Dilemma

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by mrkai

All of the moralizing is beyond tiring at this point.

I'm sorry it distresses you, but I don't think it can be helped. I think it would be difficult to discuss a question that is, at its heart, a moral and ethical question without raising points of morality or ethics. The poll, as posed, is an ethical dilemma, is it not?

If we're not discussing whether or not someone should download pirated e-books and we're not discussing whether or not someone is allowed to download pirated e-books, then I've clearly missed the point of the whole thread.

Originally Posted by mrkai

To me, me being Kai, the use of the words "pirate/pirated" has a sh*tty connotation that these PARTICULAR PEOPLE specifically, and the general membership here don't deserve, because they aren't stealing from the authors or the publishers.

I can see your point, but I'm not sure what else to call the darknet e-books. Something like "copyright-infringing e-books" or "e-books made without the consent of the rights holder" would be ungainly. "Illegal e-books" would be even more loaded and quite possibly inaccurate. Would "unauthorized e-books" work? Pirated at least has the benefit of being commonly understood, since it's used for everything from knock-off NFL jerseys to bogus Louis Vuitton purses to camcordered-in-the-theater movies, but I suppose unauthorized would work as well, even though it's somewhat obfuscating.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I can see your point, but I'm not sure what else to call the darknet e-books. Something like "copyright-infringing e-books" or "e-books made without the consent of the rights holder" would be ungainly. "Illegal e-books" would be even more loaded and quite possibly inaccurate. Would "unauthorized e-books" work? Pirated at least has the benefit of being commonly understood, since it's used for everything from knock-off NFL jerseys to bogus Louis Vuitton purses to camcordered-in-the-theater movies, but I suppose unauthorized would work as well, even though it's somewhat obfuscating.

the fact that the overwhelming majority, given a choice of being able to get what they wanted and the author/publisher not getting a single penny, chose to pay full price for a pBook they didnt even want, as for want of a better word, "trubute" for getting what they did want.

No one should be bashed for this.

But as I just told Steve in another thread, talking about people's "feelings" is a distraction and a straw man for what is really the bottom line issue: putting real, Yankee money in author's pockets. Let's talk about that...not ideal markets, ideal internets or ideal relative "morals".

I approach these topics from the point of view that people want eBooks and they want authors to be paid for their work.

The poll in question *clearly shows this*...and this is not the behavior of "pirates" by any reasonable definition given the current market reality and the digital landscape.

When people are in the midst of discussion about being buyers and customers that "ahh you're making excuses for your 'thievery'" jazz does NOTHING...NOTHING to forward the discussion and goal of getting authors paid in this reality...2007 and the connected high speed Internet where "if it's bits, it's yours!" is the everyday reality.

This isn't Plato...its not Sunday School...its not the Matrix. Its the really-for-real world here and now where things are what and where they are.

Torpedoing a discussion where "Ok, assume money is changing hands here" with the "PIRATE!!!" cry is like mobileread's own special version of Godwin's Law.

I think the Staff here should come up with a like symbol color code or something that we can all tack to our names that gives at a glance what folks "stance" is on "the digital question" and leave it at that. No one has to talk about it...we can just look and go "ah. ok."

Let's talk about getting authors paid in a world where consumers don't really have to...compelling solutions that are as Steve Jobs put it "better than free" for folks that want to keep it honest and still have eBooks from the authors they love.

Is that so...wrong to ask!?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Torpedoing a discussion where "Ok, assume money is changing hands here" with the "PIRATE!!!" cry is like mobileread's own special version of Godwin's Law.

Henceforth, this will be known as mrkai's law.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Henceforth, this will be known as mrkai's law.

Wait. I thought we'd already established a couple of months ago that mentioning backlighting or DRM were the MobileRead equivalents of Godwin's law. I'm so confused.

[mrkai]

I wasn't active in discussions back then even tho I'd registered, because believe me, i would have whipped out the shame stick long ago

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Wait. I thought we'd already established a couple of months ago that mentioning backlighting or DRM were the MobileRead equivalents of Godwin's law. I'm so confused.

Really? I must have missed it.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Wait. I thought we'd already established a couple of months ago that mentioning backlighting or DRM were the MobileRead equivalents of Godwin's law. I'm so confused.

While I think the above subjects are contentious, surely the epithet of the "PIRATES!!" in a discussion about buying things is much more like calling someone a Nazi I think, because you are dealing with people who at least state they are trying to compensate the parties due. Its just...wack

Talking about DRM in the context of a is DRM destroying the fabric of the universe thread is kind of, "ok you know what you are getting into".

Bringing it up when talking about pie recipes...suspect

I wasn't aware that amongst this crowd there was a backlighting row at all. Seems like the Engadget crowd's thing.

Booklight/Backlight. I think the point is the light, isn't it? *shrug*

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mrkai

And ANOTHER thing. I think, for the benefit of people that do NOT live in the US or UK or wherever, the whole "legality" vein is disrespectful to people that don't live in either of these two places. As people have pointed out time and time again, laws are different in different countries and many of these discussions seem to take US and UK law as some sort of moral high ground...and that's not right either.

I have to admit that this have irritated me. It seems sometimes that people makes moral statements based on local laws and then think that people should automatically agree with their moral opinion. I think that it would be good if all moral discussions would be disconnected from what the law in a certain countries says. The discussion should be about what we want the moral and laws to be and for that it is wrong to just say that something is wrong just because it is illegal.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Henceforth, this will be known as mrkai's law.

I don't know what to say at all...

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by mrkai

putting real, Yankee money in author's pockets. Let's talk about that...not ideal markets, ideal internets or ideal relative "morals".

Okay. Let's do that. Start a thread and we'll explore it. If you've mentioned market alternatives in this thread before, though, my apologies. I must have missed it. It's hard to keep up sometimes. I generally focus on the topic of the thread or on whatever branch it's taken, but sometimes I miss the branches.

Yes, the "feelings" thing can be annoying. Because I'm a writer, I've been tagged as "evil," "greedy," and part of some kind of world-straddling secret media cabal that somehow neglected to send me a membership card. I've even had one of the PG folks ticked off at me for daring to reject the notion that any writer that wanted to make money from his writing was a hack. I still don't understand that one.

So, yes. Let's do. I would definitely start it in a new thread, however. This one's topic doesn't appear to match what you're wanting to discuss.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by mrkai

I wasn't aware that amongst this crowd there was a backlighting row at all. Seems like the Engadget crowd's thing.

Pray you never run afoul of the Backlight Cabal.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Yes, the "feelings" thing can be annoying. Because I'm a writer, I've been tagged as "evil," "greedy," and part of some kind of world-straddling secret media cabal that somehow neglected to send me a membership card. I've even had one of the PG folks ticked off at me for daring to reject the notion that any writer that wanted to make money from his writing was a hack. I still don't understand that one.

...I've read here, ever, and anywhere, in QUITE awhile.


Sorry man. That's insane. A "hack" because you want...to be...paid.

I can see how that would have one ready to come out swingin' heheh.

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

So, yes. Let's do. I would definitely start it in a new thread, however. This one's topic doesn't appear to match what you're wanting to discuss.

I'm workin' on a Gran Marnier right now so I may not be fit for such a discussion...but were definitely gonna have one and set the tone.

-K

[vivaldirules]

Frankly, I think we should end this discussion here and now so we can focus on the real problems at hand: My eink eReader isn't backlit and I'm super pissed off that a modern device could possibly be sold without one. And it doesn't have nearly enough DRM protections on it to suit me. Shouldn't we perhaps try to encourage the folks at Project Gutenberg to replace thier boring old DRM-free format files with some new proprietary DRM-laden format?

[Alisa]

*tries to distract the pitchfork-waving mobs with yummy pie*

Apple Crumble Pie

INGREDIENTS

* 1 (9 inch) deep dish pie crust
* 5 cups apples - peeled, cored and thinly sliced
* 1/2 cup white sugar
* 3/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
* 1/3 cup white sugar
* 3/4 cup all-purpose flour
* 6 tablespoons butter

DIRECTIONS

1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C.) Arrange apple slices in unbaked pie shell. Mix 1/2 cup sugar and cinnamon; sprinkle over apples.
2. Mix 1/3 cup sugar with flour; cut in butter until crumbly. Spoon mixture over apples.
3. Bake in preheated oven for 35 to 40 minutes, or until apples are soft and top is lightly browned.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Changed "Reader" to "eReader" (it's more fun that way!)

Heh, heh. You said "eReader". Heh, heh. Hey, Jon! Vivaldirules is being bad.