Confessions of a Book Pirate

[GhostHawk]

Yes but Kenny property by definition is physical.

Granted, the rules will be rewritten for digital over time.
But don't be so sure that you'll like what they are.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You can't think of property rights only in physical terms. That is a mistake in this day and age. That is what must change.

This is not about current legal definitions (law) this is about changing those definitions.

I know you can't understand it. That's okay though. I have hope.

Sounds like you have gone a little mystical on us there, ken.

The problem with fencing down intagibles like ideas is that it would lock up modern society like a steel trap in a very few years. I don't kno wif you write (will chaeck after this post), but I am certain I can identify a number of "ideas" in your writing that come from other sources. It can get messy really fast.

[zerospinboson]

Dear book pirate,
I was just reading in a marvellous little book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (can be legally downloaded here), and I just felt that I had to quote this page in full:

At the turn of nineteenth century, the music industry was different from the one we are familiar with today. No CDs, no mass concerts, and no radio or television. The core source of revenue was the sale of printed sheet music, which was carried out worldwide and on a very large scale. We learn, for example, that in Britain alone about 20 million copies were printed annually. The firms carrying out this business were not large multinationals as today, but family-owned companies, such as Casa Ricordi in Milan, which, nevertheless, managed to reach also foreign countries. Apparently these “majors” managed to collude quite efficiently among themselves. The records show that the average script sold in the United Kingdom for about a fourteen pence. Then “piracy” arrived, as a consequence of two changes: the development of photolithography and the spread of “piano mania,” which increased the demand formusical scripts by orders of magnitude. “Pirated” copies were sold at two pence each.
Naturally the “authorized” publishers had a hard time defending their monopoly power against the “pirates,” enforcement costs were high, and the demand for cheap music books was large and hard to monitor. Music publishers reacted by organizing raids on “pirate” houses that were aimed to seize and destroy the “pirated” copies. This started a systematic and illegal “hit and destroy” private war, which led, in 1902, to the approval of a new copyright law. The latter made violation of copyright a matter for the penal code, putting the police in charge of enforcing what, until then, was protected only by the civil code.
The South Park portrayal herein of the “copyright police” storming the house to arrest children for sharing files exaggerates the current situation.
In the early twentieth century, however, the hit squads of the authorized publishers did indeed burn down entire warehouses filled with “pirated” copies of sheet music – so perhaps South Park should remind us of what might be if Congress continues in its current direction.
At least in the case of sheet music, the police campaign did not work.
After a few months, police stations were filled with tons of paper on which various musical pieceswere printed. Being unable to bring to court what was a de facto army of illegal music reproducers, the police stopped enforcing the copyright law.
The eventual outcome? The fight continued for a while, with “regular” music producers keen on defending their monopoly and restricted sales strategy, and “pirates” printing and distributing cheap music at low prices and very large quantities. Eventually, in 1905, the king of the “pirates,” James Frederick Willett, was convicted of conspiracy. The leader of one of the music publishers’ associations, and the man who had invented the raids, launched the Francis, Day &Hunter’s new sixpennymusic series. Expensive sheet music never returned.

Moral of the story: Watch out. They're coming. ;-)

[CyGuy]

Moral of the story for me is: The "majors" were charging way too much (14 pence) for their product, and they had a monopoly so people had no choice but to get ripped off. Along comes the "pirates" who show that the music cost less than 2 pence to create.
Some profit is expected, but ripping off your customers is not.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by llreader

Sounds like you have gone a little mystical on us there, ken.

The problem with fencing down intagibles like ideas is that it would lock up modern society like a steel trap in a very few years. I don't kno wif you write (will chaeck after this post), but I am certain I can identify a number of "ideas" in your writing that come from other sources. It can get messy really fast.

The said Galileo was crazy too.

Not mystical at all, but digital has brought a whole raft of new concepts that have yet to be integrated into our social and governmental standards. That's exactly why this current discussion is even taking place.

Also this is not about ideas per-say. Ideas and creations (intellectual property) are different things. In some limited cases they may be the same, if it is a truly novel idea that is instantiated in a writing or statement etc.

Couldn't possibly be more messy than the current U.S.A. Tax law.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Dear book pirate,
I was just reading in a marvellous little book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (can be legally downloaded here), and I just felt that I had to quote this page in full:

Moral of the story: Watch out. They're coming. ;-)

Thanks for that! Karma man, karma!



edit: Damn! It's a pdf!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't know why you believed that, cause I never said it.

Well in

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=183

you said:

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm libertarian very much so and I want my (property) rights protected not abolished.

So what does this sentence mean if it does not say that you are a libertarian?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well in

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=183

you said:



So what does this sentence mean if it does not say that you are a libertarian?

Hee-hee. You are a really funny guy.

you said: "...and I thought they believed in absolute morals"

so you clearly thought wrong.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Also this is not about ideas per-say. Ideas and creations (intellectual property) are different things. In some limited cases they may be the same, if it is a truly novel idea that is instantiated in a writing or statement etc.

There's no such thing as intellectual property outside of law. Did you notice you're about the only person here who is vocal on the idea of intellectual property as something ideal, having to do with morals? Surely a curious construct, and it may be enforced, because the law is presently written by those who have money. But it doesn't make sense.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

There's no such thing as intellectual property outside of law. Did you notice you're about the only person here who is vocal on the idea of intellectual property as something ideal, having to do with morals? Surely a curious construct, and it may be enforced, because the law is presently written by those who have money. But it doesn't make sense.

Certainly if you limit yourself to what is written down as law, you can chose to believe that. I chose not to do that, but to look at the bigger picture.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Hee-hee. You are a really funny guy.

you said: "...and I thought they believed in absolute morals"

so you clearly thought wrong.

Well, no. Libertarians believe in some strange thing they call rights.

And you know I can believe whatever I want about X without you saying it. So your complaint clearly indicated that it was the libertarian part you objected to.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

There's no such thing as intellectual property outside of law. Did you notice you're about the only person here who is vocal on the idea of intellectual property as something ideal, having to do with morals? Surely a curious construct, and it may be enforced, because the law is presently written by those who have money. But it doesn't make sense.

But that is the libertarian view. I just wish I had know the views was based on a belief in libertarianism earlier since experience have shown that it is useless to argue these questions with a libertarian. They will not understand the arguments and they will now change there mind.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, no. Libertarians believe in some strange thing they call rights.

And you know I can believe whatever I want about X without you saying it. So your complaint clearly indicated that it was the libertarian part you objected to.

Sorry, but wrong again, we weren't discussion politics, but morals.

And certainly you know that in any political party there is a vast diversity of belief even a merging of beliefs at the fringes between parties.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is the libertarian view. I just wish I had know the views was based on a belief in libertarianism earlier since experience have shown that it is useless to argue these questions with a libertarian. They will not understand the arguments and they will now change there mind.

Same could be said of most anyone posting here, pirates, republicans, thieves, or vampires.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but wrong again, we weren't discussion politics, but morals.

What? Rights is a moral concept. All all libertarians believe in rights.