Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Times have changed have they not? So why continue to argue from a concept and viewpoint rooted 200 years in the past? As so many argue regarding the publishers and the old way of business........times have changed and we all must change with them.

So why does copyright not have to change again? The current method of doing things is less than a century old, but it's big companies are fighting to ensure that things will never change against them. Oh, it's futile (their revenues are dropping, even as the money going to the creators increases), but they can and will do a lot of damage to our society and legal systems in the process if we let them.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong. That's what law and morality and society are all about. How we get along, how we share things and how we work together.

If there's anything like "inherent" right to an idea, and two people independently come upon the same idea, do they both have this "inherent" right? Or does the one who came upon it earlier in time deprive the other one of the right?
If you made something, how can you be sure you invented it first, and that you have that "right", not someone else who came upon it earlier?

The whole concept of "inherent" right to an idea comes apart under closer inspection.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes there is, that's what the laws are about or did you forget about that li'l legality thing?

Inherent rights is a moral philosophy term. The rights given by laws are not inherent rights. Did you really not know the meaning of inherent rights?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

If there's anything like "inherent" right to an idea, and two people independently come upon the same idea, do they both have this "inherent" right? Or does the one who came upon it earlier in time deprive the other one of the right?
If you made something, how can you be sure you invented it first, and that you have that "right", not someone else who came upon it earlier?

The whole concept of "inherent" right to an idea comes apart under closer inspection.

That has happened many time with "ideas" and that's where the courts come into play. I don't decide, you don't decide, the court of LAW does.



Please keep in mind we are not talking about idea in any case when we are talking about ebooks we are talking about products.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Inherent rights is a moral philosophy term. The rights given by laws are not inherent rights. Did you really not know the meaning of inherent rights?

Do you really not understand the meaning of right and wrong?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

So why does copyright not have to change again? The current method of doing things is less than a century old, but it's big companies are fighting to ensure that things will never change against them. Oh, it's futile (their revenues are dropping, even as the money going to the creators increases), but they can and will do a lot of damage to our society and legal systems in the process if we let them.

Did I ever say copyright does not have to change? I have repeatedly stated I believe it should be changed, primarily to to make its duration shorter.

I just don't see the point in arguing along the lines of "way back in the day people used to just write stories for everyone to enjoy and didn't expect any money for it".

Whilst that is certainly admirable, and many people still do that today, it does not negate the fact that in today's world many people do hope and attempt to make some sort of living from their creative output.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That has happened many time with "ideas" and that's where the courts come into play. I don't decide, you don't decide, the court of LAW does.



Please keep in mind we are not talking about idea in any case when we are talking about ebooks we are talking about products.

Law is a set of rules given by the most powerful bully around. I find it wise to obey it, but I rarely agree with it, and I never worship it. I don't see what various laws and other environmental factors have to do with one's concept of the world.

If we are not talking about the ideas, then it's all fine with me. You have a book. I make an exact copy of it, and your product isn't changed in any way. So you lost nothing.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Law is a set of rules given by the most powerful bully around. I find it wise to obey it, but I rarely agree with it, and I never worship it. I don't see what various laws and other environmental factors have to do with one's concept of the world.

....

Unless you aspire to be the big bully, and have your rules enforced...

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If it is my work, you have no right to it without my approval.

The law does recognize Fair Use of portions of copyrighted material, however.

[HansTWN]

It is funny that none of those who believe in free slave work by all authors for the good of society ever answers the pivotal question: "Why should an author's work be different from any other person's?". Yes, you have the means to copy, but that doesn't mean you have the right to copy.

With you living in western societies (that produce no tangible goods anymore to speak off) you are seriously deluding yourselves. In the end the whole Western world will end up working for China, because the West produces the ideas and Asia makes the physical products. I pity your children. You are destroying their only opportunity. Since you claim ideas are worthless, they will not be able to make a living.

If you believe that everything should be free, that would be a very different society from what we live in. That would be called communism, everyone gets what he or she needs. The problem usually is that such societies never produce enough for everyone's needs because there is no incentive to create or produce.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Law is a set of rules given by the most powerful bully around. .

If we are not talking about the ideas, then it's all fine with me. You have a book. I make an exact copy of it, and your product isn't changed in any way. So you lost nothing.

Wrong on point 1 - Law is made by the people or their representatives in a democratic society.

Wrong on point 2 - If the law says you cannot make a copy legally you have harmed not only me but society as a whole. We all lose.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

The law does recognize Fair Use of portions of copyrighted material, however.

And "Fair Use" is a law in place that I am obligated to follow as a citizen, thus I have already approved that access/usage of my work.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And "Fair Use" is a law in place that I am obligated to follow as a citizen, thus I have already approved that access/usage of my work.

Exactly. I just thought I'd clarify that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Exactly. I just thought I'd clarify that.

Yes and thanks!

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Whilst that is certainly admirable, and many people still do that today, it does not negate the fact that in today's world many people do hope and attempt to make some sort of living from their creative output.

Sure. But are you really arguing that things like ACTA are to protect the creators? The creators are doing just fine, it's the corporations which are suffering... why should things like ACTA even be considered when the creators are, demonstrably in the market, doing fine?