Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy! - Page 25

tompe · 01-10-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Ummm, Tony. If you're claiming copyright, we'll need to take down your post because of copyright infringment. (You didn't grant us a license.)

Was this a joke? I thought everything people publish they have copyright on.

Harmon · 01-10-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Karma sent.

Coin of the realm.

jasonkchapman · 01-10-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

1. That's simply not true.
2. Even if it was, what hurts creators and their agents (if we mean by this only the fraction of creators that won't produce without monetary payment) may benefit the society.

As a general principle, allowing "benefit to society" to outweigh individual rights is a bad idea. It may be necessary in some narrowly-defined circumstances where life and limb are at stake, but otherwise it can be used to justify all kinds of horrors.

kennyc · 01-10-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

As a general principle, allowing "benefit to society" to outweigh individual rights is a bad idea. It may be necessary in some narrowly-defined circumstances where life and limb are at stake, but otherwise it can be used to justify all kinds of horrors.

.

ardeegee · 01-10-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, and these "extreme increases in technology" are being abused by third parties for illegal purposes. And to justify such behavior the term "artificial scarcity" was invented.

Note this timeline:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch...city%22&cf=all

The term goes back AT LEAST to the 1860s.

Note this quote:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...lin109276.html

netseeker · 01-10-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

As a general principle, allowing "benefit to society" to outweigh individual rights is a bad idea. It may be necessary in some narrowly-defined circumstances where life and limb are at stake, but otherwise it can be used to justify all kinds of horrors.

The same is true if individual rights outweight the wellbeing of society - it can lead to early stages of anarchy.

Greg Anos · 01-10-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Was this a joke? I thought everything people publish they have copyright on.

Tompe, the rules on the forum is that everything is under creative commons license. But as original author, nothing required you to post under those rules. I post my bad pulp under explicit Public Domain disclaimer, which I hope overrules the Creative Commons license. (I really want them in the Public Domain, worldwide.) If somebody truly wishes to retain copyright (by stating so), then it becomes in violation of all copyright laws to keep the post here, without a release to the site (and the readers thereof), to maintain the post.....

jasonkchapman · 01-10-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netseeker

The same is true if individual rights outweight the wellbeing of society - it can lead to early stages of anarchy.

I disagree. "Society" is still an artificial construct made up of individuals with the same rights. Anarchy derives from individual rights being poorly defined and ill defended.

kennyc · 01-10-2010, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netseeker

The same is true if individual rights outweight the wellbeing of society - it can lead to early stages of anarchy.

Exactly that's why I feel it is important to balance the needs of the individual against the needs of society. That's really what our lives as humans are about.

This sharing/copyright/drm krap is just a small part of the whole.

kennyc · 01-10-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I disagree. "Society" is still an artificial construct made up of individuals with the same rights. Anarchy derives from individual rights being poorly defined and ill defended.

Now this I disagree with. Society has different needs and therefore requires different rights than individuals. It is different (not necessarily more or better, just different) than the sum of it's parts.

jasonkchapman · 01-10-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Now this I disagree with. Society has different needs and therefore requires different rights than individuals. It is different (not necessarily more or better, just different) than the sum of it's parts.

Hmm. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm not sure what rights society has that aren't merely an aggregate of the individual rights of as large a percentage of the citizenry as possible.

Can you give me an example?

netseeker · 01-10-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I disagree. "Society" is still an artificial construct made up of individuals with the same rights. Anarchy derives from individual rights being poorly defined and ill defended.

I disagree, dictatorship derives from individual rights being poorly defined and ill defended. But if the individual rights outweight anything else then you have just individuals without a noticeable society, which is quite the same as anarchy where nobody has defined rights.

kennyc · 01-10-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Hmm. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm not sure what rights society has that aren't merely an aggregate of the individual rights of as large a percentage of the citizenry as possible.

Can you give me an example?

Please understand I'm not saying this only in government, but society. The human race is evolutionarily both individuals and members of troops/society/herds. There are things individuals need that result in their survival. There are also things that society needs for its survival - survival of the species. They are often at odds with one another.

jasonkchapman · 01-10-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netseeker

I disagree, dictatorship derives from individual rights being poorly defined and ill defended. But if the individual rights outweight anything else then you have just individuals without a noticeable society, which is quite the same as anarchy where nobody has defined rights.

Dictatorship is certainly one possibility, but certainly not the only one. History is replete with examples of non-dictatorial governments condoning the abuse of individual rights--ostensibly for the good of society.

I don't follow what you wrote about "a noticeable society", though. Wouldn't that assume that humans are only social creatures when required to be by law? The US library system was, for all intents and purposes, kicked into the reach of the average person by one really wealthy individual who chose to give back to society. It may have been to soothe his conscience, but it wasn't because the law compelled him to do it.

kennyc · 01-10-2010, 11:30 AM

I don't like taxes either. I think government should be free and shared by all the people.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TomeRaider to go open source	MatYadabyte	News	27	11-18-2012 12:23 PM
Open source	bradrice	Kindle Formats	2	12-21-2009 09:30 AM
Has open source helped or hindered the e-book industry?	kjk	News	31	12-15-2009 08:53 PM
iRex and Open Source	jrial	iRex	8	03-03-2009 10:34 AM
Bookworm Gives a Boost to Open-Source ePub E-Book Format	Kris777	News	7	02-18-2009 09:16 PM

01-10-2010, 11:30 AM	#375
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,903 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	I don't like taxes either. I think government should be free and shared by all the people.

Advert

Advert