Kindle Geographic Restrictions On US Website - Against US Buyers

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

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!

Don't be so sensitive about the word! If you know what people mean by it, accept it and take part in the real argument.

/JB

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by jbjb

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

/JB

You don't make sense. The choice of word IS the moral statement. And if you think the word is so irrelevant, why don't I see you urging the other side to stop using it so as not to distract us from the real issues?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Don't be so sensitive about the word! If you know what people mean by it, accept it and take part in the real argument.

It is the real argument. The divide is predictable based entirely and only on how people use the words. i.e. I'm a pragmatist on this, wanting to stick to the legal definitions because they let us be precise about what we mean.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by meraxes

You don't make sense. The choice of word IS the moral statement. And if you think the word is so irrelevant, why don't I see you urging the other side to stop using it so as not to distract us from the real issues?

I'm not urging people not to use it, because I know what they mean by it, so that's fine - it's not clouding the issue.

If you equate the word with a moral statement with which you disagree, then argue against the moral statement - whether or not the word is being used in the legally correct way is irrelevant - you know what they are saying.

/JB

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It is the real argument. The divide is predictable based entirely and only on how people use the words. i.e. I'm a pragmatist on this, wanting to stick to the legal definitions because they let us be precise about what we mean.

Nope. It has nothing to do with specific words. It's a ethical and moral concept.

I can't help it if you refuse to acknowledge that. That is your own issue.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by meraxes

You don't make sense. The choice of word IS the moral statement. And if you think the word is so irrelevant, why don't I see you urging the other side to stop using it so as not to distract us from the real issues?

See above.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It is the real argument. The divide is predictable based entirely and only on how people use the words. i.e. I'm a pragmatist on this, wanting to stick to the legal definitions because they let us be precise about what we mean.

Perhaps if you didn't ignore their argments you'd realise that they are founded on a moral position, and the use of the word "theft" is merely an expression of that position, not the position itself.

If you believe that copying is morally wrong, then it's wrong whether you choose to call it theft or not. A rose by any other name etc.

/JB

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Perhaps if you didn't ignore their argments you'd realise that they are founded on a moral position, and the use of the word "theft" is merely an expression of that position, not the position itself.

No, it's just that. It's pushing the view that contrary to law, common sense and the prevailing morality in today's civilisation, unauthorised copying of any form (which, bear in mind, includes libraries and reading over the shoulder) is "theft".

It's precisely the view pushed by big music and big film companies, and is an acceptance and agreement with their agenda. The people pushing it are ignoring the fact that the music industry has killed its own market, the film industry isn't far behind...and they want to force in onto everyone else.

Well, I'm sorry they hate creative media so much, but there's really nothing to discuss until they're ready to accept the fact that they're calling for neo-prohibition, and with about as much success. The vast majority of the games industry doesn't want your stance, doesn't want to drive customers away and doesn't want to end up where the music industry is!

Not to mention the crushing financial burden that they're pushing onto ISP's and the technological sector, which is far and away above even the inflated losses claimed by the content "creators" in question.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, it's just that. It's pushing the view that contrary to law, common sense and the prevailing morality in today's civilisation, unauthorised copying of any form (which, bear in mind, includes libraries and reading over the shoulder) is "theft".

It's precisely the view pushed by big music and big film companies, and is an acceptance and agreement with their agenda. The people pushing it are ignoring the fact that the music industry has killed its own market, the film industry isn't far behind...and they want to force in onto everyone else.

Well, I'm sorry they hate creative media so much, but there's really nothing to discuss until they're ready to accept the fact that they're calling for neo-prohibition, and with about as much success. The vast majority of the games industry doesn't want your stance, doesn't want to drive customers away and doesn't want to end up where the music industry is!

They are pushing the view that unauthorised copying is wrong. (A view with which I happen to agree, though that's not the point I'm trying to make at the moment - they're doing that very well themselves.)

The fact that they choose to use the word "theft" to describe the wrongness of the act is orthogonal to the discussion of the morality of the act.

The way you equate the belief that unauthorised copying is wrong with a hatred for creative media is, frankly, utterly bizarre - that sort of ludicrous statement does nothing to help your case.

/JB

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

As this is what you believe, I can see why you insist on using the technically incorrect term.

I fundamentally disagree with you. Copyright infringement involves copying something without the copyright owners permission, not taking something.

Copyright infringement is still wrong, of course. Just not theft.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by jbjb

They are pushing the view that unauthorised copying is wrong. (A view with which I happen to agree, though that's not the point I'm trying to make at the moment - they're doing that very well themselves.)

Not all unauthorised copying is wrong, in a moral sense. It may or may not be wrong in a legal sense, depending on where you live.

Some DVDs have a compulsory play of a 30 second advert (about copyright infringement!), and IMO it's NOT wrong to make a copy without that advert for personal use, although it's certainly copyright infringement.

One would have thought that by now media companies would have realised that irritating their paying customers isn't a good business plan?

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by jbjb

They are pushing the view that unauthorised copying is wrong. /JB

No they are not. They are insisting that it's not just wrong, no matter what the circumstances, but that it is actually theft. Ask them directly if you don't believe me or your own eyes. And reasoning with them is just as pointless as reasoning with a vegetarian who insists that killing animals for food is "murder", and then challenges you to explain how "murder" can ever be justified. Well of course it can't bloody well be justified, just like you can never justify theft - except that killing animals for food is not murder, and copyright violation is not theft.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

The way you equate the belief that unauthorised copying is wrong with a hatred for creative media is, frankly, utterly bizarre - that sort of ludicrous statement does nothing to help your case.

Go back and read my post again. It's about implications of people's views. This is precisely what I mean about this being the argument in the first place

You are insisting on viewing everything through a black and white moral filter which doesn't allow for the actual situation or people to form reasonable policies. The music industry is poised to do a lot of damage to our entire economy, including the creative media industries, and you're simply nodding in time with them.

This view is far from ludicrous - it's also being pushed by much of the games industry, ISP's and the rest of the telecoms industries, consumer rights groups, several political parties in Europe, various respected writers on copyright issues, GCHQ*...

(*Because it'll get more people to encrypt everything they do on the web and thus handicap them, but they're still for a practical view)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

As this is what you believe, I can see why you insist on using the technically incorrect term.

I fundamentally disagree with you. Copyright infringement involves copying something without the copyright owners permission, not taking something.

Copyright infringement is still wrong, of course. Just not theft.

If you limit yourself to the specific terms of the existing law then you may be correct in that limited sphere of influence. But laws are not universal and apply only to certain political and geographical boundaries. I'm speaking in universal terms.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Not all unauthorised copying is wrong, in a moral sense. It may or may not be wrong in a legal sense, depending on where you live.

Some DVDs have a compulsory play of a 30 second advert (about copyright infringement!), and IMO it's NOT wrong to make a copy without that advert for personal use, although it's certainly copyright infringement.

One would have thought that by now media companies would have realised that irritating their paying customers isn't a good business plan?

I certainly agree that DRM is a completely wrong-headed approach, and can see the argument that in some cases copying can be argued to be morally justifiable. For example I do make a distinction between cases like the one you mention, where a copy is made for personal use of something you already own, and the case of downright piracy. In fact, I do strip DRM from ebooks I buy, so that I can do things like adjust the formatting to my likes. I don't have any moral issue with that at all.

As I've said, however - that's not the point I'm trying to make - I can see both sides of the argument. The thing I'm arguing against is the outright rejection of a set of arguments based solely on the use of a word to mean something that someone else doesn't think it means, even though the original party has made it explicitly clear what they mean by it.

/JB