My journey into the darknet

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by pendragginp

Well, I'm torn on this subject, but I'm also surprised at the mention of free books. There is one childhood favorite I've not been able to find except at the torrents, but every torrent I've seen charges for a subscription. Are they not 'legitimate' darknet?

You're doing it wrong.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I agree that the ebook business is still pretty small, but do you think that it would necessarily be stopped if it made an impact on corporate copyright holders? Corporate copyright holders haven't got their own way as far as music is concerned. They continue to make attempts to stop piracy, but I'm not cinvinced that they can succeed.

While it will never admit it publicly, the music industry has benefitted greatly from piracy. Without piracy there would have been no mp3 players. Without mp3 players there would have been no mass market demand for legal mp3 sites. Without legal mp3 sites a lot of their profit would have been lost in manufacturing and distribution costs.

It is no coincidence that music industry profits have risen dramatically post-Napster. The people who still download for free were never going to pay whatever you did. But there are still ways to make money from those people -- that is, after all, what a lot of the download sites are doing now ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

In my often disagreed with opinion all are acceptable and moral, when somebody decided to put drm on ebooks they changed the game, ...

That is totally irrelevant to morality and whether the actions are right or wrong.



(just to disagree once more... )

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That is totally irrelevant to morality and whether the actions are right or wrong.



(just to disagree once more... )

well that's good, I made three posts without you telling me I was wrong I was starting to feel unloved.

But consider this striking someone is generally considered immoral unless of course they're attacking you then it might make a lot of sense and most rational people might agree with hitting someone in self defense. Now don't worry I would never accuse you of such a thing but DRM is an attack. The publishers took away the rights associated with first sale, which if you check previous posts for citations they even fought against first sale rights to being with. What's moral changes with the circumstances.

[Rich_D]

I rarely purchase books. I am a heavy library user. I will buy the books of my favorite authors, pbooks before, ebooks now, but most of my reading is done via the library or darknet. That was my main conversion to ebooks. It was easier for me to download a book than it was for me to drive to the library to pick up and return the books.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My imagination will stretch pretty far. Isn't that what you would say? "TGS? Oh!" is an anagram of "Ghost" - coincidence?

Well, you've never actually seen is in the same place at the same time have you - ooooo spooky!

[forcheville]

I'm currently scanning a paper book that I purchased so that I can read it on my portable device. It's around 600p and I've been doing about 100p/week and correcting as I go.
It's a lot more work than I expected when I started as the print quality in this particular volume (a recent edition of a European classic first published in 1902 and still in print) is appalling. It is printed on coarse paper such that the ink often seems to bleed out beyond the letter outline. There are other problems as well, and they all make for a high density of errors even with the best OCR software I can find.

I'm pretty close to finished and one of the things that has kept me going in this labour-intensive task is that I'm really enjoying the book. Of course I could have just stopped scanning-correcting and at any time and just finished the book on paper, but that would have felt like defeat.

By the time I'm done I'll have a pretty perfect scan, but I'll also have read the book in the process of producing it.

The question is, given all the work that went into producing the ebook it seems a waste to just file it away on an SD card. I'm probably going to release it on the darknet somewhere instead. I think there are places where it will be appreciated by people who actually read, and it will do a little to maintain this writer's posthumous reputation which may have slipped a little in recent decades. The translator is also deceased, but I doubt that he was given any share of royalties.
There is also the advantage of having an easily found back-up copy.

I know that releasing it in this way (should I eventually choose to do so) will be illegal, but it just feels right.

Who will cast the first stone?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by forcheville

I'm currently scanning a paper book that I purchased so that I can read it on my portable device. It's around 600p and I've been doing about 100p/week and correcting as I go.
It's a lot more work than I expected when I started as the print quality in this particular volume (a recent edition of a European classic first published in 1902 and still in print) is appalling.

1st published 1902, and it's not in the public domain yet? (I know that's the case with some UK authors; L+70 can mean something published in 1902 won't be PD until the middle of the 21st century sometime. But that's rare.)

[TGS]

Originally Posted by forcheville

Who will cast the first stone?

No stones from here!

[forcheville]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

1st published 1902, and it's not in the public domain yet? (I know that's the case with some UK authors; L+70 can mean something published in 1902 won't be PD until the middle of the 21st century sometime. But that's rare.)

The authour died in the 1950s, the English translation came out in 1924.

[There's probably enough information here for you to guess the Author+Book.]

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by forcheville

The authour died in the 1950s, the English translation came out in 1924.

[There's probably enough information here for you to guess the Author+Book.]

Yep, not P.D. in the US.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I only pay for something if I have to. I download everything from the darknet, for it is the only way that I can satisfy my wide array of tastes. If I were more computer savvy I'd anonimize my PC completely and use proxies to circumvent geographic restrictions. The companies do have their goal very clear, which is winning money. I have my goal clear as well: spend the least money and time possible.

And before I get the lecture of "you're stealing", all of what I've published (translations, mainly) is under the conditions of a Creative Commons 3.0 licence which allows unfettered use of the text and only puts a condition to identify its source. Abiding to that, I won't download anything whose author is not clear in the specs or the metadata. I want to know who did what I like, and hope that if someone likes my work they'll want to know who did it.

Just because you give away what you write, doesn't mean that it is ok to take stuff from others. Not trying to be offensive, but a lot of people give away what they have written because it wasn't good enough for anyone to waste money on. (I am in that category myself.Unfortunately, most of what I have written falls in that category. The only stuff that I have written that people would people would normally pay for are scenarios for DnD. The other stuff I sold to online mags that the consumers didn't really buy because of me.) So giving away some stuff you write that others wouldn't pay for is not in the same league as taking without paying the latest blockbusters.

Also just because you know who wrote what you stole doesn't make it ok. It just means you know who you ripped off.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Logseman

1) No, I wouldn't be angry in the slightest. I do find it tasteless to substitute someone else's name for mine: thus, I seeked permission from the original author of my translated texts, who publishes his articles in the C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society) under the CC licence I mentioned before.

The very fact that you say you find it tasteless, means that you are upset with them. You may say you wouldn't be angry, but we all know better because of what you said.

Originally Posted by Logseman

However, I can't be angry about plagiarism like for suing people. I won't probably be able to avoid it before it happens anyway. The core word is that, "preventability". People do what they can get away with. I wouldn't publicise anything if I feared to be copied or stripped from my work, because I can't impede those things to happen. It'd be a blessing if they did, actually. I wish everyone would read my translation of "Intellectual Property: A Libertarian Critique" even if it was mercilessly self-attributed by 200.000 people. In fact, it would mean it's good enough for people to value and try to "steal" it.

Keep this in mind: if someone plagiarises me and such plagiarism doesn't actually bring big revenues to him or her, noone will take the bother to sue, as it will most probably remain undetected and, if detected, the prospective sum doesn't compensate the cost of suing.
Nevertheless, if the ill-intentioned copy does bring huge revenues and media attention, I do have proof to show the farce and expose the plagiarist, like that German unknown blogger who was copy-pasted by a "young talent".
If said "talent" had sold 500 copies and won 0 awards, it's highly improbable that the blogger would have said anything in public, even if he had actually discovered the cheat.

It's not the authors who sue, usually, for they don't get the lion's share of the revenue. It's the big publishers who have to feed their rising overhead costs, their subsidized transport costs and their lobbies who benefit utmostly from copyright, as the Sonny Bono Act proved in all its glory.

Here you point out the fact that if the work did well enough to make substantial money, you would have the copyright. That tells me that you would indeed try to make money off the work, if only you could. That means you really should not be stealing from those people who what you wish you could do.

Originally Posted by Logseman

2) You ask if I would pay for things. Yes, if I like them. Sigil's and Calibre's authors have a donation with my name on it, as does the C4SS. The fansub group I do translations for has my money as well. Meg Cabot would get one if she had a donation site.
Nevertheless, the fact that I would pay for them doesn't mean I have any obligation, moral or of any kind, of doing so. It's my money, and it's mine so that it satisfies my own needs. I, as a consumer, have the duty to enjoy as much content as possible while paying as less money as possible. Only so will the producers learn to lower their prices and give better service. Domesticated consumers who overpay for things, bear with the encumbrances of bad programs and justify their behavior as "morally correct" are the ones who cause harm to their fellow consumers and the producers as well, who keep selling flawed products since they see people buy them anyways.

All of this surprisingly verbose response refers, by the way, to the goods subject to the so-called "intellectual property". For goods made of physical matter, things are different, and I'm quite sure we're all in complete agreement for those.

Your second point was plain ludicrous. You do have not only a legal obligation to pay for the items you steal, but a moral one as well.

It is also stupid to think you have a DUTY to enjoy as much content as possible for the least cost. The DUTY you have is to obey the law.

If you want to help society by getting the producers to lower prices and give better service, you can do that through a variety of legal means. You don't have to steal from them.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Desertway

What's the difference?

That he can get away with one very easy. While the other you are more likely to be caught and sent to jail.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Format C:

It's just human nature.

If you think about it, the US of A themself have been stolen from people who just had bows and arrows to protect their land........

Not all of it. We bought some of it for about $24 worth of trinkets.

BTW, wasn't the initial theft from the Indians done by you Europeans??? Hmm.

Before someone one says anything, I am part Cherokee. One eigth to be exact.