Lending ebooks? A view from the FSF

[carld]

It's just another anti-DRM, pro-I want it for nothing, screed ... whatever.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by carld

It's just another anti-DRM, pro-I want it for nothing, screed ... whatever.

It is not as simple as that. I don't think that DRM is necessarily even the issue here, it's more about the very definition of ownership. If I own a real, physical book, I can lend it to everyone I know, I can sell it, I can do whatever I want with it. I could even, if I wanted, scan it into my computer and read it on my Kindle (perfectly legal, by the way). All physical property, not just books, are like this. But with an ebook, I can lend it only with difficulty to only one person once. I can't sell it, I can't buy it used. With DRM I can't even convert it into a different format for my own use.

It's not about wanting something for nothing, it's about truly owning the things I buy. If you buy a DRMed ebook, you don't really own it, you merely have bought limited access to it. You may find this arrangement perfectly acceptable, but many people do not, and they're not, as you are trying to imply, just cheapskates or thieves.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Software is useful, art is not: software can help find a cure for cancer, a book will only imagine about a world without cancer.

A book can report and share the results of a study on carcinogens, allowing other researchers to take that research in new directions and find a cure for cancer.

Software is essentially a mechanical work, a book is a creative endeavour.

Oh, it is so easy to tell that you have no understanding of programming -- or, in brutal terms, no bloody clue what you're talking about. Nor, apparently, any clue how many people you just insulted, and how deeply.

I'm an artist who can't draw. I feel the need for art, the need to create, the need to make things and put my vision into some form that other people can see, but I don't have an artistic bone in my body, as far as conventional arts are concerned. I'm just not wired that way. But I know what artists feel, and what they dream, and what it is like to be "in the zone", because I feel it when I create software. Programming is my art.

If software were just a mechanical work, then anyone could build it. There would be no need for programmers. Microsoft could fire a hell of a lot of people and replace them with a few scripts. They haven't yet.

Software is utilitarian, a book serves no purpose other than offering new points of view and experiences...

A game is utilitarian? Or a music visualization?

There are no books other than novels?

I think some more experience is needed for greater understanding here.

[carld]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

You may find this arrangement perfectly acceptable, but many people do not, and they're not, as you are trying to imply, just cheapskates or thieves.

I'm not implying it so much as outright stating it.

I agree with a lot of what the FSF does and says, but I think they're completely wrong and off base here. And the article isn't about ownership, it's about sharing. Look at the concluding statements.

The more fundamental freedom we are protecting is the freedom to use our technology as a means to accomplish this same goal of sharing, to the benefit of ourselves and our communities, without agreeing to be subjugated, restricted, or divided from each other, by the companies who "own" the mediating software.

This is the same preposterous argument we see on this forum all the time. Technology makes it easy to copy and share ebooks, so we're going to, and if author's can't make a living then they can dig ditches.

And yes, I've seen the "Authors can just dig ditches for a living" argument right here on MR.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by leebase

More "information is free" drivel.

All it took for me to ignore the rest of your post. Good way to start an argument.