MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

nerys · 09-05-2007, 09:44 PM

Ok well so far your not acting like a troll so I will continue. I ENJOY discussions especially stimulating discussions. Even more so discussions that could eventually lead to education and better understanding and eventually Proper change in society.

Note if it turns nasty I am gone. I won't leave in admission of defeat or any such crap but I will leave to prevent this from turning into a flame war.

I have some ground rules that I follow and would appreciate others following as well you are off course free not to but I may also stop talking to you. Repeating myself over and over again gets tedious. IE do not ignore points I make. If you disagree with a point STAY ON POINT. DO not say no 2+2=4 is wrong and then provide something irrelevant like 2=3+5 see your wrong???? ie apples to oranges. I promise to do the same with you if I have not already replied to a point you make. If you repeat a point I already replied to I will simply direct you to read the previous posts as you should have already :-)

Not a demand. its just how I work and would appreciate a return of this common courtesy.

So onward and forward.

"Perhaps I have understand exactly everything you have said, and you have misunderstood me"

Thats the problem. Logic says the kind of reply you gave having no comparison or relevance whatsoever and in fact being a VERY limited and specific example DESIGNED to clearly not comply with my reasoning was chosen for just that reason.

Instead of the logical all lights issue you provided one specific extremely limited "emergency lights" example (which I happen to disagree with but thats another issue)

IE telling me I can not put red and blue lights on my car because it would look like a cop car bears NO logical or even illogical valid comparison to FORD telling me no blue or red lights JUST because they do not like me putting blue or red lights on my car.

I am not talking about the law. I am talking about DICTATES of manufacturers AND laws specifically DESIGNED by manufacturers (DMCA). a VALID SAFETY issue has nothing to do with a GREED/CONTROL issue. YOU know this yet you chose to provide your police lights example. HOW precisely am I supposed to react to that? :-)

"Actually I was talking about the enforcement of the law."

Therein lies the problem. Do not take this the wrong way but what you want to talk about is meaningless to me in this specific context. Want to talk about that FINE do so but thats not what you did. you FORMATTED what you wanted to talk about as if it was a valid REBUTTAL and REPLY to what I was talking about IE the law being wrong and personal property rights.

You can not "legitimately" alter the context of the discussion and then presume because your altered context is correct even though it has nothing to do with my statement that it constitutes a valid rebuttal to my statement ???

THATS why I got upset. Your entire reply appeared to come across as exactly that kind of thing IE your ignores all my comments yet you were clearly REPLYING to all my comments :-)

"As long as those tires were manufactured according to product safety standards"

Again irrelevant. TIRES needs to have safety standards. NO ONE with half a brain will disagree with this. ALSO its not the MANUFACTURER dictating these limitations its the LAW (regardless of the manufacturer this is important) dictating this for a GOOD JUST LOGICAL VALID REASON. ie disobeying it means people DIE.

Last time I checked there are no logical SAFETY issues with books and no one DIES if I print a book on red paper instead of white paper.

So again it was an irrelevant illogical comparison. Hence why I got upset :-)

"You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf."

No the apples to oranges is your issue here. YOUR the one that brought this up when you stated "your reading it without paying for it" in one of your posts.

SO I replied with OTHER INSTANCES of reading it without paying for it. THIS was not "my" thought process it was YOURS which I replied to :-) I never conveyed an opinion of "ownership" regarding this. JUST wanted to show the fallacy of the statement but your reading it without paying for it.

"The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it."

But it also does not say I can not. It can NOT in fact deny me this right otherwise the transcription that occurs when I READ it into my RAM (thats my brain) and my Hard Disk (my long term memory) would also HAVE to be illegal.

THE ENTIRE intent of copyright law applies SOLELY to "distribution" Do you know how and why copyright law was created?

Player Piano's IIRC. They would BUY sheet music transcribe this to player piano paper (no problem) but then mass produce and sell these player piano strips.

See now? its not the transformation thats the problem its the DISTRIBUTION thats the problem. I can and SHOULD be able to do anything I want with that sheet music for my own uses. According to your strict interpretation of what you think the law says if I buy Piano sheet music and play it with my Guitar I am breaking the law? I am somehow violating the authors rights?

NOW if I convert that to better guitar sheet and then DISTRIBUTE IT well NOT I am legitimately violating the authors rights.

If I buy 10 sheets Convert it to guitar and then give or sell those 10 sheets of my guitar and INCLUDE the original purchased 10 sheets of piano. Well This gets grey. on one hand a legally purchased copy of the original is going with each derivative so no "new work" is generated (legally) but I am also now PROFITING from the authors work above and beyond the original purchase. I do not know how the LAW handles this but personally for free no problem for profit is a problem (to me) Copyright law DOES allow for conversion of media and it DOES permit you to PAY someone to do it for you. Like I said GREY and off the track of this discussion :-)

"In either case, the only "right" you have is to copy and/or republish a limited portion of the book for certain specific purposes as outlined in fair use doctrine."

I disagree. I consider Copyright law to be a non issue. As long as its for my own personal private use I consider the law to be moot ie inapplicable. It does not "activate" until its non personal because anything personal does NOT infringe on Intellectual Property Rights which is the ONLY time copyright comes into play at all.

IE until you violate intellectual property rights copyright is moot and therefore can not render the act illegal.

When your at the library the law applies because there IS NO PPR (personal Property rights) at play so its ALL IPR (intellectual property rights)

Once I BUY the book though IPR is irrelevant and moot. (unless it goes non personal ie I try to distribute it)

Technically if I "mark up" the pages of the book I am physically altering the content of that book. TO you this is illegal? to me this is perfectly legal its MY BOOK and that ONE COPY of the content is my property. I do not own the IPR to those words but I DO OWN the PPR to those words.

"Aside from the issues relating to the DMCA which clearly says you are wrong if you circumvent the DRM"

Actually it does not matter if the DMCA says I am wrong first its not law second PRIOR LAW trumps the DMCA since no where in the DMCA was the prior law repealed so the prior law is STILL IN EFFECT.

I also believe (and I do believe if it ever does get to court which it will not this will be upheld) that the DMCA does not apply to PPR only IPR which created another conundrum that we can get into later with people writing "ripping" software)

As for invading there capital. Not my problem. Its only an invasion in there capital if I violate IPR ie I make this new copy and then DISTRIBUTE IT. otherwise its PPR and none of the manufacturers business nor the governments and 100% unenforceable.

"In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in."

Actually no they do not otherwise deaf people or partially blind people etc.. would be criminals. I AS OWNER of said content have the right to VIEW that content in ANY means or format or medium I so desire. They KNOW this and they also know there is NO WAY they can make a law that makes it illegal.

SO they did an "end run" around these rights by slyly getting a DRM law passed and then conveniently applying DRM to absolutely everything. IE I still have the RIGHT (in law) to convert that book or dvd or game to any format I want but to DO THIS I have to crack the encryption and a SEPERATE law makes THAT ACT illegal.

the DMCA DOES NOT MAKE it illegal to convert an ebook from LRF to TXT and NEITHER DOES copyright law. This is a PERFECTLY LEGAL act.

The DMCA makes it illegal to CRACK the encryption on the LRF that is STOPPING me from doing the conversion that I am legally allowed to do to make it a TXT file.

IE they are VIOLATING MY RIGHTS by applying DRM. One might say well buy a version that is NOT DRM's well thats not possible as all versions are DRM'd now :-) see what I mean?

"So, by your effort of conversion, you have denied the possibility of a royalty for that author."

Irrelevant and not my problem ALSO your asking the wrong question here so to speak.

The problem was not the conversion with typos. THAT IS LEGAL. The problem is the sharing with my friend. THAT is not so legal in most cases. IE I have now changed from Converting under PPR to DISTRIBUTING under IPR

BUT I believe fair use permits this so its still not my problem. Promotion of his work is the authors problem not mine.

"Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?"

Thats Mr Goodwriters problem buddy. Releasing on new formats is NOT intended to sell to me (I already bought it) its intended to sell to those that DID NOT WANT the book version and NOW WANT the electronic version and are NOW WILLING to purcahse it

Your logic is so entirely flawed it really is almost laughable. I mean its almost like you LITERALLY MEAN that I am somehow DEPRIVING the author of legitimate profits if I buy his book and decide NOT to buy the 2nd edition because I already have the first edition.

Are you serious?? Your joking right? your logic is completely flawed. IT ONLY WORKS if I DISTRIBUTED that LIT version so all the lit user now have no reason to buy it.

Well we are not talking about distribution WHICH IS NOT LAWFUL. We are talking personal singular conversion. he has NO RIGHT to compel me to buy his book over and over again in new version. IN FACT copyright law was written SPECIFICALLY to prevent this thats why I AM ALLOWED to convert my VHS to DVD and my DVD to BLU RAY if I so desire. (not counting copy protection which is a separate issue from copyright law)

I have the RIGHT to enjoy my purchase in any medium I desire. His decision to not release it in all formats first well thats his problem not mine. The law backs me up on this. the media corps are TRYING to do an end run around these laws protecting me with the DMCA and DRM hence why its illegal and wrong.

"Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing?"

YES as a matter of fact I DO have that right. Please go read some copyright law and fair use law.

"Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark"

WHAT ?? do you even know what those words mean?? copyright and patent are EXACTLY the same things.

Copyright applies to "soft" ware and patent applies to "hard" ware.

For example you can have a copyright to the SOFTWARE in the book and a PATENT to the hardware in the binding. they are the SAME thing when you boil it down and THEY ARE IN FACT how I PROVE MY POINT and DISPROVE your point.

When you buy say a watch. If I am to accept your point of view its illegal for me to cut the band into a different shape. Or make a mold of the band duplicate it and make it longer to fit my wrist (all or which are perfectly legal)

BUT if I were to SELL these longer duplicated bands NOW I am distributing NOW I am violating his patent.

Comparing patent to copyright BACKS ME UP not the other way around.

Trademark is completely different and not really comparable to copyright or patent. That has to do with name recognition.

"you should have the right to have an eCopy of it." well this we may disagree on. I do not thin the author is under ANY obligation to provide me with an ebook version. but IT IS my right to MAKE or ACQUIRE an ebook version if I own the hard version.

"I think you should have all these rights. But, if the law as it is specifically prohibits that course of action, then that is what the law is. Talking about civil disobedience is fine. If you're right you will indeed succeed. And if you're wrong.... well, what's that worth to you?"

Thats the difference between sheeple and patriots. (NO I am not trying to insult you) Whats it worth to me? everything. Wrong question. Whats the RISK to me? thats the right question.

The answer? NONE. there is virtually NO risk at all. UNLESS I try to distribute it. but again thats another discussion and I made clear distribution of derived works is WRONG

"Until it is overturned, it is the law."

NO until it is overturned, it is ENFORCED (again separation of legal and enforced)

If a law is illegal it was ALWAYS illegal.

"But please show me any action in which, "I don't buy it because it doesn't fit my moral compass," has been successfully employed as a defense"

Reading it at the library. There thats your example. I read it at the library and then decide NOT to buy it. I broke what law exactly?

"And I do know how freedom works. It is not free. Nor is it unlimited." actually thats not true its as limited as we permit it. The Ultimate in freedom is anarchy which I happen to think it a bad idea.

My concept of freedom is simple. IF it does not violate anyone else's rights it should be MY RIGHT and inalienable.

Converting a book as many times as I want in any format as I want in anyway I want violates NO ONE ELSE's rights.

DISTRIBUTING that book DOES.

Very simple. problem is GREED requires that you INFRINGE on others rights. IE control.

""I can shout fire in a crowded theatre,""

and doing so is YOUR RIGHT and can NOT be taken from you (please read the first amendment)

any law saying you can NOT yell fire in a theatre is ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE

what the law SHOULD say is its illegal to cause a panic or potential panic in a theater REGARDLESS of how you do this. Same effect without violating the first amendment.

So the illegal act is NOT yelling fire. its causing a PANIC or POTENTIAL PANIC that fact that you yelled fire to do this is not relevant. I am pretty sure the supreme court already shot this down or at least they should have I will have to look into it. but you get my point.

Actually YOU CAN walk down main street with a sixgun on your hip. ANY law saying otherwise is illegal (NO I would not openly challenge it without proper preparation as the risk is too high) in fact in MANY states it is PERFECTLY legal to carry a weapon. its carrying a CONCEALED weapon that you need a permit for :-)

"Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch."

LaughingVulcan. Come on man you have VULCAN in your name for christs sake this should mean you know SOMETHING about the word LOGIC. I am not trying to insult yo I just laughed when I read your illogical quote above and then noted your name :-)

You describe two acts. MAKING A FIST and THREATENING YOU WITH IT.

These are SEPARATE and UNRELATED. ONE is legal the other is not.

IT IS NEVER illegal to make a fist. it is almost ALWAYS illegal to HIT YOU with that fist with intent to harm you.

EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE its illegal its just EXCUSED as just cause.

Come on man. apples orange. You make one statement and then rebutt it with something unrelated. Making a fist and USING that fist are two completely different things. You can not use the SECOND to justify a claim against the first.

"Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right."

But this will not work. The system is broken. the LAST avenue to fix this system is mass defiance by the people.

Too many of the politicians are paid for to cause me BECOMING one to have any effect. and I would have to be decieptful since if they KNEW I was going to do this kind of thing and had a chance in hell of getting in they would USE there considerable power to keep me out (out of debates smear campaign etc.. etc..)

Its too late for the political approach that oppurtunity passed 50-70 years ago. Now its gone. Now its a people issue.

"But your moral compass is not the law. The law is. "

but OUR moral compass DEFINES the law. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. NOT for the law by the law.

The problem is we as a people ARE CHOOSING not to IMPOSE our moral compass (sheeple) we just sit back and do nothing till its too late.

"But, still, you cannot incite to riot and claim that it's your free speech to do so."

I am sorry you once again are talking about two different things. FREE SPEECH and RIOTS are two different things.

I am free to say anything I want. I AM NOT FREE to incite a RIOT. it does not matter HOW I incite that riot (thats what I am trying to get across to you)

ANY law that says you can not say things to incite a riot is ILLEGAL any law that says you can not cause a RIOT regardless of how you cause it IS LEGAL.

ANY supreme court ruling that violates the constitution is ALSO MOOT and ILLEGAL. again the supreme court can not DECLARE something legal or illegal. They can only interpret the law and DISCOVER something is legal or illegal. the difference is semantic at first look but SO critical.

"Can I walk into your home and make you turn down your stereo which is playing too loudly? No. Can I call the police, and have them make you turn down your radio? Yes."

Semantic. YOU made me turn it down, this is clear in law. Just because I hire a gunmen to kill someone does not absolve me of the murder which I CAUSE regardless of how I caused it.

And again apples to oranges. there is a difference between SAFETY or DECENCY or REASONABLY VALID laws that have a GOOD JUST purpose compelling me to do something a certain way.

WAY DIFFERENT than a CORPORATION dictating terms for no other reason except to further line there pockets with MY money.

YOU FAIL to comprehend this SIGNIFICANT difference over and over again. YOU CAN NOT legitimately compare the LAW compelling me verse CORPORATIONS compelling me.

"Can I stop you from mounting a spotlight with a bat on the roof of your house? No. Does that give you the right to shine it straight up into the air? Not if you live in my neighborhood, which is an exit corridor for our local airport."

Again your comparing THOUSAND OF TONS OF FUEL AND METAL CRASHING IN A AREA OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE with me CONVERTING A BOOK that a corporation does not want me to.

CAN YOU POSSIBLY get more apples to oranges ???

If you can SHOW ME how copying that book can endanger THOUSANDS of people and BILLIONS of dollars in property FINE then it should be illegal in THAT specific situation.

"Can Microsoft corporation walk into your house and unplug your computer because you decide to break a LIT book and convert it to unencrypted PDF? No."

Wanna BET ??? ask people who's computers have SHUT DOWN and NO LONGER OPERATE because the update sever installed by Microsoft AGAINST my will has "decided" that this copy of windows in invalid and deactivated it.

Ask the GOOGLE VIDEO purchasers who have videos that in the coming weeks if not already will NEVER PLAY AGAIN because google has "switched them off" remotely. EVEN THOUGH you purchased it.

YOU DO realize that apple can TURN OFF all your music if they decide to and you sync to itunes after they have done this? you do realize this right?

MAN oh man you do need to get updated on current technology issues.

How about sony installing a BACK DOOR into your computer allowing them to SPY on you literally JUST by playing a CD and OH YEAH if you NOTICE THIS and click NO I disagree to the installation GUESS WHAT it got installed ANYWAY.

PLEASE read up on current news on technology.

Microsoft can LITERALLY walk into my home electronically and UNPLUG my computer effectively if they want. WELL not mine thats why I run hacked copies of windows.

What about you?

Edited to Add: Are legal and enforceable two different things? Of course they are. Are all laws enforceable? No. Are all laws "legal"? Until they are overturned. That simple.

66% correct. an illegal law is and always was illegal. anyone convicted of that law is retroactively freed and "unconvicted"

It is not declared illegal it is DISCOVERED to be illegal and therefore was illegal from the first moment it was created. it just took that long for them to discover it.

Keep it coming but PLEASE actually read my comments. My words are not up for interpretation. PLEASE do not interpret them I mean what I say nothing more nothign less I do not use "hidden meanings" there is nothing between my lines :-) If something is unclear then I FAILED at writing it please ask for clarification.

I spent over 2.5 HOURS typing this. Thats a lot of work and a lot of energy on my part. IF your going to bother to reply I would APPRECIATE it if you reply seriously and with honest intent and don't play "games" just because you may or may not like what I have to say.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

09-05-2007, 09:44 PM	#52
nerys Addict Posts: 243 Karma: 48 Join Date: Dec 2006 Device: PRS 500 - REB 1200	Ok well so far your not acting like a troll so I will continue. I ENJOY discussions especially stimulating discussions. Even more so discussions that could eventually lead to education and better understanding and eventually Proper change in society. Note if it turns nasty I am gone. I won't leave in admission of defeat or any such crap but I will leave to prevent this from turning into a flame war. I have some ground rules that I follow and would appreciate others following as well you are off course free not to but I may also stop talking to you. Repeating myself over and over again gets tedious. IE do not ignore points I make. If you disagree with a point STAY ON POINT. DO not say no 2+2=4 is wrong and then provide something irrelevant like 2=3+5 see your wrong???? ie apples to oranges. I promise to do the same with you if I have not already replied to a point you make. If you repeat a point I already replied to I will simply direct you to read the previous posts as you should have already :-) Not a demand. its just how I work and would appreciate a return of this common courtesy. So onward and forward. "Perhaps I have understand exactly everything you have said, and you have misunderstood me" Thats the problem. Logic says the kind of reply you gave having no comparison or relevance whatsoever and in fact being a VERY limited and specific example DESIGNED to clearly not comply with my reasoning was chosen for just that reason. Instead of the logical all lights issue you provided one specific extremely limited "emergency lights" example (which I happen to disagree with but thats another issue) IE telling me I can not put red and blue lights on my car because it would look like a cop car bears NO logical or even illogical valid comparison to FORD telling me no blue or red lights JUST because they do not like me putting blue or red lights on my car. I am not talking about the law. I am talking about DICTATES of manufacturers AND laws specifically DESIGNED by manufacturers (DMCA). a VALID SAFETY issue has nothing to do with a GREED/CONTROL issue. YOU know this yet you chose to provide your police lights example. HOW precisely am I supposed to react to that? :-) "Actually I was talking about the enforcement of the law." Therein lies the problem. Do not take this the wrong way but what you want to talk about is meaningless to me in this specific context. Want to talk about that FINE do so but thats not what you did. you FORMATTED what you wanted to talk about as if it was a valid REBUTTAL and REPLY to what I was talking about IE the law being wrong and personal property rights. You can not "legitimately" alter the context of the discussion and then presume because your altered context is correct even though it has nothing to do with my statement that it constitutes a valid rebuttal to my statement ??? THATS why I got upset. Your entire reply appeared to come across as exactly that kind of thing IE your ignores all my comments yet you were clearly REPLYING to all my comments :-) "As long as those tires were manufactured according to product safety standards" Again irrelevant. TIRES needs to have safety standards. NO ONE with half a brain will disagree with this. ALSO its not the MANUFACTURER dictating these limitations its the LAW (regardless of the manufacturer this is important) dictating this for a GOOD JUST LOGICAL VALID REASON. ie disobeying it means people DIE. Last time I checked there are no logical SAFETY issues with books and no one DIES if I print a book on red paper instead of white paper. So again it was an irrelevant illogical comparison. Hence why I got upset :-) "You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf." No the apples to oranges is your issue here. YOUR the one that brought this up when you stated "your reading it without paying for it" in one of your posts. SO I replied with OTHER INSTANCES of reading it without paying for it. THIS was not "my" thought process it was YOURS which I replied to :-) I never conveyed an opinion of "ownership" regarding this. JUST wanted to show the fallacy of the statement but your reading it without paying for it. "The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it." But it also does not say I can not. It can NOT in fact deny me this right otherwise the transcription that occurs when I READ it into my RAM (thats my brain) and my Hard Disk (my long term memory) would also HAVE to be illegal. THE ENTIRE intent of copyright law applies SOLELY to "distribution" Do you know how and why copyright law was created? Player Piano's IIRC. They would BUY sheet music transcribe this to player piano paper (no problem) but then mass produce and sell these player piano strips. See now? its not the transformation thats the problem its the DISTRIBUTION thats the problem. I can and SHOULD be able to do anything I want with that sheet music for my own uses. According to your strict interpretation of what you think the law says if I buy Piano sheet music and play it with my Guitar I am breaking the law? I am somehow violating the authors rights? NOW if I convert that to better guitar sheet and then DISTRIBUTE IT well NOT I am legitimately violating the authors rights. If I buy 10 sheets Convert it to guitar and then give or sell those 10 sheets of my guitar and INCLUDE the original purchased 10 sheets of piano. Well This gets grey. on one hand a legally purchased copy of the original is going with each derivative so no "new work" is generated (legally) but I am also now PROFITING from the authors work above and beyond the original purchase. I do not know how the LAW handles this but personally for free no problem for profit is a problem (to me) Copyright law DOES allow for conversion of media and it DOES permit you to PAY someone to do it for you. Like I said GREY and off the track of this discussion :-) "In either case, the only "right" you have is to copy and/or republish a limited portion of the book for certain specific purposes as outlined in fair use doctrine." I disagree. I consider Copyright law to be a non issue. As long as its for my own personal private use I consider the law to be moot ie inapplicable. It does not "activate" until its non personal because anything personal does NOT infringe on Intellectual Property Rights which is the ONLY time copyright comes into play at all. IE until you violate intellectual property rights copyright is moot and therefore can not render the act illegal. When your at the library the law applies because there IS NO PPR (personal Property rights) at play so its ALL IPR (intellectual property rights) Once I BUY the book though IPR is irrelevant and moot. (unless it goes non personal ie I try to distribute it) Technically if I "mark up" the pages of the book I am physically altering the content of that book. TO you this is illegal? to me this is perfectly legal its MY BOOK and that ONE COPY of the content is my property. I do not own the IPR to those words but I DO OWN the PPR to those words. "Aside from the issues relating to the DMCA which clearly says you are wrong if you circumvent the DRM" Actually it does not matter if the DMCA says I am wrong first its not law second PRIOR LAW trumps the DMCA since no where in the DMCA was the prior law repealed so the prior law is STILL IN EFFECT. I also believe (and I do believe if it ever does get to court which it will not this will be upheld) that the DMCA does not apply to PPR only IPR which created another conundrum that we can get into later with people writing "ripping" software) As for invading there capital. Not my problem. Its only an invasion in there capital if I violate IPR ie I make this new copy and then DISTRIBUTE IT. otherwise its PPR and none of the manufacturers business nor the governments and 100% unenforceable. "In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in." Actually no they do not otherwise deaf people or partially blind people etc.. would be criminals. I AS OWNER of said content have the right to VIEW that content in ANY means or format or medium I so desire. They KNOW this and they also know there is NO WAY they can make a law that makes it illegal. SO they did an "end run" around these rights by slyly getting a DRM law passed and then conveniently applying DRM to absolutely everything. IE I still have the RIGHT (in law) to convert that book or dvd or game to any format I want but to DO THIS I have to crack the encryption and a SEPERATE law makes THAT ACT illegal. the DMCA DOES NOT MAKE it illegal to convert an ebook from LRF to TXT and NEITHER DOES copyright law. This is a PERFECTLY LEGAL act. The DMCA makes it illegal to CRACK the encryption on the LRF that is STOPPING me from doing the conversion that I am legally allowed to do to make it a TXT file. IE they are VIOLATING MY RIGHTS by applying DRM. One might say well buy a version that is NOT DRM's well thats not possible as all versions are DRM'd now :-) see what I mean? "So, by your effort of conversion, you have denied the possibility of a royalty for that author." Irrelevant and not my problem ALSO your asking the wrong question here so to speak. The problem was not the conversion with typos. THAT IS LEGAL. The problem is the sharing with my friend. THAT is not so legal in most cases. IE I have now changed from Converting under PPR to DISTRIBUTING under IPR BUT I believe fair use permits this so its still not my problem. Promotion of his work is the authors problem not mine. "Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?" Thats Mr Goodwriters problem buddy. Releasing on new formats is NOT intended to sell to me (I already bought it) its intended to sell to those that DID NOT WANT the book version and NOW WANT the electronic version and are NOW WILLING to purcahse it Your logic is so entirely flawed it really is almost laughable. I mean its almost like you LITERALLY MEAN that I am somehow DEPRIVING the author of legitimate profits if I buy his book and decide NOT to buy the 2nd edition because I already have the first edition. Are you serious?? Your joking right? your logic is completely flawed. IT ONLY WORKS if I DISTRIBUTED that LIT version so all the lit user now have no reason to buy it. Well we are not talking about distribution WHICH IS NOT LAWFUL. We are talking personal singular conversion. he has NO RIGHT to compel me to buy his book over and over again in new version. IN FACT copyright law was written SPECIFICALLY to prevent this thats why I AM ALLOWED to convert my VHS to DVD and my DVD to BLU RAY if I so desire. (not counting copy protection which is a separate issue from copyright law) I have the RIGHT to enjoy my purchase in any medium I desire. His decision to not release it in all formats first well thats his problem not mine. The law backs me up on this. the media corps are TRYING to do an end run around these laws protecting me with the DMCA and DRM hence why its illegal and wrong. "Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing?" YES as a matter of fact I DO have that right. Please go read some copyright law and fair use law. "Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark" WHAT ?? do you even know what those words mean?? copyright and patent are EXACTLY the same things. Copyright applies to "soft" ware and patent applies to "hard" ware. For example you can have a copyright to the SOFTWARE in the book and a PATENT to the hardware in the binding. they are the SAME thing when you boil it down and THEY ARE IN FACT how I PROVE MY POINT and DISPROVE your point. When you buy say a watch. If I am to accept your point of view its illegal for me to cut the band into a different shape. Or make a mold of the band duplicate it and make it longer to fit my wrist (all or which are perfectly legal) BUT if I were to SELL these longer duplicated bands NOW I am distributing NOW I am violating his patent. Comparing patent to copyright BACKS ME UP not the other way around. Trademark is completely different and not really comparable to copyright or patent. That has to do with name recognition. "you should have the right to have an eCopy of it." well this we may disagree on. I do not thin the author is under ANY obligation to provide me with an ebook version. but IT IS my right to MAKE or ACQUIRE an ebook version if I own the hard version. "I think you should have all these rights. But, if the law as it is specifically prohibits that course of action, then that is what the law is. Talking about civil disobedience is fine. If you're right you will indeed succeed. And if you're wrong.... well, what's that worth to you?" Thats the difference between sheeple and patriots. (NO I am not trying to insult you) Whats it worth to me? everything. Wrong question. Whats the RISK to me? thats the right question. The answer? NONE. there is virtually NO risk at all. UNLESS I try to distribute it. but again thats another discussion and I made clear distribution of derived works is WRONG "Until it is overturned, it is the law." NO until it is overturned, it is ENFORCED (again separation of legal and enforced) If a law is illegal it was ALWAYS illegal. "But please show me any action in which, "I don't buy it because it doesn't fit my moral compass," has been successfully employed as a defense" Reading it at the library. There thats your example. I read it at the library and then decide NOT to buy it. I broke what law exactly? "And I do know how freedom works. It is not free. Nor is it unlimited." actually thats not true its as limited as we permit it. The Ultimate in freedom is anarchy which I happen to think it a bad idea. My concept of freedom is simple. IF it does not violate anyone else's rights it should be MY RIGHT and inalienable. Converting a book as many times as I want in any format as I want in anyway I want violates NO ONE ELSE's rights. DISTRIBUTING that book DOES. Very simple. problem is GREED requires that you INFRINGE on others rights. IE control. ""I can shout fire in a crowded theatre,"" and doing so is YOUR RIGHT and can NOT be taken from you (please read the first amendment) any law saying you can NOT yell fire in a theatre is ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE what the law SHOULD say is its illegal to cause a panic or potential panic in a theater REGARDLESS of how you do this. Same effect without violating the first amendment. So the illegal act is NOT yelling fire. its causing a PANIC or POTENTIAL PANIC that fact that you yelled fire to do this is not relevant. I am pretty sure the supreme court already shot this down or at least they should have I will have to look into it. but you get my point. Actually YOU CAN walk down main street with a sixgun on your hip. ANY law saying otherwise is illegal (NO I would not openly challenge it without proper preparation as the risk is too high) in fact in MANY states it is PERFECTLY legal to carry a weapon. its carrying a CONCEALED weapon that you need a permit for :-) "Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch." LaughingVulcan. Come on man you have VULCAN in your name for christs sake this should mean you know SOMETHING about the word LOGIC. I am not trying to insult yo I just laughed when I read your illogical quote above and then noted your name :-) You describe two acts. MAKING A FIST and THREATENING YOU WITH IT. These are SEPARATE and UNRELATED. ONE is legal the other is not. IT IS NEVER illegal to make a fist. it is almost ALWAYS illegal to HIT YOU with that fist with intent to harm you. EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE its illegal its just EXCUSED as just cause. Come on man. apples orange. You make one statement and then rebutt it with something unrelated. Making a fist and USING that fist are two completely different things. You can not use the SECOND to justify a claim against the first. "Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right." But this will not work. The system is broken. the LAST avenue to fix this system is mass defiance by the people. Too many of the politicians are paid for to cause me BECOMING one to have any effect. and I would have to be decieptful since if they KNEW I was going to do this kind of thing and had a chance in hell of getting in they would USE there considerable power to keep me out (out of debates smear campaign etc.. etc..) Its too late for the political approach that oppurtunity passed 50-70 years ago. Now its gone. Now its a people issue. "But your moral compass is not the law. The law is. " but OUR moral compass DEFINES the law. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. NOT for the law by the law. The problem is we as a people ARE CHOOSING not to IMPOSE our moral compass (sheeple) we just sit back and do nothing till its too late. "But, still, you cannot incite to riot and claim that it's your free speech to do so." I am sorry you once again are talking about two different things. FREE SPEECH and RIOTS are two different things. I am free to say anything I want. I AM NOT FREE to incite a RIOT. it does not matter HOW I incite that riot (thats what I am trying to get across to you) ANY law that says you can not say things to incite a riot is ILLEGAL any law that says you can not cause a RIOT regardless of how you cause it IS LEGAL. ANY supreme court ruling that violates the constitution is ALSO MOOT and ILLEGAL. again the supreme court can not DECLARE something legal or illegal. They can only interpret the law and DISCOVER something is legal or illegal. the difference is semantic at first look but SO critical. "Can I walk into your home and make you turn down your stereo which is playing too loudly? No. Can I call the police, and have them make you turn down your radio? Yes." Semantic. YOU made me turn it down, this is clear in law. Just because I hire a gunmen to kill someone does not absolve me of the murder which I CAUSE regardless of how I caused it. And again apples to oranges. there is a difference between SAFETY or DECENCY or REASONABLY VALID laws that have a GOOD JUST purpose compelling me to do something a certain way. WAY DIFFERENT than a CORPORATION dictating terms for no other reason except to further line there pockets with MY money. YOU FAIL to comprehend this SIGNIFICANT difference over and over again. YOU CAN NOT legitimately compare the LAW compelling me verse CORPORATIONS compelling me. "Can I stop you from mounting a spotlight with a bat on the roof of your house? No. Does that give you the right to shine it straight up into the air? Not if you live in my neighborhood, which is an exit corridor for our local airport." Again your comparing THOUSAND OF TONS OF FUEL AND METAL CRASHING IN A AREA OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE with me CONVERTING A BOOK that a corporation does not want me to. CAN YOU POSSIBLY get more apples to oranges ??? If you can SHOW ME how copying that book can endanger THOUSANDS of people and BILLIONS of dollars in property FINE then it should be illegal in THAT specific situation. "Can Microsoft corporation walk into your house and unplug your computer because you decide to break a LIT book and convert it to unencrypted PDF? No." Wanna BET ??? ask people who's computers have SHUT DOWN and NO LONGER OPERATE because the update sever installed by Microsoft AGAINST my will has "decided" that this copy of windows in invalid and deactivated it. Ask the GOOGLE VIDEO purchasers who have videos that in the coming weeks if not already will NEVER PLAY AGAIN because google has "switched them off" remotely. EVEN THOUGH you purchased it. YOU DO realize that apple can TURN OFF all your music if they decide to and you sync to itunes after they have done this? you do realize this right? MAN oh man you do need to get updated on current technology issues. How about sony installing a BACK DOOR into your computer allowing them to SPY on you literally JUST by playing a CD and OH YEAH if you NOTICE THIS and click NO I disagree to the installation GUESS WHAT it got installed ANYWAY. PLEASE read up on current news on technology. Microsoft can LITERALLY walk into my home electronically and UNPLUG my computer effectively if they want. WELL not mine thats why I run hacked copies of windows. What about you? Edited to Add: Are legal and enforceable two different things? Of course they are. Are all laws enforceable? No. Are all laws "legal"? Until they are overturned. That simple. 66% correct. an illegal law is and always was illegal. anyone convicted of that law is retroactively freed and "unconvicted" It is not declared illegal it is DISCOVERED to be illegal and therefore was illegal from the first moment it was created. it just took that long for them to discover it. Keep it coming but PLEASE actually read my comments. My words are not up for interpretation. PLEASE do not interpret them I mean what I say nothing more nothign less I do not use "hidden meanings" there is nothing between my lines :-) If something is unclear then I FAILED at writing it please ask for clarification. I spent over 2.5 HOURS typing this. Thats a lot of work and a lot of energy on my part. IF your going to bother to reply I would APPRECIATE it if you reply seriously and with honest intent and don't play "games" just because you may or may not like what I have to say. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ Last edited by nerys; 09-05-2007 at 10:29 PM.