an online slang dictionary that I've had
published but is available free of charge for people to access and
use. I've spent several years of my life compiling it... and am
*still* adding to it daily... but that's my choice.

It's never made much money... certainly nothing like the amount JKR
has been paid, nor will it ever, but that hasn't stopped me sharing
what I have with others.

<snip>

>Flowers from your yard, gas from your vehicle, code you have written,
>tools left unsecured, a purse on the front seat, a wallet taken from a
>crowded event, your child's shoes or their gameboy at school, etc, etc?

>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>the same violations are visited on ourselves.

Like I said... go read the dictionaries free... http://www.odps.org

>I agree that the publishers are far from guiltless, but there are other
>options to deal with them such as fostering alternatives such as
>micropayments to help put them out of business before their time.

Whilst initially JKR was in the same boat as the vast majority of us,
i.e. struggling to survive, she no longer fits into that category. I
think there is *no* moral reason to feel guilt in relation to when
that person will be paying more in *taxes* than most of us ever earn!

Please remember that even if Book 7 was given away free with breakfast
cereal.... JKR would *still* make millions just from marketing! And
best of luck to her... she's doing the work - she should get paid for
it. However, it remains true that she as an individual *can* now
afford the minor leeching that goes on by the production of e-books.
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.fan.harry-potter Byron Collins <***@clarksville.com> wrote:
: Hi All,
:
: Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
: If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
:
: http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html

Wouldn't dream of it...I am frankly disgusted by the
idea of ebooks.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]]

FWIW, an article directly related to the topic of this long thread

http://www.wired.com/news/avantgo/story/0,2278,68269-,00.html

Beverly Howard

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> FWIW, an article directly related to the topic of this long thread
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/avantgo/story/0,2278,68269-,00.html
>
> Beverly Howard

"We want to prevent piracy for many reasons, financial being the very
last one of those," said Neil Blair, a lawyer and partner at the
Christopher Little Literary Agency.