Free Magazines on your laptop?

[desertgrandma]

post deleted to forestall further senseless discussion.

[Nate the great]

Are the publishers stupid?!?

Let me explain. If you buy a copy from a newstand, the price you pay covers the cost of distribution, as well paper, ink, etc. The content inside is paid for by advertising. And advertising rates are based on the number of readers. The more readers, the more a magazine gets to charge for advertising.

This site doesn't show just the articles. It displays the whole scanned page as an image. Anyone looking at a magazine is also seeing the advertising. If a publisher knows the number of people who view a magazine, that number could be added to the reader count. More readers equals more ad money.

This site costs the publishers nothing, and has the potential to generate revenue. It's basically free money.

[Sparrow]

Interesting story; but I'm always wary about signing up to stuff that looks too good to be true.
(I guess you could us a mail spoofer like Mailinator if you register just in case).

But, what's in it for the people who set the site up?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Interesting story; but I'm always wary about signing up to stuff that looks too good to be true.
(I guess you could us a mail spoofer like Mailinator if you register just in case).

But, what's in it for the people who set the site up?

I don't like to register at sites either, and I didn't have to sign up to view the magazines. I looked at Better Homes and Gardens, Southern Living, and even used the search feature to look for a recipe. Everything showed nicely, you can even increase the size of a font. Obviously, all issues of the magazines aren't online, but the ones that are seem to be complete. I don't even mind looking at the ads. And its sure nice not to have to rip out all those stupid little cards paper magazines have a tendency to insert thru-out!

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Okay, so I came across this article, and it seemed too good to be true. Here is the website http://www.mygazines.com/

I assume you are aware that you promoting a site that violates the magazine publisher's copyright. You wouldn't permit that on MobileRead, why are you promoting it elsewhere?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Are the publishers stupid?!?

No they are not stupid. If they permit this copyright violation without expressly agreeing to it, it will be thrown in their face should they try to enforce another violation. There are cases that say once you waive your rights consider them unenforceable everywhere.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by rhadin

No they are not stupid. If they permit this copyright violation without expressly agreeing to it, it will be thrown in their face should they try to enforce another violation. There are cases that say once you waive your rights consider them unenforceable everywhere.

I keep hearing this, but no one has ever identified the case law. Can you please tell me the cases you are referring to?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I assume you are aware that you promoting a site that violates the magazine publisher's copyright. You wouldn't permit that on MobileRead, why are you promoting it elsewhere?

Google and Amazon are also copyright violators. Should we also not mention them?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I assume you are aware that you promoting a site that violates the magazine publisher's copyright. You wouldn't permit that on MobileRead, why are you promoting it elsewhere?

'sigh. I've sent the link and the original post to the mods. If they feel I've violated any protocol, they can delete the link and the entire post if they want.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Google and Amazon are also copyright violators. Should we also not mention them?

Nate, I don't know about Amazon being a copyright violator, but whether Google is has not yet been determined, at least not for the Google search function.

As for specific cases, I can't cite you to any anymore. It's been too many years since I practiced law but I remember this from when I did practice.

But I'm not sure that it matters -- If the MR position is that it is OK to link to Mygazines, then it should be OK to link to the Darknet. There is no difference. If it is OK for me to scan and upload my copy of The Economist, then it should be equally OK for me to scan and upload my copy of Harry Potter. I've bought both and copyright law doesn't distinguish in this regard between magazines and books.

I guess if MR approves of Mygazine then MR would have no objection to my scanning and uploading my magazines to MR for downloading. It seems to me that you can't be talking out both sides your mouth on this issue -- no to books that are under copyright but yes to magazines that are under copyright. Kind of loses any moral authority.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Nate, I don't know about Amazon being a copyright violator, but whether Google is has not yet been determined, at least not for the Google search function.

As for specific cases, I can't cite you to any anymore. It's been too many years since I practiced law but I remember this from when I did practice.

But I'm not sure that it matters -- If the MR position is that it is OK to link to Mygazines, then it should be OK to link to the Darknet. There is no difference. If it is OK for me to scan and upload my copy of The Economist, then it should be equally OK for me to scan and upload my copy of Harry Potter. I've bought both and copyright law doesn't distinguish in this regard between magazines and books.

I guess if MR approves of Mygazine then MR would have no objection to my scanning and uploading my magazines to MR for downloading. It seems to me that you can't be talking out both sides your mouth on this issue -- no to books that are under copyright but yes to magazines that are under copyright. Kind of loses any moral authority.

The point is moot. I've deleted the entire original post. Hopefully this will end the discussion.

[SeaWolf]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

The point is moot. I've deleted the entire original post. Hopefully this will end the discussion.

Maybe in this thread, but lets face it, this is a discussion that will just not die. It's going on in a dozen or more threads in this very forum!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rhadin

But I'm not sure that it matters -- If the MR position is that it is OK to link to Mygazines, then it should be OK to link to the Darknet. There is no difference. If it is OK for me to scan and upload my copy of The Economist, then it should be equally OK for me to scan and upload my copy of Harry Potter. I've bought both and copyright law doesn't distinguish in this regard between magazines and books.

It is absolutely not "OK" to link to illegal material. Whether or not the copyright holder "suffers" or "benefits" from the copying is entirely irrelevent. Illegal material is inappropriate for MR. Full stop!

[Sparrow]

Just wondering if it would have been ok just to link to the article that reported the story?

It's a tricky area - keeping us informed of developments in the world of mobile reading; yet not providing the 'oxygen of publicity' for sites MR considers dubious.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Just wondering if it would have been ok just to link to the article that reported the story?

Yes, that's fine.