Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Whatever incentive that works with the current situation. That you cannot think of an incentive is really no argument that there do not exist a good incentive.

You are the one advocating copying copyrighted material without paying for it, not me. What incentive do YOU think will exist to create new works if everyone copies material without paying for it?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And what will be the incentive for anyone to write books, or to make £100m movies, if everybody copies them for free?

If piracy could manage to kill the £100m movie and movies went back to being about plot and not about stars and FX, then I would stand out on street corners handing out free DVDs.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are the one advocating copying copyrighted material without paying for it, not me. What incentive do YOU think will exist to create new works if everyone copies material without paying for it?

I do not remember advocating that here. I just objected to some arguments. And stated the obvious that it is hard to predict how things will develop. It was you that argued that one specific business model was the only solution to the problem of stimulating creativity.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by klikklak

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

I've heard that before but have always wondered: How can one be libertarian (the best government is no government) and socialist (government levelling of class differences) simultaneously? Isn't libertarian socialist an oxymoron?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by pwarren

Goddamnit, downloading a book you haven't paid for is not theft, it's copyright infringement, which has a completely different process in the justice system.

Yes, you are correct, but I believe theft is being used generically rather than in terms of a prosecutable crime. If it will help, consider it a slang usage.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Yes, you are correct, but I believe theft is being used generically rather than in terms of a prosecutable crime. If it will help, consider it a slang usage.

Why? It's incorrect. People using it are simply trying to drum up an emotional rather than a rational argument, which is a tactic which needs to be opposed regardless of any merit the argument might have had or otherwise.

[Zorz]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I've heard that before but have always wondered: How can one be libertarian (the best government is no government) and socialist (government levelling of class differences) simultaneously? Isn't libertarian socialist an oxymoron?

Libertarian socialism does not imply government, there is still a incredibly small government. Socialism does not imply government. Socialism simply implies

"from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work."

and Communism implies

"from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."


Libertarian socialism is closer to communism without the collective body. As communism has no government.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I've heard that before but have always wondered: How can one be libertarian (the best government is no government) and socialist (government levelling of class differences) simultaneously? Isn't libertarian socialist an oxymoron?

Why not check the wikipedia entry i referred to?

Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[142]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual's right to own private property,[143] in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism[144]), social ecology, libertarian municipalism,[145] and council communism.[

[fugazied]

Originally Posted by m-reader

I couldn't read the CNN article (WebSense is on), but the discussion on Slashdot is robust as always

I love slashdot for that 'robust' discussion. You have mostly smart people on there so it's far better than a reddit or digg conversation would be.

As for Open Source encouraging piracy it is wrong on so many levels and just shows the writers have no knowledge of open source as a philosophy.

What they mean to say is: "Open source let people get stuff for free. We hate people getting stuff for free, so we'll blame it for encouraging that free stuff culture". In the philosophy of open source, Eric Raymond, Stallman and so on, they do not encourage piracy and are very strict about correctly licensing work. They don't like copyrighted material, but if it's copyrighted, these guys say 'pay for it'.

[Greg Anos]

In all honesty, I think advertising is more to blame than the Open Source culture.

Advertising has given people "free" things for generations. Not suprisingly, the habit took....

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That sounds like an excellent solution!

The loan feature is for one time only per eBook. So if I loan Under the Dome to you, I then cannot loan it to anyone else. And the loan is only good for 14 days. After that, too bad. Cannot be loaned again to anyone.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Because we respect the rights of the workers to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Books don't write themselves, you know!

I do share eBooks with my wife and mother and mother-in-law. I don't think it's wrong to do so. If I had bought the pBook, I would still share. So it's no different really. Same book, same sharing. The only difference is the ability for multiple people to read at the same time.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Speaking as an Australian, said people will find it hard to make a living when they refuse to sell anything to us.

Could not agree more. GR and DRM are the sole reasons I would turn to the darknet to get the ebook I want to buy but cannot because of abject commercial stupidity.

I can solve the later now and am looking at alternative means for the former.

The problem for Aussie ebook enthusiasts is the lack of domestic ebook stores. even those book retailers that carry ebooks have very narrow ranges at very high prices.

BTW Copyright infringement is not a crime, merely a civil offense under the copyright act.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by sabredog

....

BTW Copyright infringement is not a crime, merely a civil offense under the copyright act.

So what. That's just words and their definitions. It's a moral crime. It's theft. It's wrong.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

So what. That's just words and their definitions. It's a moral crime. It's theft. It's wrong.

Amen. Well said.