Sharing ebooks???

[Tome Keeper]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Equal disgust... example, I've just read a book with 40 chapters, 40 damn pay NAGS... I've stopped using software for less than that let alone reading a book... if you want to go the donation ware route then a simple request at either the beginning or, more usefully, the end of the book may do the trick but if your request for payment gets in the way of the reading experience then forget it, the book's deleted and the author goes into the ignore pile, plenty of other books to buy/get and read...

Well said!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

Different code of ethics, then. Not telling is my prerogative as is telling. The way you put it not telling sounds rather sneaky in my book.

Of course you should tell the person you ignore. It is telling everybody in the forum that I object to.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Somebody is uploading a copyright protected work using their real IP? Could anyone be that dumb?

I would guess that most people do that for example when using a torrent.

And I do not see it as particular dumb since the risk of getting caught is very low. Most people drive over the speed limit and they do it in their own cars and not wearing a disguise.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "timed reminders" sounds suspiciously like nag-ware. You're not suggesting that people get used to pop-ups during their reading experience are you? Beginning and End I have no problem with.

No popups, those things are the worst. The books themselves would have donation buttons at the front and back of the book I suppose, but it is not a necessity.

The reminders about books you have read would be given to you when you visit the site where you download the books from.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think you are exaggerating a wee bit. Certainly change (particularly) significant change can be met with skepticism -- it is pure human nature. Also I don't think it Authoritarian thinking (as covered by that book) that you are thinking of but more the mindset that maintains the status quo.

On thing I do believe is inevitable is that the current publishers must change their ways. They are actively blocking establishment of a new way of publishing books - ebooks in particular because they are attempting to maintain the status quo.

Changing the way a business works is a very different thing than claiming that the product has no value and should be free. That is not how society works, it will never work that way because of human nature. The kids these days (perhaps you two) think they are entitled to have everything laid out before them for free. They've never had to actually work for a living, never had to strive to obtain something, never had to pay the price to survive.

Do you know why?

It's because all the prior generation sacrificed life, limb and fortunes to make this country (U.S.A. - and many countries around the world) beacons of prosperity to provide comfort, shelter, and an easy life for their children.

And look at what it has become. A society of entitlement, whiners and slackers that think everything should be free.

Darn it!! I already gave you Karma and I REALLY want to give it to you again. Bless you for keeping up the fight, kenny.

And to those with a dissenting opinion, using big words does not make you sound more erudite or your stand more just. It just makes you sound pretentious. Bottom line: whether you like the laws or not, breaking them is still wrong. If you don't like them - work to change them within the system. Peacefully and respectfully.

And HarryT - Hugs to you, too!

Note: I gave up reading after page 5, we've pretty much beaten this horse to death in numerous threads here at MR.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Darn it!! I already gave you Karma and I REALLY want to give it to you again. Bless you for keeping up the fight, kenny.

And to those with a dissenting opinion, using big words does not make you sound more erudite or your stand more just. It just makes you sound pretentious. Bottom line: whether you like the laws or not, breaking them is still wrong. If you don't like them - work to change them within the system. Peacefully and respectfully.

And HarryT - Hugs to you, too!

Note: I gave up reading after page 5, we've pretty much beaten this horse to death in numerous threads here at MR.

Thanks Kaz!

No karma needed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kazbates

using big words does not make you sound more erudite or your stand more just. It just makes you sound pretentious.

There's nowt pretentious about sesquipedalia.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Bottom line: whether you like the laws or not, breaking them is still wrong. If you don't like them - work to change them within the system. Peacefully and respectfully.

Some laws are unjust, or applied disproportionately. Copyright law is currently arranged so that corporations can go after anyone--other corporations, or individual bloggers--but are not held accountable for their actions when they overstep.

When's the last time a company was sued for sending out false DMCA reports? Where are the multi-million dollar awards to people falsely accused of copyright infringement?

Breaking the law is one of the ways to protest a law that isn't working as it should, or was created to encourage discrimination or oppression. And it's a legitimate, acknowledged way to do so; that's why we allow jury nullification--it's a way to say "maybe he broke the letter of the law, but I don't believe he did anything wrong."

Part of getting rid of unjust or outdated laws is refusing to follow them. That's part of how we prove that the law isn't protecting our interests anymore. That's a big part of how prohibition was eliminated, how we got unions, how we got civil rights--people refused to follow laws that were created to reinforce someone else's morals or line someone else's wallet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Breaking the law is one of the ways to protest a law that isn't working as it should, or was created to encourage discrimination or oppression. And it's a legitimate, acknowledged way to do so; that's why we allow jury nullification--it's a way to say "maybe he broke the letter of the law, but I don't believe he did anything wrong."

Part of getting rid of unjust or outdated laws is refusing to follow them. That's part of how we prove that the law isn't protecting our interests anymore. That's a big part of how prohibition was eliminated, how we got unions, how we got civil rights--people refused to follow laws that were created to reinforce someone else's morals or line someone else's wallet.

The thing is, though, that the overwhelming majority of people who break copyright law aren't doing so to make a political statement - they're just cheapskates who want to get something for nothing.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Where are the multi-million dollar awards to people falsely accused of copyright infringement?

.

Watch this space ...

http://www.ralli.co.uk/news/acs-law-...oceed&archive=

It can be incredibly upsetting for people to receive these letters and they may well have a claim in harassment, so I am urging them to come forward.

Ralli are currently advising hundreds of consumers who allege that letters received from firms alleging copyright infringement amount to harassment. Anyone in receipt of such letters can contact harassment@ralli.co.uk for a free assessment of their case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13116796

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The thing is, though, that the overwhelming majority of people who break copyright law aren't doing so to make a political statement - they're just cheapskates who want to get something for nothing.

Exactly. Civil disobedience is an acknowledged method. It is done in the public eye with the explicit purpose of drawing attention to the unfairness of the law.

Breaking Copyright law is generally not and it for personal gain.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The thing is, though, that the overwhelming majority of people who break copyright law aren't doing so to make a political statement - they're just cheapskates who want to get something for nothing.

I'll agree that most people who break copyright law are not trying to make a political statement. I tend to think that's because most of them don't know the legalities and history of copyright law, which, until fairly recently, was a matter of corporate business regulation that the common guy didn't have to think about.

All of a sudden, everything's copyrighted, and everything's being copied--but only professional media corporations are getting the benefits from copyright law. (Certainly, I'm not able to enforce a decision like "AOL may not copy any of my writings onto its servers.")

The laws make no sense in their current scope. The penalties are draconian enough to make people ignore them entirely; they're so obviously unreasonable that they're ignored. (Just like "treason" can carry a death penalty, and hypothetically, anyone who says the current head-of-government sucks, could be guilty of "treason" in the sense of "working to destroy the state by sowing discontent." But nobody thinks they're going to be executed for bitching about "that jerk who got elected," and nobody thinks they're going to be hit with $150,000 fines for handing a few music files to their friends. And with that as the potential penalty for sharing with friends, why *not* share with the whole internet?)

Most people don't obey copyright law because it makes no sense. They are, for the most part, in favor of authors & other creators being compensated for their work. They're not seeing how handing around a few files damages that--or not seeing how it damages author incomes more than other, entirely legal, practices, like publishers holding on to book rights but not republishing, or the 83% of the cover price that someone other than the author gets.

They want something for nothing, sure. They grow up getting free entertainment from dozens of sources--TV (I know TV is taxed in the UK, but it's not taxed more if you watch it a lot), radio, borrowed books, songs played in stores & at friends' houses, free newspapers (my area has several), blogs galore--and they're supposed to believe that *some* free content is inherently immoral, and other kinds aren't, based on applications of law that aren't written down anywhere* but exist in the minds lawyers interpreting a hundred years of case-law history, tangled up with legislative changes whose impact isn't explained.

(Aren't written down: "public performance" is restricted by copyright law, but it's not defined. Is playing a song on your car radio loud enough to be heard outside a "public performance?" Is six friends at a ballgame spontaneously breaking into song a "public performance?" Is children's recitations of poetry a public performance? Does it become one if the school sells tickets, or is that a private performance if only parents & other family members are allowed?)

I can tape a TV show give the tape to give to a friend later; why can't I download a free promotional ebook to a flash drive and do the same?

Copyright law is not clear and concise. There's a lot of blurry areas--and a lot of not-blurry areas where the people who are complying with the law, have worked hard to hide any evidence of that compliance. (Whoever pays royalties for a jukebox in a bar, the customers never hear about that. Odds are, the manager on duty doesn't know either.) One person pays for the song--but everyone gets to enjoy it. We're used to "content is free when you can get it that way, and otherwise you pay for it."

[forcheville]

Originally Posted by forcheville

I think the answer is no.

You can check by unzipping your epub with with you favourite archiving program.
Then comb through the content and metadata files with something like XVI32. I'm told that you'll find no suspicious codes.

I have never done this myself and don't recommend it.

I actually took the trouble to do so and now I think the answer is yes, you can be traced.

Ebooks that have had the DRM removed still contain a uuid in every html file which is a unique id that can possibly be used to trace the purchaser.

Removal of metadata is a separate operation to removal of DRM.

So, while I frown on people who share de-DRM'd ebooks, I frown even more sternly on those larrakins who remove the metadata as well.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(Aren't written down: "public performance" is restricted by copyright law, but it's not defined. Is playing a song on your car radio loud enough to be heard outside a "public performance?" Is six friends at a ballgame spontaneously breaking into song a "public performance?" Is children's recitations of poetry a public performance? Does it become one if the school sells tickets, or is that a private performance if only parents & other family members are allowed?)

The NFL tried to come down on church groups having game watching parties in 2007. Because they wanted to watch a a projector (given, it was a very LARGE church).

And guess what? The church defied them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779010/posts

more info on the NFL's "rules"

http://www.startchurch.com/blog/view...o-sue-churches


Because the NFL says you can show the Superbowl for "public viewing" only on one TV of less than 55 inches. I guess I broke the law for years when we watched it on my DLP projector (105") with a bunch of people at my house.

They backed down eventually (bad PR).

http://hd.engadget.com/2008/02/21/af...-bowl-parties/


Things are way out of balance in favor of copyright holders right now.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'll agree that most people who break copyright law are not trying to make a political statement. I tend to think that's because most of them don't know the legalities and history of copyright law, which, until fairly recently, was a matter of corporate business regulation that the common guy didn't have to think about.

What if most people don't even realize there is a copyright law to break?

I suggest everyone who wishes to see an end to copyright wish multiple times each day, we will get what we want. I know we're supposed to be careful what we wish for, Pandora's box and all that. But I do think and end to copyright has so many benefits, and its continuing existence has so many drawbacks, we just can't allow it to exist for much longer.

Share. Contribute.