MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

recycledelectron · 12-28-2007, 02:12 AM

The Constitution of the United States says that (I'm paraphrasing "Congress will protect the rights of inventors & authors to have exclusive use of their creative works for a limited time."

Today, Congress protects the rights of organized crime syndicates to have exclusive use of everyone's works for an indefinite time.

Authors and inventors must be rewarded if they are to create the best IP. OTOH, the public domain must constantly grow to allow fertile ground for low-cost education, and to allow a base to build from when creating new IP.

I would never take a work that an author or inventor is still selling without paying for it. I would never pirate a copy of a Terry Pratchett novel, if I could buy it in a format that works on my PRS-505.

I am d/ling torrents of Terry Pratchett's appearances on the BBC reading his books, as these are not for sale.

I would not pirate a copy of Red Hat Linux that was available, but they don't sell 6.2, which I needed 6 copies of. This is not just any version of 6.2; I need the version that supports 4 to 8 XENON processors. I tried for months to scavenge eBay. I finally burned discs, and I'm still shopping.

I have paid and paid for copies of Microsoft software, only to have it refuse to work for obscure reasons not mentioned in the EULA. If Office 2007 will not install on 2000, SAY SO!

I recall buying a copy of Windows NT 3.51, Multi-Processor Edition. I paid $200 for it because the version I had said it was only license for use on a single machine, which was defined as a single CPU. After blowing more than a month's disposable income (as a broke college student) I found the same wording in Microsoft's EULA for the Multi-Processor Edition - IT COULD ONLY BE USED ON ONE CPU!!!

Then I started comparing license agreements, and found that Microsoft's in-bx EULAs were different from the ones posted on their web site, which were different from the ones in the click-wrap agreement.

I will buy a book, rip it to .PDF, and use that PDF in violation of the copyright notice that says it can not be reproduced. I then refuse to take the advice of others to return the book I bought, or to give them a copy of the PDF. The author deserves to be rewarded. The publisher's brain-dead copyright notice is absurd.

I'm a pirate, and an anarchist, and I'm proud to be both.

Andy

12-28-2007, 02:12 AM	#56
recycledelectron Groupie Posts: 152 Karma: 854 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Lifebook T5010	The Constitution of the United States says that (I'm paraphrasing "Congress will protect the rights of inventors & authors to have exclusive use of their creative works for a limited time." Today, Congress protects the rights of organized crime syndicates to have exclusive use of everyone's works for an indefinite time. Authors and inventors must be rewarded if they are to create the best IP. OTOH, the public domain must constantly grow to allow fertile ground for low-cost education, and to allow a base to build from when creating new IP. I would never take a work that an author or inventor is still selling without paying for it. I would never pirate a copy of a Terry Pratchett novel, if I could buy it in a format that works on my PRS-505. I am d/ling torrents of Terry Pratchett's appearances on the BBC reading his books, as these are not for sale. I would not pirate a copy of Red Hat Linux that was available, but they don't sell 6.2, which I needed 6 copies of. This is not just any version of 6.2; I need the version that supports 4 to 8 XENON processors. I tried for months to scavenge eBay. I finally burned discs, and I'm still shopping. I have paid and paid for copies of Microsoft software, only to have it refuse to work for obscure reasons not mentioned in the EULA. If Office 2007 will not install on 2000, SAY SO! I recall buying a copy of Windows NT 3.51, Multi-Processor Edition. I paid $200 for it because the version I had said it was only license for use on a single machine, which was defined as a single CPU. After blowing more than a month's disposable income (as a broke college student) I found the same wording in Microsoft's EULA for the Multi-Processor Edition - IT COULD ONLY BE USED ON ONE CPU!!! Then I started comparing license agreements, and found that Microsoft's in-bx EULAs were different from the ones posted on their web site, which were different from the ones in the click-wrap agreement. I will buy a book, rip it to .PDF, and use that PDF in violation of the copyright notice that says it can not be reproduced. I then refuse to take the advice of others to return the book I bought, or to give them a copy of the PDF. The author deserves to be rewarded. The publisher's brain-dead copyright notice is absurd. I'm a pirate, and an anarchist, and I'm proud to be both. Andy