Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

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

This is similar to what is already in place in the Chicago Public Library. Loaned for 2 weeks, then goes *poof*, similar to the original DivX movie-rental mechanism. A number of smaller libraries are picking up on it but have miniscule selection thus far.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

I think one could reasonably argue there is a right to do so. So long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others.(but that part really should go without saying) There is simply no guarantee that one will be able to do so.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I think one could reasonably argue there is a right to do so. So long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others.(but that part really should go without saying) There is simply no guarantee that one will be able to do so.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Precisely. It's unfortunate that many people forget "my rights end where yours begin", and vice-versa. Once that criterion is met, the sky's the limit (within legal bounds of course).

Originally Posted by tompe

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

...and if good writing isn't a wanted or legitimate skill, we've got a serious problem. Contrary to Stallman's belief, the same goes for programmers (who may also be considered authors of a sort). As PKFFW said, you are not guaranteed success in your chosen field, only the right to pursue a living in said field.

HAVING SAID THAT...(this is the Devil's Advocate thing )

Who determines what constitutes "making a living"? Should an author take a vow of poverty (signed and notarized of course) for X years to prove they're "fo' real"? Where is the line drawn between living and living it up?

Let me rephrase: Who should determine what constitutes "making a living"?

Yes, this is a relevant question because without authors there would be no publishers.

[devilsadvocate]

Also, having read the Sherman Alexie money-quote in context in the article, he's clearly uninformed when it comes to the definition of the term "Open-Source".

[hidari]

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?

Chomsky is an Anarchist. he states that he is a libertarian-socialist, however, he might as well say he is a social anarchist. He is a strong supporter of anarchism as a political movement, thus there is no oxymoron if you read about or have read about anarchism as a political movement:

ie.:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Bakunin:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Kroptkin's Crust of Bread is here on MR.

[hidari]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

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.

Writing is a privilege not a right. Most people are lucky to even have the ability to write books and make money off them.

[hidari]

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.

Well said Trompe. ON a worldwide scale making any money as a writer is an extreme privilege compared to what most people do for a living. A good chunk of them make a 1 USD a day and people are screaming that they have all these rights.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by hidari

Chomsky is an Anarchist. he states that he is a libertarian-socialist, however, he might as well say he is a social anarchist. He is a strong supporter of anarchism as a political movement, thus there is no oxymoron if you read about or have read about anarchism as a political movement:

ie.:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Bakunin:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Kroptkin's Crust of Bread is here on MR.

lib⋅er⋅tar⋅i⋅an
  /ˌlɪbərˈtɛəriən/ [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn]

–noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).

–adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

an⋅ar⋅chy
  /ˈænərki/ [an-er-kee]

–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/

I don't see those as being necessarily synonymous. There are some who feel that you cannot be truly free with any form of government in place; on the other hand, persons can be persecuted without any government intervention.

The concept of anarchy is utopian in nature. And, at least here in the States, the term "Libertarian" is often used interchangeably with "independent". in that light, I could see the two ideas running parallel.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by hidari

Writing is a privilege not a right. Most people are lucky to even have the ability to write books and make money off them.

Culture Clash 101.

One more thing that makes me feel lucky to live where I do: We are, in fact, guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and/or expression. Many other countries in the world do not allow this.

Then again, you won't find anyone complaining about copyright infringement in those countries either.

[WT Sharpe]

That some people should consider themselves libertarian socialists doesn't seem any stranger in my mind than these folks:

Spoiler:

Mature Audiences Only

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by hidari

Writing is a privilege not a right. Most people are lucky to even have the ability to write books and make money off them.

A priviledge, by definition, is something that can be taken away.

Is anyone or any organisation allowed to(or able to) take away your ability to write? Can anyone say you are not allowed to write? Can you do something that society deems inappropriate and therefore warrants a punishment of banning you to write anything at all in future?

Driving a car is a priviledge. Writing is not.

Originally Posted by hidari

Well said Trompe. ON a worldwide scale making any money as a writer is an extreme privilege compared to what most people do for a living. A good chunk of them make a 1 USD a day and people are screaming that they have all these rights.

So because someone is worse of than any particular author that author should not seek to make a living from their work? Do you get paid more than $1USD a day? Do you think the work you do deserves more than that? Why should you get more when so many only get $1USD

And if the rights of another are trampled should the author put up with their own rights being trampled? How does that make the world a better place? I know the old saying misery loves company but that is taking it a bit far don't you think?

Frankly I think this whole idea of "compared to what others do for a living they have it easy and shouldn't compalin" is just plain jealousy at work. Making a living from doing what you love is something I think anyone would jump at given the chance.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HansTWN]

Hidari and tompe love the jobless and homeless so much that they want to add ALL those who work in the music, publishing, and entertainment industries (or anyone that is somehow connected to producing anything in digital form) to swell their ranks.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Hidari and tompe love the jobless and homeless so much that they want to add ALL those who work in the music, publishing, and entertainment industries (or anyone that is somehow connected to producing anything in digital form) to swell their ranks.

It is still not a positive right to earn a living doing whatever you want. And it is not a negative right to be able to earn a living as an author.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is still not a positive right to earn a living doing whatever you want. And it is not a negative right to be able to earn a living as an author.

We are not just talking about authors, we are talking about all the people whose work is in any way connected. This includes, among others, secretaries, security, janitors, accountants, computer technicians, etc.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We are not just talking about authors, we are talking about all the people whose work is in any way connected. This includes, among others, secretaries, security, janitors, accountants, computer technicians, etc.

I'm still trying to figure out why there are those who think doing what you love for a living is such a horrible idea...

Just so I haven't lost touch with the original concept, I'm not saying "everyone involved with the arts should have the world handed to them on a platter." I'm still against the idea of DRM, and publishers (and, apparently, a few authors) need to get with the 21st-Century reality of new formats, otherwise piracy will continue.

NOW...

I don't know whether there's a cultural disconnect going on here or what but in freely-thinking, free-market societies, you have the right to make a living doing what you enjoy.

Not get rich (though if you can, more power to you I suppose).

Not have everything handed to them by government/society.

Just. Making. A living.

A mortgage. Groceries. A practical form of transportation which enables you to visit family/run errands/hit the pub on whatever your chosen holiday may be.

By the time I'm done paying for school I'll be in debt to the tune of about US$80,000, but I will have a Masters degree and be employed in some facet of IT, likely systems analysis, because I enjoy it and I'm good at it. Anyone who tells me I don't have the right to pursue this for a living is off the rails.

I'm sorry for those who equate the arts and letters with "doing nothing"; it must suck living in a box. I'm sorry if it's not that way in "some countries", I'm sorry that people have lived their entire lives thinking you need some sort of permission to express yourself, much less put dinner on the table for doing so...

Wait a minute...no, I'm not.