Kindle Geographic Restrictions On US Website - Against US Buyers

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by 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.

How can you know that "everything in their argument is dependent on that" if, as you've admitted, you've ignored their argument?

I hope you don't believe that law is the same thing as morality! It is perfectly valid to discuss the morailty of actions without reference to the law.

The important issues are:

- Is copying wrong?
- If so, why are otherwise moral people happy to do it?
- If it's due to a failure to recognise the wrongness of the action, perhaps that is, in fact, due to the word we attach to it, and a more emotive one such as theft could help get the point accross.

That's not arguing on an emotional level - just because the argument discusses emotional effects doesn't mean the argument is itself emotional.

/JB

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

The root of the stealing versus piracy debate seems to be a fundamental disagreement of what constitutes theft.

My definition based on my belief system is that stealing is taking that which is not offered. By my personal beliefs piracy is stealing. My beliefs are not based on being brain washed by large corporations in order to protect their profits as has been suggested in this thread.

We will never get anywhere close to resolving the "is piracy theft" issue unless we first agree on what constitutes theft

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

How can you know that "everything in their argument is dependent on that"

Because it's a particular stance that utterly defines their argument. Trying to answer anything else in their argument is quite literally pointless.

Refusing to use the proper definitions is an emotional stance, nothing else.

[CommanderROR]

OK, I think we might have covered all sides of the Copyright infringement, Theft, Piracy or whatever naming game.

Now, why don't we focus on the reasons behind all this...

Why would an author not want his books sold to the maximum possible number of customers? Who profits from this whole geo-restrictions stuff, especially since it is not in evidence with physical books and only very recently became a hot topic for ebooks?

My opinions is that the internet took many governments and corporations by surprise. Most did not anticipate it's quick rise and also did not forsee how it creates a truly globalized society. Now, panic mode kicks in, and instead of moving witht he times and adapting to the new situation many are attempting to tame the internet and turn it back into something that can be controlled and policed on a national scale. In doing so they are (once again) overreacting and posing more restrictions on online-commerce than on physical goods. Nobody is really profiting from this (apart from possibly the pirates who might not gain money but do gain popularity) but it is still happening and it's getting worse rather than better.

And one other thing:
DRM, copy-protection and similar stuff is actually causing a lot of bother for customers and considerable cost for publishers...and the effect it is having on piracy is basically nonexistent...I'm not saying we don't need some kind of barrier to make copying of intellectual property a little less attractive to joe-average, but it has to be reasonable. If the pirated copy of something is not only free but also vastly more convenient to aquire and use then somebody is going to have to do something about it soon. The music industry is learning, sadly the ebook and video crowd are making all the old mistakes again...

[kennyc]

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.

Differerent acts. Same concept. You have taken something of mine, without my permission.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by meraxes

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. .

Of course it can. It's a matter of education - legal, moral, ethical and having appropriate laws and enforcing them. Websites that allow illegal distribution should be shut down, anyone distributing illegal copies should be prosecuted. The laws, ethics, morals, and society must (and will) all change based on technological advances/changes the best we can do is attempt to manage it in the most reasonable manner possible. We are currently at a position in that evolution where major changes are in process.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jbjb

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):



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

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

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.

No there isn't. But there is such thing as the right to be treated like everyone else, without prejudice or discrimination.

It is illegal to say "We don't serve the blacks in our pub" or "We don't accept the jews as tenants". It is apparently still legal to say "We don't serve the British in our store", or "This book cannot be sold to Europeans or Asians or Africans or anyone who's not American". But it is just as wrong and immoral as far as I'm concerned, as well as eminently pointless in an age when anyone can obtain a pirated copy of the book free of charge. So if I'm not allowed a chance to reward the author for his work, due to the obsolete and discriminatory business practices of his publishers, then I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the book for free. The lost profit the author has suffered is entirely the fault of his publishers, who refused to accept my money. From me he has suffered no real damage whatsoever. Which is why your point 3) is invalid, and your entire argumentation collapses with it.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

the best we can do is attempt to manage it in the most reasonable manner possible.

And you're advocating forcing every industry into the position the Music industry has taken itself, where it's gutted its future consumer base.

With friends like you, who needs enemies...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by CommanderROR

....



My opinions is that the internet took many governments and corporations by surprise. Most did not anticipate it's quick rise and also did not forsee how it creates a truly globalized society. Now, panic mode kicks in,....


And one other thing:
DRM, copy-protection and similar stuff .....

Actually it started well before the internet and is due to contract law. The lawyers and publishing companies (this goes clear back to the beginnings of the printing press and perhaps before to the music publishing business). The contracts try to intentionally restrict rather than allow and this is always the negotiation when determining the publication rights. The publisher of course wants all rights, the author (or agent for the author) wants to restrict or "reserve" all rights possible - e.g. movie rights, foreign sales, etc etc. So contracts are written in such a way as to allow on certain specified rights to the publisher. A publisher might have world print rights but no electronic rights what-so-ever. This is where all the sticky situations come from at least IMO.

DRM is just evil.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Differerent acts. Same concept. You have taken something of mine, without my permission.

That is nonsense.
He has not taken anything from you.
He has ENJOYED something you've written. He hasn't rewarded you for it as you deserve - but neither has he taken it away from you, damaged it in any way, diminished its value for yourself or others, or prevented others from rewarding you for your work.
And the only reason he has not rewarded you is because you (or your publishers) won't give him a chance. So hysterical screams of "catch the thief!" aren't really doing your cause any good.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Because it's a particular stance that utterly defines their argument. Trying to answer anything else in their argument is quite literally pointless.

Refusing to use the proper definitions is an emotional stance, nothing else.

Again, you miss the point. When you know what they mean, why quibble about the word they choose to use (which is, at the very least, arguably valid - legal definitions aren't the only ones)? It's pretty clear what they mean by the word, so accept it in context and move on and address the points they are making. Anything else is sophomoric points-scoring.

/JB

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Again, you miss the point. When you know what they mean, why quibble about the word they choose to use (which is, at the very least, arguably valid - legal definitions aren't the only ones)? It's pretty clear what they mean by the word, so accept it in context and move on and address the points they are making. Anything else is sophomoric points-scoring.

/JB

The word "theft" they keep using is important, because by insisting on it, they are:

a) trying to claim the moral high ground which does not belong to them
b) engaging emotions rather than reason to win the argument
c) labelling their opponents as criminals to discredit their reasoning
d) implying that the entire centuries-old weight of public outrage at classical "theft", and the whole state machinery of criminal prosecution, should be directed to support a failing business model of private companies

If this word weren't important to their argument, they would not insist on it as if their life depended on it. Take away the word, and their entire argument falls apart.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

accept it in context and move on and address the points they are making

There's literally no point. If I accept their worldview as having validity on this, my points are worthless, and I've already lost the entire argument.

You're talking to someone who absolutely loathes the use of the word "piracy" for anyone not boarding ships at sea, here. In good part because it gives the unauthorised copying counter-culture a glamour which it does not deserve!

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by meraxes

The word "theft" they keep using is important, because by insisting on it, they are:

a) trying to claim the moral high ground which does not belong to them
b) engaging emotions rather than reason to win the argument
c) labelling their opponents as criminals to discredit their reasoning
d) implying that the entire centuries-old weight of public outrage at classical "theft", and the whole state machinery of criminal prosecution, should be directed to support a failing business model of private companies

If this word weren't important to their argument, they would not insist on it as if their life depended on it. Take away the word, and their entire argument falls apart.

This is getting silly. If you disagree with the moral statment being made, argue against that moral statement, not the choice of words.

/JB