Kindle Geographic Restrictions On US Website - Against US Buyers

[HansTWN]

I disagree, we should educate people that we should value the work of those who produce ideas as much as the work of those who work with their hands. Why should authors, programmers, and others subsist on handouts? Ok, some may choose to, that is fine. But the choice should be THEIRS. And we all must realize yes, we can take books for free, but we don't because we know that taking something that doesn't belong to us is wrong. We don't take physical goods, even when we know we could get away with it. Why this arbitrary distinction? Don't take what isn't yours, period.

It is especially tragic to hear this from people from Western countries. Once ideas (patents, books, software, design) become valueless, then what kind of work can Westerners hope for?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It really doesn't matter if it's a physical object I own or an item of intellectual property. If you take it without permission, that is stealing.

In the following list "without your permission" is implied in all cases.

1. If I take your car, that is theft.
2. If I board your ship and take valuables, that is piracy.
3. If I take your only copy of the manuscript of your next book that is theft.
4. If I publish the manuscript as my own, that is theft of your intellectual property.
5. If I download a copy of a book you wrote, that is copyright infringement.

Using the same word to describe case 1 as case 5 is incorrect. They are different in fact and in law.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

You are right, however a simple free proxy server will solve those problems. It is none of any ones business where in the world we are.

You are 100 percent right. It is no ones business where I am in the world and I should not loose my book buying privileges because I happen to be traveling somewhere besides the USA. I have been a life long customer of Barnes and Noble but they will never get another penny from me and are welcome to shove the Nook up one of their body openings whose normal use is evidently thinking. I am almost certain of it.
I have questioned several times what the difference is between my old way of acquiring books when I lived in the USA, which was thrift shops and library sales, and downloading them off the internet. As anyone knows that is almost for nothing. I usually pay 25 cents to 50 cents per book at thrift shops and sales. The subject is always ignored. Is it because there are those of you who only care about your own preconceived notions of piracy or any other notions you might have? Or perhaps you do your thinking with the same bodily opening that Barnes And Noble does.
One of my biggest fears is that their will never be another Will Durant or Arnold Toynbee because of how easy it is to have your work up on a P2P site for free within hours after it is made available for purchase. However when I see A genius who is offering a PDF of their work for 700 dollars each crippled with DRM, I have no sympathy for them and they are welcome to deposit their work in that same bodily orifice in which I stated the Nook should be placed by B&N. Don't get me wrong it is theirs they can charge 7 million dollars for it if they wish. Stupid is as stupid does. It is obvious that we are now at the point in ereading where an ecopy is not worth as much as a paper copy if you don't know that then you are either simple minded or dishonest.
Now there are many of you who I consider to be my friends and respect tremendously, please give me a thinking straight answer. I am very concerned over this and tired of being ignored. Answer this old man ex pro athlete who has been hit on the head so many times that maybe he doesn't think straight anymore and getting worse with age.
I am of the opinion that most of the download sites are full of bibliophiles like me who will never read all those books. At the same time if you are, for example, a Science Fiction author and your books are not on those sites you better have a day job. Is Corry Doctorow and others like him right, or are those who fight to protect their work from Piracy right? If I ever finish one of my two books, that were supposed to be finished months ago and saw they up for free download I would be very angry. At the same time I might later, on reflection be angry that they weren't there. What is the answer? Beats me, but I don't delude myself with tired platitudes and anal cognizance.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

we should educate people that we should value the work of those who produce ideas as much as the work of those who work with their hands. Why should authors, programmers, and others subsist on handouts?

The world is what it is, not what you want it to be. And ownership of ideas cannot be enforced in the same way as we enforce ownership of cars or homes. You can educate all you like but give me an example of an unenforceable law that's actually working. So if you don't want to make the authors subsist on handouts, you should come up with a workable business model to reward their creativity instead of persisting with your denial.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We don't take physical goods, even when we know we could get away with it. Why this arbitrary distinction?

Several people have already explained to you why the distinction, and why it is not arbitrary. It all boils down to a clear difference between actual loss and a theoretical opportunity for profit. The law recognizes this distinction and does not think it's arbitrary - but you seem to respect the music and movie industry's brainwashing slogans more than the law of the land.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

In the following list "without your permission" is implied in all cases.

1. If I take your car, that is theft.
2. If I board your ship and take valuables, that is piracy.
3. If I take your only copy of the manuscript of your next book that is theft.
4. If I publish the manuscript as my own, that is theft of your intellectual property.
5. If I download a copy of a book you wrote, that is copyright infringement.

Using the same word to describe case 1 as case 5 is incorrect. They are different in fact and in law.

Is number 3 theft if I take it and return it? Or I copy it without your permission? Besides, copyright infringement is just another word for a special kind of theft. It is this attitude, that it is not theft, that saddles us all with DRM and similar nonsense.

And the law of the land is that they can sue you for damages. Don't give me that "corporate brainwashing", corporations are just groups of people who need to make some money to provide a living for employees and shareholders.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

Is Corry Doctorow and others like him right, or are those who fight to protect their work from Piracy right? If I ever finish one of my two books, that were supposed to be finished months ago and saw they up for free download I would be very angry. At the same time I might later, on reflection be angry that they weren't there. What is the answer?

I think the answer is a business model which relies on people's innate sense of gratitude, fairness and natural justice. If they have an easy and convenient way of paying you 2-3 bucks for your book which they have read and liked - and an author doesn't get more than that from each paperback sold in any case - they will pay you. The rest of the price of a paperback is used to support the unwieldy and restrictive distribution model made unnecessary by IT progress.

Cut out the middlemen, the distributors, the warehouses, the bricks-and-mortar shops, the lawyers and managers. Leave the author, the editor paid by the author from his own income, and a reviewing and rating system to help the consumer navigate in this sea of books. All we really need is five or ten competing central repositories of catalogues, reviews and ratings linking to the author's book and getting a small cut from every link clicked or every book sold, plus an easy and trusted system of micropayments. The rest of the publishing industry can then die and unlamented death, while the readers will have access to all the books ever written, and the authors will be properly rewarded for their work.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And the law of the land is that they can sue you for damages.

The damages would be the price of an ebook IF they can prove I could have actually bought it (which I couldn't due to their silly restrictions) or would have bought it if wasn't available for free (you wouldn't necessarily buy all the things that you now have free of charge). So let them sue.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And for the moment, Amazon is in the best position because they have the lowest cost (they can pressure publishers).

What can I say? That's not always true. I feel buying books the same my mother buying milk: looking always for the cheapest store.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something of mine without my permission, that is theft.

Certainly, if I deprive you of something, it's theft. If I make a copy, it's unauthorised copying. Sensible, and precisely what the law says.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Is number 3 theft if I take it and return it?

Since theft is taking with intention to permanently deprive, no, if you always intended to return it. That's a bit difficult to prove if you get caught before returning it though. It's always best to borrow with permission.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Or I copy it without your permission?

That's also not theft, that's clearly copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Besides, copyright infringement is just another word for a special kind of theft.

This is the root of our disagreement. Theft has a definite meaning, both legally and in general use. You seem to wish to use theft as a catch-all term for wrongdoing. Copyright infringement is not theft, just like plagiarism is not theft.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is this attitude, that it is not theft, that saddles us all with DRM and similar nonsense.

No, it's paranoia that saddles us with DRM.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And the law of the land is that they can sue you for damages.

Absolutely. If someone infringes copyright, they can be sued by the copyright owner. However, if someone commits a theft, they are prosecuted by the government.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Don't give me that "corporate brainwashing", corporations are just groups of people who need to make some money to provide a living for employees and shareholders.

I don't think I said a word about "corporate brainwashing".

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If publishers had only one price worldwide and US sellers could sell to anyone then in the end only US sellers would survive.

You're missing something. The majority of writers would contract their ebooks to their major publisher, the one in their country. Certainly US-written books would dominate from US sellers, but UK sellers would be the ones selling UK-written books.

The people shafted would be the portals like Amazon, who have additional costs over and above the publishers.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by meraxes

There's a legal course of action, and there's the right one, which are not necessarily the same. The copyright business model is only "legal" because most people rightly believe authors should be rewarded for their creative work, and copyright is the only way to do it the world has invented so far. But if this business model is screwed up by the publishers to the extent that I'm left with no legal way to obtain the book because I come from the "wrong" country, then I no longer feel obliged to respect this business model. The publishers discriminate against me, for their twisted business reasons, simply because they can - well, I'll just take what I want from them, because I can, too, and they've left me no other way. They can't trample on my rights and still demand respect for theirs. It's still illegal of course, but not "wrong" in my book - when someone hits me, I hit back. And the author would not get a penny from me in any case, his publishers simply won't take my money. So there's no point trying to make me feel guilty by calling it "theft" - call it what you like in fact, I don't care.

So, if I understand correctly:

1) The publisher obtained rights to sell a book and paid money for them, expecting to make a profit from it in normal market conditions. This might have caused an author to write the book in the first place.
2) They don't want to have business with you, for whatever reasons (I expect more legal of economical than anything else).
3) There's no such thing as a right to be able to obtain anything you want. So no one trampled on any of your rights.
4) By downloading the book for free, and possibly sharing it with other people who might have bought the book otherwise, you are indirectly lowering the market demand for it, thus harming the publisher.

I don't see how you can call what you're doing fair to publishers. It looks to me like you're sponging off their work. I don't care if you feel guilty either, but I wish there were less people like you.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by meraxes

I think the answer is a business model which relies on people's innate sense of gratitude, fairness and natural justice. If they have an easy and convenient way of paying you 2-3 bucks for your book which they have read and liked - and an author doesn't get more than that from each paperback sold in any case - they will pay you. The rest of the price of a paperback is used to support the unwieldy and restrictive distribution model made unnecessary by IT progress.

Cut out the middlemen, the distributors, the warehouses, the bricks-and-mortar shops, the lawyers and managers. Leave the author, the editor paid by the author from his own income, and a reviewing and rating system to help the consumer navigate in this sea of books. All we really need is five or ten competing central repositories of catalogues, reviews and ratings linking to the author's book and getting a small cut from every link clicked or every book sold, plus an easy and trusted system of micropayments. The rest of the publishing industry can then die and unlamented death, while the readers will have access to all the books ever written, and the authors will be properly rewarded for their work.

I like that idea. Although when I was in the USA I really liked thrift shops and library sales. I guess things are going to change rather we like it or not. Will that idea work with more expensive books such as Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology?
Look at the poor souls arguing above, same old crap.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This is the root of our disagreement. Theft has a definite meaning, both legally and in general use. You seem to wish to use theft as a catch-all term for wrongdoing. Copyright infringement is not theft, just like plagiarism is not theft.

These arguments over what word to attach to it are distracting attention from the real point.

It's possible to argue both ways over whether or not copying can be called theft. Many words, not just "theft", have technical legal definitions which are more precise and less encompassing than words in their (arguable) general use. (The law isn't alone in this - many technical fields define words in ways which differ from common usage.) This does not invalidate the common usage of the word.

I'm not saying anything about whether or not it's right to call copying theft, simply that it's certainly debatable and something on which "reasonable people may differ".

The real point, however, is that whatever you choose to call it, it's wrong. Saying (as DawnFalcon has done):

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Every time you say theft, I'll immediately ignore the rest of your argument and home in on the that, because it's blatent misrepresentation and makes your argument - regardless what it is - a bad joke.

is (IMHO) childish. Ignoring someone's real argument because of their choice of words, when everybody knows what they mean, is school playground stuff.

/JB

[DawnFalcon]

No, it's focusing on the actually important issue, that they have chosen a particular side and philosophy which excludes using the actual rule of law in their logic. Everything else in their argument is dependent on that, and I'm not interested in arguing with people on an emotional level.