Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

.

This is annoying bumping since you do it so much. It disturbs the reading of the forum since threads with no new content get placed high when searching for recent posts.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Tompe, the rules on the forum is that everything is under creative commons license.

That is not true. I double checked in the posting guidelines and that was not mentionen. And when posting it does not say that the post get a creative commons license.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

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?

As history shows, any human society had to define rules for it's social coexistence, kind of laws defining duties and rights. Groups without such rules as well as individuals died out. Well, there are always examples for niches where for some time other methods/systems may have worked well.

Anyway, you bypass the actual topic. You took "early stages of anarchy" and altered it to plain "anarchy". Then you took "noticeable society" and altered it to "humans as social creatures", bypassing humans as families, clans, communities, interest groups, civilization and yes, also as society in terms of nations and political systems. Such a rhetoric is also called "straw man fallacy".

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is annoying bumping since you do it so much. It disturbs the reading of the forum since threads with no new content get placed high when searching for recent posts.

Would you rather I just repeat the same thing again in my own words?

It's my right as a forum participant to agree with other postings without reiterating. You are welcome to as well.

It's also a know tactic of those that are losing an argument to jump off topic and start attacking others behaviors.


And certainly wouldn't want you to be confused about what concepts I agree or disagree with.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not true. I double checked in the posting guidelines and that was not mentionen. And when posting it does not say that the post get a creative commons license.

Ah, but you published it, so according to the anti-copyright clan it is mine to do with as I like.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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 societ needs for it's survival - survival of the species. They are often at odds with one another.

Ah! I understand and agree. Having the right to do (or not do) something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. Absolutely. The problem is, it's a difficult thing to codify. I firmly believe that one of the purposes of government is to create incentives for behavior that benefits society, just not at the expense of individual rights.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Ah! I understand and agree. Having the right to do (or not do) something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. Absolutely. The problem is, it's a difficult thing to codify. I firmly believe that one of the purposes of government is to create incentives for behavior that benefits society, just not at the expense of individual rights.

Absolutely not easy.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by netseeker

As history shows, any human society had to define rules for it's social coexistence, kind of laws defining duties and rights. Groups without such rules as well as individuals died out. Well, there are always examples for niches where for some time other methods/systems may have worked well.

Anyway, you bypass the actual topic. You took "early stages of anarchy" and altered it to plain "anarchy". Then you took "noticeable society" and altered it to "humans as social creatures", bypassing humans as families, clans, communities, interest groups, civilization and yes, also as society in terms of nations and political systems. Such a rhetoric is also called "straw man fallacy".

No, it isn't. Calling it a "straw man fallacy" is actually committing the straw man fallacy. I just asked for clarification.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I just asked for clarification.

And i tried to clarify. Yes, if i interpret "social" as actively lived collective co-existence then humans in general are only social creatures on the small scale (family, friends, beloved ones, ...).

Well, also unconscious collective co-existence can be called "social" per definition. Though, i guess that this isn't what you are referring to when you write "social creatures".

Without rules we are only actively social in small "societies", but we aren't active social creatures in terms of bigger societies. And humans are still not real active social creatures in terms of a global society imho. Actually, we (humanity) are still in the beginning to create a real conscious global society which would deserve such a title. Only a minority cares about what happens to humans in other countries and continents. Most people don't even care what happens to their direct neighbours.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

LEGAL abundance is impossible with current technology.

Are you unable to acknowledge that due to current technology, abundance exists for digital forms?

Do you not recognize by definition, that it is the legality applied to this specific economic situation being discussed that creates the condition for artificial scarcity?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society.

How exactly does "Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society"?

Your position in post 288 was that infringement ("Piracy") is a good method for promoting unknown/obscure (unread/unheard) authors/artists.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Therefore I think calling it artificial abundance is correct. Just because something is possible doesn't make it right.

Perhaps you are then acknowledging that abundance exists. Economically, I'm not sure it matters how that state is reached. The technology that makes it possible is certainly morally ambivalent. Whether or not there is right/wrong would be an attempt to constrain the state of abundance (aka artificial scarcity).

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Again, I see nothing wrong with coercion by the state when the cause is just and action as to be taken to avoid people's rights being trampled on. What should be wrong with coercion to prevent crime? It should be hoped that it isn't necessary, but that's what law enforcement is for.

And yet infringement in the context that is being discussed here (non-commercial infringement) is not a crime. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but to further clarify your position, by people, you mean authors, and by rights you mean copyright, an artificial (not natural) monopoly right temporarily granted by a government.

By omission, do you then see something wrong with trade group coercion?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Sharing always sounds great. The question is, why share what belongs to others, how can that be right?

Except according to you it is right (good) when it is works of an unknown/obscure (unread/unheard) authors/artists.

I think you still struggle with the concept of abundance that exists in the economic context to which I refer because it seems your positions are framed in the context of scarcity. Perhaps this will help:

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
—George Bernard Shaw

Apples - Scarce
Ideas - Abundant

Paper, Glue, Leather - Scarce
0101 0011 0100 1111 0101 0011 - Abundant

Originally Posted by HansTWN

They have not agreed to let you share it. And few of us here see anything wrong if you break the DRM

Breaking DRM is to remove an enabling component of artificial scarcity in the digital context of abundance. In this context you're okay with violating the author/publisher's rights/intent here?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

and do with the ebook you paid for exactly what you had done with a pbook. Share the book and do not keep the original.

It seems that you are still ignoring the state of abundance and limited by the context of scarcity, but let's work with this. Are you suggesting that it should be permissible for ebooks to be shared as long as the originating copy is deleted?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Actually you are even allowed to hand out 4-6 copies, legally.

Well, this is certainly an expansion on what could be done with a pbook. Are you now suggesting that it is "legally" possible to "produce" 6x the quantity of works paid for? Is the original deleted? Are they handed out one at a time?

Handing out a specific number of copies whatever the number seems to me a de facto recognition of abundance and selecting a finite number would be again, a means to artificially create scarcity.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

No, it isn't. Calling it a "straw man fallacy" is actually committing the straw man fallacy.

Then are you not guilty of the same??

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by schex86

Then are you not guilty of the same??

Thank you for stepping in, though i guess it was my mistake to blame Jason in public. It would have been better if i had wrote a private message to him to avoid any misunderstanding.

Let's get over it, provided that Jason will agree with that.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by huari

Surprisingly, I learned more about Ben Franklin than I would have imagined that want to check out his autobiography at manybooks.net.

I definitely recommend. My favorite part, the way he raised funding, supposedly against all odds, for Philadelphia's first hospital. It puts a whole new spin on the health care debate currently raging in the country.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by schex86

Then are you not guilty of the same??

Sure. Why not? See how little it actually adds to the discussion? It becomes a kind of sophisticated-sounding name-calling that really serves as a substitute for ad hominem attacks. Instead of saying "you're wrong because you dress funny," you can say "you're wrong because you violated some obscure debating rule". Meanwhile, the whole point of the discussion goes awry and any pretext of actually exchanging ideas evaporates.

Debating is competitive and has little to do with exchanging ideas. I find it a waste of time. Discussion is non-competitive. It's all about exchanging ideas.

And to bring it back to the earlier point about individual rights versus the good of society, I'll add that debate is about aggrandizing the individual at the expense of society, because it's all about who wins, instead of getting to some best informational result. Public discussion, on the other hand, serves to benefit both society and the individuals involved.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Let's get over it, provided that Jason will agree with that.

It's fine with me, especially since I'm not entirely convinced that we actually disagree!