Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by klikklak

It would be equally logical to demand food coupons for writers. In fact more so. Socialized art works ok in Europe, so I think your argument is just ideology and refusal to look at alternatives.

Dan Brown would get really, really fat wouldn't he?

[ttf]

Originally Posted by darylbrayman

...
But, by using idiotic DRM schemes the publishing industry is unconsciously encouraging me commit said act. I know they would vehemently deny this, as I sure you will to.
...

No.

Meaning: I do not deny this. Yes, the industry does encourage the users to break these contracts.

But let's not follow their invitations .

We start by not signing their contracts. I.e. we do not buy!

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by darylbrayman

I for one have never put a stripped book out onto the darknet. Have I ever gotten a book there, that I wanted and couldn’t get any other way? Yes I have. Do I believe in the darknet and book piracy? No I don’t, but the publishing industry is certainly making it easier to justify the occasional trip there.

I am the same as you. It is sad when you are willing and able to buy an ebook but denied because of where you live (despite being able to buy the paperback locally or internationally).

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Piracy is stealing. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal. A crook’s a crook, and a low-life’s a low-life. Theiving, criminally-minded scum are the reason the rest of us are forced to contend with the evils of DRM.

Not trying to justify using the darknet but if a publisher refuses to sell you an ebook, they miss out. If after you go to the darknet and seek out that book and download it, does the publisher miss out again? Nope, they refused you the first time.

You're right though, piracy is stealing, but in this digital age is it really stealing something that you are being denied the right to purchase in the first place? I don't believe people pirating are the sole reason for DRM, what needs to be looked is "Why are people pirating?". Bet you'd find majority of the people pirating ebooks are because either (a) hurt by DRM, (b) denied sale of ebook.

[spideog]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

B&N has an interesting approach with the Nook's book-lending capabilities. When you load a book, it disappears from your collection for the time of the loan. If e-books ever become standardized in their formats, how would you feel about this approach being extended to include all ereaders, not just the Nook? Such an approach could even be used to sell or give away individual copies.

I think they put a limit of how many times each book can be lent, not sure exactly but it could be as daft a number as only once.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by klikklak

It would be equally logical to demand food coupons for writers. In fact more so. Socialized art works ok in Europe, so I think your argument is just ideology and refusal to look at alternatives.

If such a system were in effect, whereby writers and artists were paid by the government for their creations, that would be well and good. But in the system under which I live if someone steals your work, you get nothing. You are simply another victim of crime.

Does that mean a system of state-sponsored artists and authors is the way to go? Personally I have reservations. When your livelihood depends on writing books and articles that are acceptable to the government, you are on a slippery slope. We’ve seen that in this country when some politicians have threatened to cut off funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because they disagreed with or were offended by certain works created with funds from the Endowment. Because it's not always prudent to bite the hand that feeds you; it's not always wise to allow the government to hold the financial reins over artistic creations.

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

You're right though, piracy is stealing, but in this digital age is it really stealing something that you are being denied the right to purchase in the first place? I don't believe people pirating are the sole reason for DRM, what needs to be looked is "Why are people pirating?". Bet you'd find majority of the people pirating ebooks are because either (a) hurt by DRM, (b) denied sale of ebook.

Just as everything else, the definition of what's legal, illegal, moral or immoral is changing. Things are not black and white that's for sure.
The ethics in technology (especially IT) is quickly becoming an issue that is affecting people in their daily lives. Who would have thought that a simple action such as getting a book to read would become riddled with so many traps! I know the music industry has already gone (and still is) going through this. We all know how DRM ended up not working too well there. But then again, "one size fits all" does not apply here.
Just reading through some of the comments in this thread, there's enough ideas for 5 PhD thesis!
Hmm ... We certainly are living in interesting times (and I for one am not sure if that's a good thing!).

[klikklak]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Does that mean a system of state-sponsored artists and authors is the way to go? Personally I have reservations. When your livelihood depends on writing books and articles that are acceptable to the government, you are on a slippery slope. We’ve seen that in this country when some politicians have threatened to cut off funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because they disagreed with or were offended by certain works created with funds from the Endowment. Because it's not always prudent to bite the hand that feeds you; it's not always wise to allow the government to hold the financial reins over artistic creations.

Yes it's problematic isn't it. Mind you a pure capitalist situation where you have to make a profit by any means necessary (including dumbing down and self censoring your work) isn't ideal either. One good thing about the whole piracy is that it's actually extremely decentralized, operated and governed by the people involved. Unlike Amazon for example and their 1984 debacle.

I'm pretty sure that authors, recording musicians etc. aren't going to be the last professions who have shift priorities or are outright displaced, so as a (global) society we should start thinking about ways in which we can make do in a digital world. Microcapitalism (where I'd get paid for posting here or something) might work, but I think it's rather dystopian. So I prefer libertarian socialistic thinking, but that's just my cup of tea.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by m-reader

... We certainly are living in interesting times (and I for one am not sure if that's a good thing!).

It beats the alternative!

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

It beats the alternative!

I was more thinking along the lines of the old "may you live in interesting times" curse, but each to their own .
I am personally sick and tired of interesting stuff, give me boring any day!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by klikklak

... Mind you a pure capitalist situation where you have to make a profit by any means necessary (including dumbing down and self censoring your work) isn't ideal either. ...

I'm leery of those who advocate pure systems, and I believe you do also. Different problems lend themselves to different solutions. The best societies, IMHO, are those that are a blend of several competing systems. The trick is to find the right mix.

Originally Posted by klikklak

... I prefer libertarian socialistic thinking, but that's just my cup of tea.

I haven't met to many people who self-identify as libertarian socialists. You seem to incorporate in your person what I am speaking about for societies: a blend of competing systems.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by m-reader

I was more thinking along the lines of the old "may you live in interesting times" curse, but each to their own .
I am personally sick and tired of interesting stuff, give me boring any day!

I knew what you meant, I was just putting a little twist on it.

[klikklak]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I'm leery of those who advocate pure systems, and I believe you do also. Different problems lend themselves to different solutions. The best societies, IMHO, are those that are a blend of several competing systems. The trick is to find the right mix.

I haven't met to many people who self-identify as libertarian socialists. You seem to incorporate in your person what I am speaking about for societies: a blend of competing systems.

But you've heard of Chomsky? Not that I agree with him 100%, but he's a high profile libertarian socialist. And yes, past hundred years proved you right in many ways, but we'll see what this century will bring. Out of the existing societies I think I prefer social democracy (a form of socialism), it's been relatively humane to all members of society. Democracy is very important, I think we both agree on this, but those on the libertarian left generally think so.

I have a question for you, what should we do when secretaries, shop clerks, driving professions, maids etc. lose their jobs? Those can be automated you know.

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by klikklak

But you've heard of Chomsky? Not that I agree with him 100%, but he's a high profile libertarian socialist. And yes, past hundred years proved you right in many ways, but we'll see what this century will bring. Out of the existing societies I think I prefer social democracy (a form of socialism), it's been relatively humane to all members of society. Democracy is very important, I think we both agree on this, but those on the libertarian left generally think so.

I have a question for you, what should we do when secretaries, shop clerks, driving professions, maids etc. lose their jobs? Those can be automated you know.

Even Chomsky manages to fall off his own band wagon from time to time. I am personally a fan of his thinking, but he certainly did make some dumb statements in his time ( e.g. denial of the Srebrenica masacre during the war in Bosnia, blind opposition to the Kosovo intervention, etc.).
I guess after towing the same party line for so long, a person is bound to fail to see the forest because of the trees.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by klikklak

But you've heard of Chomsky? Not that I agree with him 100%, but he's a high profile libertarian socialist. And yes, past hundred years proved you right in many ways, but we'll see what this century will bring. Out of the existing societies I think I prefer social democracy (a form of socialism), it's been relatively humane to all members of society. Democracy is very important, I think we both agree on this, but those on the libertarian left generally think so.

I have a question for you, what should we do when secretaries, shop clerks, driving professions, maids etc. lose their jobs? Those can be automated you know.

Libertarian isn't a label I usually associate with Chomsky, but if that's how he chooses to self-identify, so be it. As a freedom-loving person, there are certain aspects of libertarianism that appeal to me. In this country, however, Libertarians are very much dominated by conservative ways of thinking, even though much of they advocate (legalization of drugs and prostitution, for example) isn't. It's hard to picture Ron Paul and Norm Chomsky being on the same side of too many issues.

As for democracy, it only works well with an educated citizenry, and this is one place where the U.S. has fallen down on the job. The solution there, of course, isn't less democracy, but better education. How to accomplish that is another issue altogether. Good education doesn't come cheap, and it's hard to get elected when your opponent is promising to cut taxes.

Socialism? As long as there are people in need, people who can't compete, people who are infirm or otherwise disadvantaged, there will be a need for socialism. And for some things socialism seems to be the best solution for the entire society. Who would like to see library systems run by corporations?

As for the question you pose, while it is an excellent one, it cannot be addressed in a few words, and I believe we have already strayed too far off-topic. I will say that it is a question that has long concerned me, and one that may ultimately demand a radical solution involving a major paradigm shift in our thinking if we are to have a solution that is both effective and humane.

Perhaps you may want to start another thread in which this question can be properly addressed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

We need to develop a culture that rewards honesty and shames bad behavior. That means we all need to stop turning our heads when bad behavior is being promoted as the norm. As to removing DRM from legally-obtained books for personal use, I see no problem with it. Technically, it is probably illegal, but as long as the books are not being re-distributed or re-sold, it does not violate the intent of the law.

Yes, agree completely.