View Single Post
Old 03-12-2009, 02:41 PM   #65
RobbieClarken
Addict
RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RobbieClarken ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 372
Karma: 1002274
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Device: Kindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty1024 View Post
The same laws that protect Mobileread's freedom to publish public domain works also protects Amazon's publisher's rights to control how and where their copyrighted works are published.
That's not true. Copyright is a negative right - preventing certain actions, not "protecting freedom". Without copyright (and hence the DMCA), all works would be "public domain" so MobileRead's ebook library would be even vaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty1024 View Post
I also suspect your attitude would be highly negative if I backed up a virtual dump truck over in the 10,000+ edition free ebook repository and started scooping up piles of content there and hauling them over to Amazon and putting them up for $.99 each.
I can't speak for MobileRead, but I wouldn't have a problem with you doing that. How would it hurt anyone here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty1024 View Post
If you feel a law is too broad in it's powers you work to change the law, you don't break it. Because when you start breaking laws you may discover they protect things you do care about.
Off topic rant:

And if you have no hope of changing a bad law then bad luck? Do you disprove of abolitionists who helped slaves escape from the south or northern officials who disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act? What about blacks that violated Jim Crow laws? They should have worked to "change the law" while enduring intolerable racism? What about people with debilitating diseases who could receive some relief from medical marijuana? I'm not willing to say they should suffer because of some crummy law.

I'm not saying that copyright is the moral equivalent of the evil laws I mentioned above but I can't stand the claim that one should always follow the law or change it. Even in a democracy people have very little, if any power to change the law. Breaking unjust laws does not lead to the destruction of civilisation and it is sometimes your only option.

Last edited by RobbieClarken; 03-12-2009 at 02:44 PM. Reason: Spoler tag not working
RobbieClarken is offline   Reply With Quote