E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Yeah, they're evil, all right.

More misguided than evil, if you ask me. I doubt they've ever done any serious research on the buying habits of unauthorised downloaders.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

More misguided than evil, if you ask me. I doubt they've ever done any serious research on the buying habits of unauthorised downloaders.

Most research studies are funded by interest groups, with the piracy studies paid largely by MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc. Basically, the people who say "PIRACY IS COSTING US BILLIONS" are paying for the studies, and they don't want a study of the buying habits of those who pirate, because they may not like the results. They only want studies that back up what they say.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Most research studies are funded by interest groups, with the piracy studies paid largely by MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc. Basically, the people who say "PIRACY IS COSTING US BILLIONS" are paying for the studies, and they don't want a study of the buying habits of those who pirate, because they may not like the results. They only want studies that back up what they say.

Do you say this because you've examined the studies and this is a design bias you can identify? Or because you just don't agree with the conclusions of the studies?

I actually imagine it would be fairly difficult to get an accurate and unbiased study completed. For one thing it would require people to be honest about their habits, among a group who acknowledge a willingness to ignore copyright law. Can you trust their answers?

I'm not saying yes or no, because I don't know.

[mr ploppy]

This is the only independent research I know of.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10223789-16.html

You might also be interested in this:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-are-bogus.ars

[afa]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Not really, since there's nothing illegal about building your own Rolls-Royce Phantom if you wanted to.

Huh?? What does that mean?

The quote I had been referring to said nothing about the person writing his or her own ebook, which would be the equivalent of building your own Phantom.

What was your point?

[molman]

Originally Posted by starrigger

It is amazing to see all the rationalizations and justifications for stealing. (Not saying I've never done it myself.)

I decided to just jump out of the thread as I find many peoples contentions underdeveloped and knew it would devolve. People really are the best storytellers.

Truths;

- The breach of copyright (copying an artefact you don't have the license or rights to) is illegal in many countries.
- Economic impact isn't truly known. It probably lies somewhere in the middle... and more importantly the distribution is unlikely to be even.
- Moralisation of such-and-such being evil or so-in-so being good as a means for justification of actions is often childish in construct and rather baseless more oft than not.

One of the main issues is this developed sense of entitlement - if economics mean xg4bx can't read said book who are they (the others) to stop him. Just be honest that you want what you want but you're too cheap to pay what the market demands so you have decided to break the law as likely laid down in the country you live in. All the rest is just fairy tales.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by afa

Huh?? What does that mean?

The quote I had been referring to said nothing about the person writing his or her own ebook, which would be the equivalent of building your own Phantom.

What was your point?

Wrong.
It is exactly equivelent in every way.

Every Phantom is not designed from scratch, and every book sold is not written only for that purchaser.

Designing a new Rolls Royce Phantom would be equivelent to writing your own book.

The example holds. It is not illegal to fabricate your own Phantom.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Wrong.
It is exactly equivelent in every way.

Every Phantom is not designed from scratch, and every book sold is not written only for that purchaser.

Designing a new Rolls Royce Phantom would be equivelent to writing your own book.

The example holds. It is not illegal to fabricate your own Phantom.

As silly as this tangent is (don't know why I'm feeding it), it probably would be illegal. I'd assume you'd have to break a lot of IP/Patents/Copyright in order to fabricate your own Phanton.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by molman

As silly as this tangent is (don't know why I'm feeding it), it probably would be illegal. I'd assume you'd have to break a lot of IP/Patents/Copyright in order to fabricate your own Phanton.

If you do not sell.the Phantom, then you are not breaking any Patents. Which was the point of the rabit hole. Making a copy of something yourself strictly for your own use does not violate a patent.

Of course, it is often either prohibitively expensive or requires specialized knowledge, and it is seldom worth ones time...but it is perfectly legal to do.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If you do not sell.the Phantom, then you are not breaking any Patents. Which was the point of the rabit hole. Making a copy of something yourself strictly for your own use does not violate a patent.

Of course, it is often either prohibitively expensive or requires specialized knowledge, and it is seldom worth ones time...but it is perfectly legal to do.

I think you might want to reinvestigate your assumptions that IP laws don't apply to artefacts just because they are made by oneself or not offered for sale. I think you will find that your proposition is in fact mythical in most countries (including the one you likely reside in).

[OtterBooks]

I'm declaring a war on pants.

[molman]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I'm declaring a war on pants.

You a kilt kind of guy. Like the air down there and all that

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I'm declaring a war on pants.

I have no problem with that as long as you keep your underwear on.

[afa]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Wrong.
It is exactly equivelent in every way.

What is exactly equivalent?

Every Phantom is not designed from scratch, and every book sold is not written only for that purchaser.

The point being...?

Designing a new Rolls Royce Phantom would be equivelent to writing your own book.

That's neither here nor there. Semantics. I could easily argue that the people who design the car then hand it over to the engineers to physically build (I am, of course, grossly simplifying the process), similarly it is entirely possible that the person who 'designs' a book (i.e., develops the idea, fleshes out the plot, provides a detailed outline, etc.) then hands it to another (ghost) writer who physically writes it. In that case, the writer is equivalent to the builder, not the designer.

But that would drive this pointless argument further into uselessness.

The example holds. It is not illegal to fabricate your own Phantom.

And if I had been referring to someone 'fabricating' their own book, then perhaps this point would have been valid. But instead, I was referring to the act of downloading a pirated copy off the Internet.

So instead, I will repeat the same question that I asked before, which initiated your response:

What's your point?

Originally Posted by Phogg

If you do not sell.the Phantom, then you are not breaking any Patents. Which was the point of the rabit hole. Making a copy of something yourself strictly for your own use does not violate a patent.

Of course, it is often either prohibitively expensive or requires specialized knowledge, and it is seldom worth ones time...but it is perfectly legal to do.

I'm not sure that is true. I am by no means an expert on law, and if you admit to being such, then I will happily bow to your superior knowledge. But if this was speculative, then I will speculatively disagree. It just doesn't seem logical to me that the law would allow such blatant rip-offs.

If anything, I think the reverse is true: it is illegal, but is prohibitively expensive to prevent in its entirety.

[joenunya]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I'm declaring a war on pants.

when oh when are we finally gonna bury Nancy Reagan and declare War-on-War? The whole concept is worn far beyond thin. So I am for wars on pants--especially corduroy--pants, kale, peanut butter that has sugar in it and that is all for now.

ADDED -- Oh, whoops!! She is still alive, yikes, I am not trying to bury the poor old biddy alive or hasten her exit but just we need to be done with what she started.