Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria

[darryl]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think the problems you point out are very real ones and they're important and in a free society discussion of them should be encouraged.

However, I don't think piracy is an answer anymore than bank robbery is an answer to poverty. The answer, and the only possible answer, is to talk about it so we can influence others and eventually improve our system, which is supposed to be government by the will of the governed. Lobbyists lobby and have lots of money to do so. We have words and ideas and moral values and if we don't use them lobbyists keep winning.

Barry

Barry. Your post illustrates very nicely the limitations of copyright discussion on Mobileread. I can comment substantively on your piracy opinion only if I agree with you. If I wished to argue that piracy is justified in some circumstances or even only that it has or may have a positive influence in some circumstances I will end up banned or suspended and my post deleted or edited for condoning piracy. Whilst I wish free discussion could take place, I do not have a problem with the situation. I do not want to see Mobileread threatened and sued.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by darryl

Barry. Your post illustrates very nicely the limitations of copyright discussion on Mobileread. I can comment substantively on your piracy opinion only if I agree with you. If I wished to argue that piracy is justified in some circumstances or even only that it has or may have a positive influence in some circumstances I will end up banned or suspended and my post deleted or edited for condoning piracy. Whilst I wish free discussion could take place, I do not have a problem with the situation. I do not want to see Mobileread threatened and sued.

I think there's a big difference in discussing the virtues of piracy and discussing copyright law. It's entirely possible to discuss copyright freely without advocating piracy even if you do privately advocate piracy. Just discuss copyright. Simple enough.

Barry

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think there's a big difference in discussing the virtues of piracy and discussing copyright law. It's entirely possible to discuss copyright freely without advocating piracy even if you do privately advocate piracy. Just discuss copyright. Simple enough.

Barry

No Barry it is not simple enough.

I suggest you read up about the Dimensions of Power by a sociologist called Lukes. It is a very interesting read although the language is very academic.

I was out of practise with such language and had to look at a less academic version to confirm my understanding.

I would also recomend you try reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill. The language is old fashioned but it contains a lot of good stuff

You may then understand my position and if I read it correctly that of Darryl.

I have said all I can say on this topic and am unlikely to post in this thread again.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Barry. Your post illustrates very nicely the limitations of copyright discussion on Mobileread. I can comment substantively on your piracy opinion only if I agree with you. If I wished to argue that piracy is justified in some circumstances or even only that it has or may have a positive influence in some circumstances I will end up banned or suspended and my post deleted or edited for condoning piracy. Whilst I wish free discussion could take place, I do not have a problem with the situation. I do not want to see Mobileread threatened and sued.

Is that true? My understanding is that as long as you are talking in abstraction, then talking about piracy is ok. It's just when you include get into specifics, such as links to pirate sites, or how to pirate ebooks or advocate that a specific book be pirated that you get into trouble. Am I wrong?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Is that true? My understanding is that as long as you are talking in abstraction, then talking about piracy is ok. It's just when you include get into specifics, such as links to pirate sites, or how to pirate ebooks or advocate that a specific book be pirated that you get into trouble. Am I wrong?

Possibly. I have a friend that makes pirate copies of old film novelizations as a hobby. I was talking about it, but didn't mention specific sites and definitely didn't provide links and I was tut-tutted on it.

[sealbeater]

Information wants to be free.

EDIT: Full quote if anyone is interested.

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

[barryem]

I once mentioned some things about the early history of ebooks before they were called ebooks and before there ebooks were for sale anywhere and I was asked not to refer to that. A few months later I referred to it again, probably thinking it was innocent enough, and I was suspended for a a few days. Maybe a week. I forget.

The things I referred to, which I dare not list, were things done in perfect innocence by good people who had no idea that what they were doing would someday come to be called piracy. And yet what I said wasn't allowed. That fascinating portion of the history of ebooks can't be told here.

I do understand a reluctance to discuss this issue and I won't discuss piracy on this forum again. There there be monsters! But copyright is a very different issue and, I think, a legitimate issue to discuss in any book related forum. I don't know of any threats to any one for discussing copyright matters in this thread. I'd be surprised if there were any.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Information wants to be free.

EDIT: Full quote if anyone is interested.

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

I've read some pretty interesting books based on both ends of that statement, all information free at the tips of your fingers, verses the cost of every query.

My basic take is that the real issue is the cost and ease of enforcement. It's a bit like speed limits. In the US, as long as you stay within certain boundaries and avoid certain areas, speed limits are rarely enforced. Copyright is fairly similar. There is a reason that foreign copyrights were not enforced in the US until the late 70's. For the most part, it simply wasn't worth the effort. It was only when there was a significant foreign market in movies did the US become interested. It's almost impossible to enforce copyright outside certain areas.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

I once mentioned some things about the early history of ebooks before they were called ebooks and before there ebooks were for sale anywhere and I was asked not to refer to that. A few months later I referred to it again, probably thinking it was innocent enough, and I was suspended for a a few days. Maybe a week. I forget.

The things I referred to, which I dare not list, were things done in perfect innocence by good people who had no idea that what they were doing would someday come to be called piracy. And yet what I said wasn't allowed. That fascinating portion of the history of ebooks can't be told here.

I do understand a reluctance to discuss this issue and I won't discuss piracy on this forum again. There there be monsters! But copyright is a very different issue and, I think, a legitimate issue to discuss in any book related forum. I don't know of any threats to any one for discussing copyright matters in this thread. I'd be surprised if there were any.

Barry

Really? I've mentioned some of what went on back in the 90's and early 2000's (i.e. before the Sony ebook store) before and no one said a word to me. Maybe it didn't get noticed, or maybe I kept it general enough, or maybe it's just that I have an innocent face.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Is that true? My understanding is that as long as you are talking in abstraction, then talking about piracy is ok. It's just when you include get into specifics, such as links to pirate sites, or how to pirate ebooks or advocate that a specific book be pirated that you get into trouble. Am I wrong?

I had a post edited to exclude the name of a well known site which makes academic papers available for free. As I recall there was no link. I also expressed an opinion about the operation of the Copyright law in the area of academic journals and the public interest, and my quote was edited to exclude this opinion. Mobileread chooses to err very much on the side of caution, which is regrettable but quite understandable. I choose to abide by this policy, but we should not delude ourselves. There are important and legitimate opinions on copyright which cannot be expressed on mobileread.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I had a post edited to exclude the name of a well known site which makes academic papers available for free. As I recall there was no link. I also expressed an opinion about the operation of the Copyright law in the area of academic journals and the public interest, and my quote was edited to exclude this opinion. Mobileread chooses to err very much on the side of caution, which is regrettable but quite understandable. I choose to abide by this policy, but we should not delude ourselves. There are important and legitimate opinions on copyright which cannot be expressed on mobileread.

I would suspect the issue is listing the well known pirate site specializing in academic papers, rather than expressing the opinion that academic journals should be excluded from copyright. Once moderators start to pruning posts, it can be easy to over prune.

The area of copyright and patents for works done with public money is very much a gray area. I will say that in the US, educational use falls under the fair use doctrine.

The issue of academic journals, as opposed to the individual articles in them are a different matter. I suspect that in many cases one can get a copy of an academic article, just by contacting the author and asking. I also suspect that the law of unintended consequences would kick in if the actual journals were excluded from copyright. Most academic journals are expensive because they have a very limited readership and it cost money to put them out.

[Thasaidon]

After my last post I thought I would look a little bit at the history of Copyright. In doing so I came across the site below. It has some interesting information about the history of copyright.

But please note the article is a polemic, but is very interesting, as is the discussion in the comments after the article. It is a few years old now but could have been written today.


http://questioncopyright.org/promise

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

After my last post I thought I would look a little bit at the history of Copyright. In doing so I came across the site below. It has some interesting information about the history of copyright.

But please note the article is a polemic, but is very interesting, as is the discussion in the comments after the article. It is a few years old now but could have been written today.


http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Interesting, but not entirely accurate. I know a few musicians who get a decent check every couple of months because of copyright and licensing. It pays the bills for quite a few mid-tier authors as well. Yes, most local musicians have multiple revenue streams (teaching, live performances, cd's, residuals) but if you take away the residuals, it can make a big difference.

I don't disagree with the over all point that copyright is mostly oriented towards distribution and the few big sellers, rather than the vast majority of authors.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I would suspect the issue is listing the well known pirate site specializing in academic papers, rather than expressing the opinion that academic journals should be excluded from copyright. Once moderators start to pruning posts, it can be easy to over prune.

The issue was indeed both.. Some moderators thought my opinion was condoning piracy.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The area of copyright and patents for works done with public money is very much a gray area. I will say that in the US, educational use falls under the fair use doctrine.

The issue of academic journals, as opposed to the individual articles in them are a different matter. I suspect that in many cases one can get a copy of an academic article, just by contacting the author and asking. I also suspect that the law of unintended consequences would kick in if the actual journals were excluded from copyright. Most academic journals are expensive because they have a very limited readership and it cost money to put them out.

I respectfully suggest that you do a little more reading about how copyright operates in the area of academic journals and the business model under which the companies involved operate. Basically academics face a publish or perish paradigm. They submit articles to these journals for publication, sign over all of their rights and receive no payment. Such articles are often based on publicly funded research. Other academics contribute peer review, usually unpaid or nominally paid. The journals are then sold to academic libraries at often ridiculous cost. Authors provide copies of articles at their peril, because they no longer own the rights to their own works or to some extent their own research. It is a dream of a business model for the journal owners, but a disaster for scientific research and a drain on educational funds much better used elsewhere.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by darryl

The journals are then sold to academic libraries at often ridiculous cost. Authors provide copies of articles at their peril, because they no longer own the rights to their own works or to some extent their own research.

Just to be clear I understand this correctly. Are you saying that the author would break copyright law if they give you a free copy of his article?