Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

Totally incomprehensible. What is a "moral crime"? Do you mean like not donating money to starving people? Or like trying to destroy the language by re-defining words like "theft" for propaganda purpose?

[desertgrandma]

y'all do see where this is going, don't you?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by tompe

Totally incomprehensible. What is a "moral crime"?

Quite simple: It's a crime against an author's Moral Rights. Like...er... putting DRM on the book, in most cases. ("derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation")

Of course, this isn't compatible with Kenny's definition, but hey.

[eGeezer]

Recent statistics have shown that consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.

While the figures are heartening, I suspect the figures are a little bit skewed since it probably has a lot to do with one-stop shopping. Kindle folk can only buy Kindle books from the Kindle book store. Tree book people can buy their tree killers ANYWHERE.

Its kinda like the only pear store in town comparing pear sales with their orange sales when oranges are available at all stores in town. (I'd use the age old "apples and oranges" analogy, but branding would confuse the issue.)

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

Regardless of it being moral or not, it does NOT change the fact it is an infringement to the copyright act and not a criminal offense and yes, it is wrong.

"Moral" conjures up all sorts of emotional reactions which is precisely how the music/movie industry has played their tune for over a decade AND they are losing the fight because they are taking far too long (or refusing) to adopt a new business model that reflects the modern digital era.

Avatar has been one of the most downloaded movies of the last year or so but the movie still grossed to date over a billion dollars. So massive profits are still being made regardless of digital piracy (not that I would want to watch a cam movie anyway)

The bottom dollar is, piracy for personal use is not considered a criminal act, regardless how you or anyone else add emotional tags and coatings to it. However the moment someone on-sells ripped, scanned or downloaded stuff, then that is a crime and the accused will face criminal charges.

[WT Sharpe]

Other people are doing it. That makes it right. Right?

[devilsadvocate]

Not going OT but has anyone noticed that this dispute (and really, it's the same one, happens about once a week from what I've seen during my short time here) bears a striking resemblance to American politics? Everyone's so busy taking the extreme view that no one realizes the middle ground is where the answer lies.

I spend more time with my nose in a keyboard than a book, but as a fan of the open-source movement there's a big similarity there as well. On the one hand you have Ballmer and his "pure" capitalism where profit is the primary motive, and on the other you have Stallman, who believes no one owns information much less has the right to charge for it. Stallman's view is wrong because everyone has the right to earn a living, Ballmer's view is wrong because most definitions of capitalism don't include the word "blackmail" (Google Novell's "deal with the devil"). Again, somewhere in between is where the rational answer can be found.

Unfortunately, as long as the Ballmers and the Stallmans of the world are calling the shots, it'll just be a multibillion-dollar pissing contest, no matter the media. Extremism sucks.

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by fugazied

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'.

You’re right. The Open Source people are very strict about imposing terms of conditions of GNU or otherwise licensed software. Just watch them go when they get a sniff of some hot-shot company misusing the terms of open software license
They will be the last people in the world encouraging or helping piracy. Actually, it is the people who sell software for commercial gain that make real piracy work.
In the place where I work currently, you can still buy a laptop computer and get it pre-loaded with any software or OS as a "courtesy service". You can go to flee markets or even some shopping centres and buy anything from the new version of IBM WebSphere to the newest Wii games for about 3 USD.

That is where piracy really hurts - when people do it for financial gains.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Stallman's view is wrong because everyone has the right to earn a living

Sine this misunderstanding is common. No, everyone does not have a right to earn a living doing whatever they want. I do not have a right to earn a living doing nothing for example. So there is no right to earn a living by writing books.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sine this misunderstanding is common. No, everyone does not have a right to earn a living doing whatever they want. I do not have a right to earn a living doing nothing for example. So there is no right to earn a living by writing books.

Or being a mainframe programmer........

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by fugazied

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.

Yep. The writers might as well had picked buzz words at random. Maybe that's what they did?

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Piracy is stealing.

No it isn't. it is copyright infringement - completely different (in the eyes of the law) from stealing.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

criminally-minded scum are the reason the rest of us are forced to contend with the evils of DRM.

No it isn't, 'they' would put DRM on things anyway, as they are obsessed with control, are paranoid and are completely untrusting. Even though stats indicate time and time again, that a pirated copy [a lot of the time] does not constitue a lost sale, since research shows that most people who have pirated copies of things, only have it because it is free and would not have bought it if it wasn't free. (I'm not saying this makes it right however, just pointing out the facts)

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But there is a fundamental different here between the paper and the eBook. When you "loan" your son the paper book, he has the only copy of it. You can no longer read it. In order to "loan" your son the eBook, you'd have to make a copy, so there would then be TWO copies in existence - the one that you have, and the one that your son has. You've copied the book, and broken copyright law. THAT is why you're not allowed to do it. If you want to loan your son your reading device, with the book on it, that's absolutely fine.

Not necessary, if the loan system was done right.
e.g.
If I loaned a book out it could spawn a copy of itself that would only be useable for 2 weeks (for example), at the same it could lock the 'original' copy so it won't open for the same period.( obviouls only 1 spawned copy would be allowed at one time)
In a way this would be better as the loaned book, would automatically get returned after a preset period

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sine this misunderstanding is common. No, everyone does not have a right to earn a living doing whatever they want. I do not have a right to earn a living doing nothing for example. So there is no right to earn a living by writing books.

Since when?

First off,

Originally Posted by tompe

...doing whatever they want...

Your words, not mine. Don't confuse capitalizing on a legitimate skill with entitlement.

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not have a right to earn a living doing nothing for example.

"Earning" implies doing "something". I'm not playing word-games; if you're a day-trader and the only "work" you do is get online to check how much interest your investments have made, it's your money "earning" the interest thereby enabling you to lounge around watching TV all day. However, it is still your knowledge which enabled you to invest the money where it would gve you the biggest return. In the extreme, if you want to grow your own food and generate your own heat/electricity, you absolutely have every right to do so.

In order to survive in civilized society, one must earn a living. A goal for any remotely-forward-thinking individual is to earn that living doing what one is good at and enjoys doing; if that is taken away, there would be no point to survival other than satisfying some self-preservation instinct.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Your words, not mine. Don't confuse capitalizing on a legitimate skill with entitlement.

Since not all legitimate skills are wanted there as no right to to capitalize on any given legitimate skill.

In order to survive in civilized society, one must earn a living. A goal for any remotely-forward-thinking individual is to earn that living doing what one is good at and enjoys doing; if that is taken away, there would be no point to survival other than satisfying some self-preservation instinct.

But there is no right in a civilized society for an individual to earn a living on something he choose that he is good at and enjoys doing.