Torrents and torrents..

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So anybody who sells PD material is unethical?

I don't think that's what Harry's getting at, at all.

I think what he considers unethical is if you or I were to take a PD work that he has spent hours proofing and correcting and profit from his labor, rather than doing our own proofing and correcting and selling that edition.

By the very nature of the public domain, it's not illegal - but I can certainly see his point.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ahi

Thanks for your support!

Why PM instead of querying on the forum out in the open? Positive responses might well affect a change of mind of those who might, by their initial gut feeling, be against the idea.

- Ahi

That way you have a record of who said yes. And there should be no arm-twisting. This should be like a vote, in private and with your own conscience, both in giving permission and abiding by the answer.

RSE

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't think that's what Harry's getting at, at all.

I think what he considers unethical is if you or I were to take a PD work that he has spent hours proofing and correcting and profit from his labor, rather than doing our own proofing and correcting and selling that edition.

By the very nature of the public domain, it's not illegal - but I can certainly see his point.

Wouldn't a person that would choose not to work from the most correct version of a PD work be a bit of an idiot?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That way you have a record of who said yes. And there should be no arm-twisting. This should be like a vote, in private and with your own conscience, both in giving permission and abiding by the answer.

RSE

Why shouldn't there be arm-twisting? The people whose arms would arguably be twisted do not in fact have any legal claim of rights to the works in question, as Harry himself stated several times.

All we (not I personally, to be sure) would be trying to do is to get them to be conscionable and admit this in writing. Might as well be public.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I think what he considers unethical is if you or I were to take a PD work that he has spent hours proofing and correcting and profit from his labor, rather than doing our own proofing and correcting and selling that edition.

So you're saying that even though such a person has no rights to the material, we should all pretend like they do?

If you don't want someone else to be able to benefit from your work, then don't make it available. That sounds like a pretty strange attitude to have though. I thought the entire point of sharing things with each other was so that everyone can benefit?

I would imagine that if everyone was required to do everything from scratch themselves instead of benefiting from the work of others, the world would be a very different place.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I recommend the following answer, PM each uploader and ask. Some will say yes and some will say no and some won't respond. Build your torrent from those who say yes. This way much of the site will be available and nobody will have their labor appropriated without their permission.

I'm sure we all greatly appreciate the work that those people do, but you realize that their permission is not required. They no more own those books than you or I do.

They can choose to share their work or to not share it. That is their choice. What they can't do is share it and then try to dictate what people are and are not allowed to do with it.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ahi

Wouldn't a person that would choose not to work from the most correct version of a PD work be a bit of an idiot?



- Ahi

I refuse to discuss idiocy on grounds I might incriminate myself.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So you're saying that even though such a person has no rights to the material, we should all pretend like they do?

If you don't want someone else to be able to benefit from your work, then don't make it available. That sounds like a pretty strange attitude to have though. I thought the entire point of sharing things with each other was so that everyone can benefit?

I would imagine that if everyone was required to do everything from scratch themselves instead of benefiting from the work of others, the world would be a very different place.

I suspect that attitude is a symptom of the propaganda poisoning of North American culture by various rights-holders' associations.

Sharing your toys in Kindergarten is worthy of praise. Sharing your eBooks as an adult is worthy of harsher punishment than minor drug offenses or even assault are generally thought to call for.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I refuse to discuss idiocy on grounds I might incriminate myself.

Forgive me, Lemurion. I hope you did not think I meant to insult you.

But honestly... if you are going to publish a public domain book, starting with the most correct edition seems both the most sensible and the most ethical thing to do.

I understand why that may "feel wrong" to Harry... but I think it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to make a sound argument as to why it actually is wrong.

- Ahi

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ahi

Forgive me, Lemurion. I hope you did not think I meant to insult you.

But honestly... if you are going to publish a public domain book, starting with the most correct edition seems both the most sensible and the most ethical thing to do.

I understand why that may "feel wrong" to Harry... but I think it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to make a sound argument as to why it actually is wrong.

- Ahi

I didn't think you were being insulting at all - I hoped the smiley would indicate it was a joke.

As for Harry's editions, I wasn't saying he had a legal right to prevent further distribution, but rather talking about why he wouldn't like it. I also believe he has every right to his feelings, regardless of legality.

There's also the fact that he might well take issue with someone taking his efforts and claiming them as their own.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So you're saying that even though such a person has no rights to the material, we should all pretend like they do?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm sure we all greatly appreciate the work that those people do, but you realize that their permission is not required. They no more own those books than you or I do.

They can choose to share their work or to not share it. That is their choice. What they can't do is share it and then try to dictate what people are and are not allowed to do with it.

That doesn't mean they have to like it.

Just because one person has the right to do something, does not mean that everyone has to agree that it's a good idea to do it. Harry would prefer that the books he proofed and corrected be shared a particular way. However, a preference is not a requirement, so he cannot dictate that they be shared according to his preference; but that doesn't mean he has to change his mind about it.

He prefers them shared one way, you prefer them shared another. Legally, you can each share them however you want, regardless of the others' wishes. Neither of you has to like the others' choice.

As to selling PD works he has proofed and corrected, anyone has the legal right to do that: however as that could be considered implicitly claiming his work as one's own, the argument can be made that it's unethical. (Regardless of the ethics of the legal distribution, the implied falsehood can certainly be looked on as unethical.)

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

There's also the fact that he might well take issue with someone taking his efforts and claiming them as their own.

Isn't he implicitly doing just that by not attributing his books to Project Gutenberg, wherefrom most he probably sourced? Not that PG's terms governing use of the PG name and trademark permits him to do so...

Should he then really dislike something he himself is arguably guilty of, purely because the venture is commercial (thereby probably likely to reach a wider audience who shall benefit from both Harry's and the entrepreneur's efforts, assuming the pricing is right)?

If some morally bankrupt jackass starts selling eBooks uploaded by Harry as is, by all means let him receive the moral condemnation of all. But not because he made commercial use of a Public Domain text that Harry worked on (along with lots of other people Harry himself isn't even acknowledging and may not even know about), but because the jackass is trying to defraud people.

- Ahi

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As to selling PD works he has proofed and corrected, anyone has the legal right to do that: however as that could be considered implicitly claiming his work as one's own, the argument can be made that it's unethical. (Regardless of the ethics of the legal distribution, the implied falsehood can certainly be looked on as unethical.)

But that is true for any redistribution and distributing them for free in for example torrent was not claimed to be unethical. So why would it become unethical just because your are selling it?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ahi

Isn't he implicitly doing just that by not attributing his books to Project Gutenberg, wherefrom most he probably sourced? Not that PG's terms governing use of the PG name and trademark permits him to do so...

Should he then really dislike something he himself is arguably guilty of, purely because the venture is commercial (thereby probably likely to reach a wider audience who shall benefit from both Harry's and the entrepreneur's efforts, assuming the pricing is right)?

If some morally bankrupt jackass starts selling eBooks uploaded by Harry as is, by all means let him receive the moral condemnation of all. But not because he made commercial use of a Public Domain text that Harry worked on (along with lots of other people Harry himself isn't even acknowledging and may not even know about), but because the jackass is trying to defraud people.

- Ahi

As far as I know, Harry compares both electronic and print editions to generate his versions.

As for his right to dislike something: Without speaking for Harry, I believe that people have the right to dislike things for almost any reason they choose, so if he wants to dislike something because it's commercial, that's his prerogative.

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is true for any redistribution and distributing them for free in for example torrent was not claimed to be unethical. So why would it become unethical just because your are selling it?

Because sharing in a torrent is done for the benefit of others, while selling for profit is done for one's own benefit.

Money makes a difference.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As far as I know, Harry compares both electronic and print editions to generate his versions.

As for his right to dislike something: Without speaking for Harry, I believe that people have the right to dislike things for almost any reason they choose, so if he wants to dislike something because it's commercial, that's his prerogative.

Having the right to his opinion does not stop him from being wrong. (Or at least questionable in the rationality of his view.)

Comparing both electronic and print editions doesn't change the fact that if he sources his starting-point text from PG, a huge amount of work (by others) is already done for him. Work that he does not (and, indeed, for legal reasons is not even permitted to) credit.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Because sharing in a torrent is done for the benefit of others, while selling for profit is done for one's own benefit.

Money makes a difference.

Selling for profit does not preclude there being benefit to others. Potentially considerable benefit. Potentially more benefit than gratis amateur distribution provides.

- Ahi

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Because sharing in a torrent is done for the benefit of others, while selling for profit is done for one's own benefit.

Money makes a difference.

How does that affect if the action is ethical or not? If the work is in the public domain I cannot see how it can make a difference in any of the most common ethical systems.