My journey into the darknet

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I don't think that is in dispute. the main argument (outside from the few that feel they need to take take take) is that publishers, as well as a few authors need to get their heads out of their fifth point of contact regarding ebooks. if they refuse to join the 21st century then the message seems to be that they do so at their own risk

I think that they should join the 21st century. They are only hurting themselves in the long run. That said, just because they haven't caught on yet, doesn't mean we can do what we want.

BTW, how do they get their heads into their backs? For those that don't know what we are referring to, it is the order for the different parts of the body to hit the ground after jumping out of a perfectly good airplane while still in flight.

[GhostHawk]

I think the point is that Might doesn't necessarily make Right.

It wasn't that way when the white men stole this country from its legal occupants.
Ohh and if you really think France had a right to sell the Louisiana Purchase I have a bridge for sale near you.

Its still not that way today when corporations attempt to impose their will on consumers.
The answers will be as varied as the people, there is no hard and fast "this narrow path" is right and all else is wrong. Not when the corporations play just as fast and loose with the law as the pirates they fear so much. The only difference is in scale. They amass billions, we just put together a few bits of data in storage.

I don't know though, as much as I enjoy being a data pirate some days. The name just doesn't do it for me. Image just isn't right.

Perhaps a "Conscientious Liberator Of Data" or CLOD for short? Naw, just doesn't have the same ring to it. Almost a contradiction in terms like a "Rational Anarchist"

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

I don't know though, as much as I enjoy being a data pirate some days. The name just doesn't do it for me. Image just isn't right.

Perhaps a "Conscientious Liberator Of Data" or CLOD for short? Naw, just doesn't have the same ring to it. Almost a contradiction in terms like a "Rational Anarchist"

I'll issue you a letter of marque from the people's republic of iphinomeistan, you're now a data privateer.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Desertway

It is not easy to argue morality in this venue. I'm not going to try and develop my moral position from certain first premises, or talk about when piracy becomes civil disobedience (which would require the determination that the publisher's current behavior is immoral). We could argue forever.

I'll just say that it is not my experience that most of the material available via the DarkNet is "orphaned" or no longer available by any other means. Much of the books, music, movies, etc, that can be downloaded gratis can also be purchased. And most of the people downloading simply prefer not to pay.

People want what they want, in whatever form they want it. And they want it now. For free.

Not only are you right that most of the material available is not orphaned. Most of the stuff downloaded is very new and available to the public. While some of this new material is carrying a premium price tag. It is not that way for all of it. Much of it can be obtained at fairly decent prices.

The thing is that some of the people want it free no matter what. While others have the opinion that corporations are evil and you should do anything possible to hurt them finacially. I believe that one person in this discussion feels this way very strongly due to his support for anarchist groups.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

I think the point is that Might doesn't necessarily make Right.

It wasn't that way when the white men stole this country from its legal occupants.
Ohh and if you really think France had a right to sell the Louisiana Purchase I have a bridge for sale near you.

Its still not that way today when corporations attempt to impose their will on consumers.
The answers will be as varied as the people, there is no hard and fast "this narrow path" is right and all else is wrong. Not when the corporations play just as fast and loose with the law as the pirates they fear so much. The only difference is in scale. They amass billions, we just put together a few bits of data in storage.

I don't know though, as much as I enjoy being a data pirate some days. The name just doesn't do it for me. Image just isn't right.

Perhaps a "Conscientious Liberator Of Data" or CLOD for short? Naw, just doesn't have the same ring to it. Almost a contradiction in terms like a "Rational Anarchist"

I too am part Indian, my Grandmother taught at BIA boarding schools and I spent a lot of summer vacations on "the Res.". two really important points to make here. many, if not most tribes are really happy that Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey, and are ecstatic that Japan wasn't expansionist

[jabberwock_11]

I think that one of the things that many folks forget when comparing ebooks to paper books is that when you buy a paper book you buy one copy.

If you resell or give away a paper book you are only doing so with a single copy. Ebooks, by their very nature, can easily be perfectly copied and so it is possible to not only give away or resell multiple perfect copies of a book, but also to keep a copy for yourself.

When you buy a paper book if you make good quality copies of that paper book and resell those copies it is illegal. Why should it be any different with ebooks? That is the whole reason that DRM was created for in the first place, to prevent the mass copying and redistribution of electronic media when only a single copy was purchased.

I am against the idea of forcing readers to rebuy the same book in different formats. I am against the current practices of the publishing industry in their withholding of back catalogues of books and limiting their current catalogue. I am NOT against the publishing industry getting upset about folks making and redistributing multiple copies of a book, this is something that I understand.

Until single copies ebooks can be legally and easily resold or given away I fear that we will be having this discussion over and over again. I do, however, feel that it is a separate issue from the one we have been discussing in this thread. An important issue that should probably be discussed at length, but separate.

I know that it is odd to take a stance in favor of the publishing industry on this issue, but against it on the issue of ebook availability and on the use of alternate sources for otherwise unavailable ebooks, but there it is. I guess everyone draws their line in different places. Mine just happens to be a little more hazy than others...

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by scveteran

The very fact that you say you find it tasteless, means that you are upset with them. You may say you wouldn't be angry, but we all know better because of what you said.

Here you point out the fact that if the work did well enough to make substantial money, you would have the copyright. That tells me that you would indeed try to make money off the work, if only you could. That means you really should not be stealing from those people who what you wish you could do.



Your second point was plain ludicrous. You do have not only a legal obligation to pay for the items you steal, but a moral one as well.

It is also stupid to think you have a DUTY to enjoy as much content as possible for the least cost. The DUTY you have is to obey the law.

If you want to help society by getting the producers to lower prices and give better service, you can do that through a variety of legal means. You don't have to steal from them.

I find it tasteless to eat while leaning the elbows on a table. I find it tasteless (and that's the most pleasant word I can find for it) to smoke. I find it tasteless to attribute something to your own which is not your own. But the fact that I find it tasteless doesn't mean that I'm going to sue someone for leaning the elbows in a table while eating, even if I can actually measure my distaste for it. Nor even for smoking, as much as I hate it. I hope my point is clear.

About the "copyright", I did not point that I had "copyright" or that I intended to milk off my works to make money: if they make money it's good, and if it's me who makes it with them it's better, but I'm not going out of my way for that. I pointed that if such a plagiarism comes, I had proof that I wrote it first. If I exercised "copyright", I'd be asking for compensation. On the contrary, I have said I'd not be asking for compensation, but just show proof that the plagiarist has used me as a ghost writer, and thus is a... well, plagiarist. It would shame the writer's reputation in the exact same manner, if you think about it.

I have no moral obligations save to enjoy my life while harming noone's property (bodies, material possesions, etc). As I said before, thwarting someone's prospects of income is not harming their actual property, thus I wouldn't say it's "stealing".

And about my duties, it is me and the ones around me who sets them, not the State. I won't obey any law which goes against my personal beliefs if I can get away with it. And I work so more and more people can get away with it, for it is noone's duty to obey a State, but to pursue happiness.

I remind you, when an official, State-approved market is dysfunctional, or when it simply is banned, a black market appears. The black market actually improves the outcomes in welfare for the people who take part in it. I would consider this the very same idea: if the State-approved, official marketplaces are rigged in favor of special interests, it's only logical that people find ingenious ways to circumvent the limits of those markets. Curiously, even if they go against their "duty" of obeying the law, and even if they hold the utmost respect of the rest of said law.

Which brings me a last question: which law should I obey? The Spanish law, which allows paid-for works to be distributed as long as the distributer doesn't win money with them? The German law, which doesn't? The US Law, which will allow eternal copyright with time? The Vanuatuan law?

Originally Posted by Logseman

I have no moral obligations save to enjoy my life while harming noone's property (bodies, material possesions, etc). As I said before, thwarting someone's prospects of income is not harming their actual property, thus I wouldn't say it's "stealing".

Interesting, if bizarre, justification. Is it not always the case that before any income there is always the stage of “prospect of income.”

A local convenience store buys a carton of candy bars and displays them on a shelf. They have the prospect of income only realized when someone takes one, comes to the register, and pays for it. If a shoplifter slips one in his pocket and exits the store without paying they have only lost the prospect of income, right?

Too material an example for you?

When I was still in the environmental engineering business I write a feasibility study for clean-up of a hazardous waste site. There is the prospect of income for me from my effort, but only if the site owner pays me for the report.

To take it to books. An author writes a book and sends it to a publisher. The author has the prospect of income from sales of the book once published. If the publisher prints the book but then does not pay anything to the author for books sold they have only deprived him of the prospect of income. The same would be the case if the publisher converts the book to electronic format and places it on a web site for free download.

[Logseman]

First example:

A local convenience store buys a carton of candy bars...

That is, they acquired the property of a physical good. Stealing the candy bars is indeed a deprivation of property.

Next one.

I write a feasibility study for clean-up of a hazardous waste site. There is the prospect of income for me from my effort, but only if the site owner pays me for the report.

So you negotiate something like, well, a contract, and tell him "you pay me this" and it's up to him to accept your price or not. If he doesn't pay, he's breaking a contract. Did I mention that honoring contracts is what splits barbarians and states from civilised people?

The same goes for the literary author: if s/he has made a contract where he receives money for sales of his works, the contract is to be honored or he can sue or he or she can bring his works somewhere else.

Copyright does only provide an expectation of income due to the artificial scarcity it generates. That scarcity being artificial, it can be overcome at any time, given that one has the right tools to do it. As you may know, property of things that are not scarce for human needs is irrelevant, for property is no more than a form of organizing scarce ressources.

Copyright, as I stated before, is only useful so that big publishers can maintain subsidies for their inefficient business models and so that bureaucrats can milk off more taxes. The author sees the mouse's share of the booty, thus it's clear that the actual system en vogue is not for the benefit of authors.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by forcheville

I'm currently scanning a paper book that I purchased so that I can read it on my portable device. It's around 600p and I've been doing about 100p/week and correcting as I go.
It's a lot more work than I expected when I started as the print quality in this particular volume (a recent edition of a European classic first published in 1902 and still in print) is appalling. It is printed on coarse paper such that the ink often seems to bleed out beyond the letter outline. There are other problems as well, and they all make for a high density of errors even with the best OCR software I can find.

You may already have done so, but have you tried training the software recognition? I've found that that helps a good deal with old books.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by scveteran

The thing is that some of the people want it free no matter what.

While others have the opinion that corporations are evil and you should do anything possible to hurt them finacially. I believe that one person in this discussion feels this way very strongly due to his support for anarchist groups.

So giving away some stuff you write that others wouldn't pay for is not in the same league as taking without paying the latest blockbusters.

Nothing further from my intention to wish ill to anybody. I've never complained about the price tags that Apple, Amazon and the like put to their books. They should be free for charging whatever they please for them.

I've just pointed out that, facing the decision of downloading for 12-15 dollars and downloading for free, I feel it is my moral responsibility as a consumer to download for free as long and as much as I can, for we ought to enjoy as much of life as possible at the minimum cost. I find it no more than a dialectical process. Maybe with ebooks at 2 dollars, with the author making 90% of the money and in well-edited books, I'd feel inclined to buy. And not necessarily. The sacred power of consumers is choice, and I want to have the widest array possible.

About the last sentence: right now I'm reading Plato not Prozac, by Lou Marinoff, downloaded from the internet in a quite crappy edition. It's a book that can hardly be considered a latest blockbuster (of which I never download anything since I don't care about them), but I'd like to inquire when it will come to public domain. I give you a clue: its copyright has a good chance of outliving me.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Logseman

right now I'm reading Plato not Prozac, by Lou Marinoff, downloaded from the internet in a quite crappy edition.
[...]
I'd like to inquire when it will come to public domain.

Indeterminate, as Lou Marinoff is still alive. But we can estimate. He seems to be about 64 or so, judging the earliest dates in his CV. Given that he's in the US, his life expectancy is therefore roughly another 20 years.

So his works (under current US legislation) come into the public domain around the year 2100. they certainly wont be in the public domain (under current US legislation) before 2071.

[Fat Abe]

Wow, this thread is already nine pages deep, and based on the thoughts and opinions posted, we could be in for another nine pages.

Those who download from the darknet, or acquire ebooks from a library, friend, or offshore realize that they are doing something morally wrong, but have figured out some way of rationalizing the behavior. Some claim the book is out-of-print, or too high priced, or they own a paper copy, or whatever. Here is a new excuse to add to the list. Congress's recurring extensions of the copyright period are a form of ex-post facto law. Not in the strict sense, but in the sense that prior to the update in the law, many end users were under the assumption that after N years, the book or publication would be in the public domain. At year N-1, let us say that a hypothetical user scanned a number of books to redistribute after these books became PD. Then, wham, the period of the copyright went to N+20 (for the sake of argument). The rules of the game change, the user gets very upset, and retaliates by posting the books on the darknet. Chalk this up as another form of rationalization.

Let's skip the process of coming up with more reasons for going down the slippery slope of darknet. The real reason people commit a crime is that the probability of prosecution or punishment is extremely low. Theft of copyrighted material is not new. The very same problem that book publishers are having now already happened with VHS, DVDs, and Blu-Ray movies. Copyrighted VHS tapes had their copy protection circumvented by Macrovision busters. DVDs became rippable with the introduction of SmartRipper and DvdDecrypter. The author of the second program used the nickname LighningUK. I won't divulge his real name. I do not believe he has spent a single day in prison. Have there been any end users (not re-distributors) who have been prosecuted in the US? Other than some show cases with the RIAA, probably not. Ripping and rent n' rip surely costs the movie industry hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

I side neither with the end users or the publishers. But until there are consequences, people will do what is convenient and self-serving. If you can drive at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, why not? Well, where are we headed? First the publishers need to not only takedown the cabbages fellow, but prosecute him. Wouldn't it be funny if cabbages were a woman? LOL. Second, Amazon, B&N and Sony can modify their readers to look for copyrighted material with missing DRM. The reader can then send back this information either through the 3G network or through the PC/Mac interface. Third, the companies can brick the readers, as Microsoft has done with the Xbox 360 game console. Imagine sending back your reader, having the FBI unlock it, and then being charged with copyright violation- prima facie evidence, if ever there was such a thing. So beware, Darknet followers. Big brother is watching you. Read the Amazon terms and conditions. The path is there for the government to compel them to spy on you.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Wow, this thread is already nine pages deep, and based on the thoughts and opinions posted, we could be in for another nine pages.

Those who download from the darknet, or acquire ebooks from a library, friend, or offshore realize that they are doing something morally wrong, but have figured out some way of rationalizing the behavior. Some claim the book is out-of-print, or too high priced, or they own a paper copy, or whatever. Here is a new excuse to add to the list. Congress's recurring extensions of the copyright period are a form of ex-post facto law. Not in the strict sense, but in the sense that prior to the update in the law, many end users were under the assumption that after N years, the book or publication would be in the public domain. At year N-1, let us say that a hypothetical user scanned a number of books to redistribute after these books became PD. Then, wham, the period of the copyright went to N+20 (for the sake of argument). The rules of the game change, the user gets very upset, and retaliates by posting the books on the darknet. Chalk this up as another form of rationalization.

Let's skip the process of coming up with more reasons for going down the slippery slope of darknet. The real reason people commit a crime is that the probability of prosecution or punishment is extremely low. Theft of copyrighted material is not new. The very same problem that book publishers are having now already happened with VHS, DVDs, and Blu-Ray movies. Copyrighted VHS tapes had their copy protection circumvented by Macrovision busters. DVDs became rippable with the introduction of SmartRipper and DvdDecrypter. The author of the second program used the nickname LighningUK. I won't divulge his real name. I do not believe he has spent a single day in prison. Have there been any end users (not re-distributors) who have been prosecuted in the US? Other than some show cases with the RIAA, probably not. Ripping and rent n' rip surely costs the movie industry hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

I side neither with the end users or the publishers. But until there are consequences, people will do what is convenient and self-serving. If you can drive at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, why not? Well, where are we headed? First the publishers need to not only takedown the cabbages fellow, but prosecute him. Wouldn't it be funny if cabbages were a woman? LOL. Second, Amazon, B&N and Sony can modify their readers to look for copyrighted material with missing DRM. The reader can then send back this information either through the 3G network or through the PC/Mac interface. Third, the companies can brick the readers, as Microsoft has done with the Xbox 360 game console. Imagine sending back your reader, having the FBI unlock it, and then being charged with copyright violation- prima facie evidence, if ever there was such a thing. So beware, Darknet followers. Big brother is watching you. Read the Amazon terms and conditions. The path is there for the government to compel them to spy on you.

Wow, that was a fresh steaming pile of poo you just spewed there. Wow.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Those who download from the darknet, or acquire ebooks from a library, friend, or offshore realize that they are doing something morally wrong, but have figured out some way of rationalizing the behavior.


Wouldn't it be funny if cabbages were a woman? LOL. Second, Amazon, B&N and Sony can modify their readers to look for copyrighted material with missing DRM. The reader can then send back this information either through the 3G network or through the PC/Mac interface. Third, the companies can brick the readers, as Microsoft has done with the Xbox 360 game console. Imagine sending back your reader, having the FBI unlock it, and then being charged with copyright violation- prima facie evidence, if ever there was such a thing. So beware, Darknet followers. Big brother is watching you. Read the Amazon terms and conditions. The path is there for the government to compel them to spy on you.

Wow-- start with projective, sweeping generalizations and end with a giddy appeal for Orwellian government and business control over everyone's lives.

I couldn't possibly describe you without Godwining this thread.

Any government that treats it's citizens like that would be in dire need of being disbanded at the barrel of a gun and retired at the end of ropes.

BTW, you are completely clueless as to how and when DVDs became decryptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS