Demonoid back online

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Sorry, cmbs, but speaking for myself, the same moral code that prevents me from taking copyrighted works without paying for them, also (among other things) prevents me from trying to force everyone else to comply with that code in every wise.

MobileRead is primarily a discussion based community, that means we discuss things, and sometimes they're things that many, or even most of us don't like much, but we hold the right of free speech in pretty high regard. We would also consider forbidding the mere mention of such things (as you seem to want us to do) to be pretty firmly contrary to that freedom.

You are similarly at liberty to believe or not, as you choose, our statements that MobileRead does not condone "piracy."

We draw a line at actively distributing and openly condoning tools that only support "piracy." Could that line be drawn elsewhere? Certainly it could: it's a judgment call. We draw it, in good faith, in the best place we can, trying to balance the various abstract ideals that bear on the matter. That's something else you'll just have to decide for yourself whether you'll choose to believe or not.

It's not a question of forcing people to stop downloading illegal books, it's a question of saying "we don't discuss that here" or "you can do it but we're not going to help you in any way, we strongly disapprove of that activity". You can't control the behavior of people, but you can control what you allow in your own place.

People do a lot of things you're not letting them discuss here, things that whether I think they're right or wrong, whether they're illegal or not, they have the freedom to do. Mobile read is making a choice of what they're allowing. That's pretty much what you're saying, I just think if mobile read were more serious about not helping people in their piracy activities, you'd draw the line somewhere else. This whole "freedom of discussion" is a convenient cover. You going to allow them to discuss assassinating the president? Blowing up Dallas? I doubt it.

The fact is that this community does give pretty clear instructions on how to remove drm in several places, and this thread is an advertisement for a site which illegally provides ebooks.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by cmbs

It's not a question of forcing people to stop downloading illegal books, it's a question of saying "we don't discuss that here" or "you can do it but we're not going to help you in any way, we strongly disapprove of that activity". You can't control the behavior of people, but you can control what you allow in your own place.

See, most folks would consider telling people what they can and can't discuss to be trying to control what they do. Discussion is an action, and therefore a "doing."

From the Policy

MobileRead does not condone or support the use of this web site to break the law. This means that, to the extent possible, we will not allow posting of instructions showing someone how to break the law or requests for such instructions.

In particular items that break copyright law or DRM cannot be supported. eBooks posted to this site must be legally posted using applicable law and permissions.

Originally Posted by cmbs

... "we don't discuss that here" or "you can do it but we're not going to help you in any way, we strongly disapprove of that activity".

The difference between those two statements is one of degree.

Originally Posted by cmbs

People do a lot of things you're not letting them discuss here, things that whether I think they're right or wrong, whether they're illegal or not, they have the freedom to do.

Ah, yes, the time honored"red herring." To which I believe the time honored reply would be "What's that got to do with the price of eggs?"

Originally Posted by cmbs

Mobile read is making a choice of what they're allowing. That's pretty much what you're saying, I just think if mobile read were more serious about not helping people in their piracy activities, you'd draw the line somewhere else.

If we were more serious than we are? Sure, we might well draw a different line, it would still depend on how serious we also were about the other relevant factors. For example we're also very serious about not trying to censor the whole world, so that affects where the line is drawn too.

Perhaps you feel that because we don't draw precisely the line you would draw it means that we are drawing no line at all? If we moved the line every time someone didn't like some particular stroke in it, that would be having no line at all.

Originally Posted by cmbs

This whole "freedom of discussion" is a convenient cover.

It would be, if we were putting it forward in the cynical manner you seem to be assuming we are. Given that apparent assumption on your part, I don't see any way to convince you otherwise.

Originally Posted by cmbs

You going to allow them to discuss assassinating the president? Blowing up Dallas? I doubt it.

Again: price, eggs, what?

Originally Posted by cmbs

The fact is that this community does give pretty clear instructions on how to remove drm in several places....

It's certainly possible, we can't police the whole bloomin' thing, there aren't very many of us. If you'd be so kind as to point out the instances you have in mind, I will be more than happy to personally remove or adjust them, as the posts in question require.

That's an open offer, by the way, to anyone at any time: if you run across a post of this type, please use the "report post" feature to let us know about it! It's quick and easy, and only hurts a little bit, I promise!

Originally Posted by cmbs

...and this thread is an advertisement for a site which illegally provides ebooks.

Well, it's certainly a fact that you view it that way.

We view it as a noteworthy item in the continually changing fabric of the effort to achieve legal access to ebooks. A blemish in that fabric, yes, and one I wasn't sad to see go nor am I particularly happy to see return, but it's part of it, regardless.

[cmbs]

I could continue to argue this with you, but I don't feel like it. I stated my point. I don't expect the rules to change based only on my opinion, I was just stating it.

The only reason I'm posting at all right now is because I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you or Harry (or anyone) of going against policy, I'm just saying the policy is questionable in my opinion.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by cmbs

I could continue to argue this with you, but I don't feel like it. I stated my point.

Yes you have, quite thoroughly, I might add, and we appreciate your concern for the community, without regard to whether or not we should happen to agree on any given point of discussion.

Originally Posted by cmbs

The only reason I'm posting at all right now is because I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you or Harry (or any of the mods) of going against policy....

That's very much appreciated, cmbs, thank you. If you should see us stepping out of line, a gentle note to that effect would be appreciated too!

Originally Posted by cmbs

... I'm just saying the policy is questionable in my opinion.

Duly noted. And we certainly wouldn't want you to feel like you can't express your views on the matter ... or any other matter, as far as that goes.

[nekokami]

I'd like to point out that the original post did not specify what demonoid is, let alone why one might go there. I simply noted that a site which was taken down last year, and which many people thought was gone for good, is back. And for the record, I'm not giving out any invite codes to random people who pm me asking for them (as has already occurred). I am not encouraging piracy.

That being said, and at the risk of setting everyone off again, many people make a distinction between acquiring scans of pbooks they already own, and wholesale acquisition of content that has never been paid for. Others feel that making any use of unauthorized distribution methods, whether or not one already owns the content in another form, is illegal and/or immoral. From previous debates it's clear that we aren't going to resolve this conflict in points of view quickly or easily, but sometimes, if everyone involved is patient, tries hard to listen to the points of view of others, and tries hard to explain their own point of view without name-calling or ad hominem attacks, we all learn something, and occasionally our opinions do change over time.

Perhaps it's too much to expect in this thread, but hey, I can always dream.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Taking people's work without their permission is wrong, whether or not it's illegal. You can come up with all the excuses you want, you're not going to change the fact that it's wrong.

Did Clive Barker approve the 'Imajica' extract on your blogspot (http://christinesreadingcorner.blogs...ve-barker.html), or was his work taken without his permission ?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

That being said, and at the risk of setting everyone off again, many people make a distinction between acquiring scans of pbooks they already own, and wholesale acquisition of content that has never been paid for.

But can it be morally justifyable to download a book (or anything else, for that matter) which has been illegally uploaded? You may feel that you have a "moral" right to that book, but has the person who uploaded it acted "morally" in doing so? If not (and I think that most people would regard illegally uploaded copyrighted material as immoral) then I think personally that you are on very shaky ground in claiming to be "morally justified" in downloading that material.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Did Clive Barker approve the 'Imajica' extract on your blogspot (http://christinesreadingcorner.blogs...ve-barker.html), or was his work taken without his permission ?

This comment is so ridiculous, it doesn't justify a response. But for anyone who honestly doesn't know and is interested:

I'm not distributing an entire work, or a large portion of a work. I'm not downloading illegally distributed works. Using very small excerpts for reviews is legal and morally fine.

There is no argument which validates stealing ebooks, no matter what lies and daydreams you may be telling yourself and others. I use small excerpts in reviews. That is nothing at all like stealing an entire work, and in no way justifies illegal distribution of an entire work.

If you're honestly interested in learning the law, rather than starting stupid fights, copyright laws are available online. Read them and learn.

If you're honestly considering the morality of stealing other people's work, just consider how you'd feel if you worked hard on something just to have some greedy disrespectful full of nonsense thinks the world belongs to him jerk come along and steal it.

It's not hard to comprehend that it's wrong. You people are working really hard at lying to yourselves to convince yourselves it's ok.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by cmbs

This comment is so ridiculous, it doesn't justify a response. But for anyone who honestly doesn't know and is interested:

I'm not distributing an entire work, or a large portion of a work. I'm not downloading illegally distributed works. Using very small excerpts for reviews is legal and morally fine.

There is no argument which validates stealing ebooks, no matter what lies and daydreams you may be telling yourself and others. I use small excerpts in reviews. That is nothing at all like stealing an entire work, and in no way justifies illegal distribution of an entire work.

If you're honestly interested in learning the law, rather than starting stupid fights, copyright laws are available online. Read them and learn.

If you're honestly considering the morality of stealing other people's work, just consider how you'd feel if you worked hard on something just to have some greedy disrespectful full of nonsense thinks the world belongs to him asshole come along and steal it.

It's not that hard to comprehend that it's wrong. You people are working really hard at lying to yourselves to convince yourselves it's ok.

The question was not absurd. You said:

Originally Posted by cmbs

Taking people's work without their permission is wrong, whether or not it's illegal. You can come up with all the excuses you want, you're not going to change the fact that it's wrong.

Since you don't have the author's permission, obviously what you did was wrong. You should take down the excerpt.

[cmbs]

Ok. Here's the deal:

You are not interested in learning or honestly discussing the legality or morality of stealing ebooks, or of using small excerpts in reviews. You are interested in fighting about it. You're interested in defending theft. You are interested in picking me apart because I say clearly that stealing is wrong and all the nonsense excuses are lies dreamed up to ease your conscience.

I'm not interested in fighting. I'm not interested in repeating myself to brick walls. I'm only interested in helping to enlighten anyone with an honest interest in the issue of stealing ebooks or using excerpts. I've said what was to be said, and anyone honestly interested can go and learn and ponder.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by cmbs

I use small excerpts in reviews. That is nothing at all like stealing an entire work, and in no way justifies illegal distribution of an entire work.

So your view is that it's ok to distribute snippets (page size snippets) of someone's work without their permission.

If we can find 500 people who agree with you, and they all chose a different snippet - we're in business .

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But can it be morally justifyable to download a book (or anything else, for that matter) which has been illegally uploaded? You may feel that you have a "moral" right to that book, but has the person who uploaded it acted "morally" in doing so? If not (and I think that most people would regard illegally uploaded copyrighted material as immoral) then I think personally that you are on very shaky ground in claiming to be "morally justified" in downloading that material.

If you are a utilitarist then there is not automatic transference of immorality. I do not see how it follow from a rights based moral either so exactly how is the ground shaky?

[HarryT]

It's simple, Tommy - even if you have a "right" to own a product, if the source of that product is illegal, then (in my personal code of ethics, at least) that makes it "wrong" to use that particular product source. You may, of course, feel otherwise - I have no problem with that.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Ok. Here's the deal:

You are not interested in learning or honestly discussing the legality or morality of stealing ebooks, or of using small excerpts in reviews. You are interested in fighting about it. You're interested in defending theft. You are interested in picking me apart because I say clearly that stealing is wrong and all the nonsense excuses are lies dreamed up to ease your conscience.

No, actually. My interest was in the contradiction between your binary statement about piracy and your actions.

I don't like binary statements. Everyone is welcome to say them, certainly. But when one's actions do not match one's position, one invites comment on the contradiction.

I commented on the contradiction because I wanted to see some creative backpedaling. You responded with some rather unoriginal name calling. It tells me who you are, but other than that it was really disappointing.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's simple, Tommy - even if you have a "right" to own a product, if the source of that product is illegal, then (in my personal code of ethics, at least) that makes it "wrong" to use that particular product source. You may, of course, feel otherwise - I have no problem with that.

But why do you think it is shaky? If the most common ethical systems does not make it shaky then how can you argue that it is shaky? You can have whatever opinion you want but that does not make it shaky. You can believe that the evolution theory it totally wrong but that does not make the theory shaky.