Byron Collins wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
> If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html
>
> Regards,
> Byron Collins
> Kentucky, USA
>

For illegal copies, try alt.binaries.ebooks and so forth.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 07:14:03 -0700, "Byron Collins"
wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Are there any "legal" eBooks in the works by "NOW"?
>If not, here an Online Petition you can sign:
>
>http://www.petitiononline.com/hpebook/petition.html

This is silly. She has no reason to pay attention to any petitions.

If you want to do something, improve the quality of the underground
e-books.

Dave

When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll
be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October
2, 2002

>> can afford the drain caused by people leeching illegal e-books... <<

What have you have produced in your life and existance that you can
afford to allow to be leeched by individuals who feel they have the
right to take parts of your life without paying for them?

Flowers from your yard, gas from your vehicle, code you have written,
tools left unsecured, a purse on the front seat, a wallet taken from a
crowded event, your child's shoes or their gameboy at school, etc, etc?

We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
the same violations are visited on ourselves.

I agree that the publishers are far from guiltless, but there are other
options to deal with them such as fostering alternatives such as
micropayments to help put them out of business before their time.

Beverly Howard

AaronJ wrote:
> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" wrote:
>
>
>>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>>the same violations are visited on ourselves.
>
>
> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>
> Other than legality what is the difference?

In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
live in a country ruled by law?

Jeff

AaronJ wrote in message <7gond1l3nk5pj04ovrr28t0fmeqkrqrsej@4ax.com>:
> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>
> Other than legality what is the difference?

There is a slight difference*: while you have borrowed the book, others
people can not read it. If a lot of people ask for the book, the library may
buy more exemplaries.

The real condition is: if you can not read the book now for free (by
borrowing it, which is legal, or by downloading it on illegal sources), what
do you do?

If the answer is that you will wait until you can borrow it, then there is
absolutely no harm caused to the author.

jeff wrote in message <42dbe4e8$0$16752$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>:
>> Other than legality what is the difference?
> In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
> live in a country ruled by law?

You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.

The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author. As I
said in my previous message, the question wether downloading the book from
underground sources causes harm to the author depends on what one would have
done if one could not download it: buy it or not.

But the law can not juge on "what would you have done if". Thus, the letter
of the law is either more strict, or less strict than its spirit.

Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
example by asking borrowing fees in libraries. Most of today IP law has been
designed before the information technologies development, and can not be
well suited for new technologies.

When a law is no longer adapted to the common situation, there is a
tolerance to its application, until new trends become obvious and the law
can be revised.

In article <#GN9Jk7iFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, Beverly Howard
[Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> What have you have produced in your life and existance that you can
> afford to allow to be leeched by individuals who feel they have the
> right to take parts of your life without paying for them?
>
> Flowers from your yard, gas from your vehicle, code you have written,
> tools left unsecured, a purse on the front seat, a wallet taken from a
> crowded event, your child's shoes or their gameboy at school, etc, etc?

Interesting that almost all of the items you list above (with the
exception of 'code you have written') are actual material goods. We
don't have matter duplicators yet, so taking them of necessity deprives
the owner of their use. Information, on the other hand, isn't stolen,
it is *copied*.

Information is subject to *copyright*, not *ownership*, despite the
common misnomer "intellectual property". A copyright is a temporary
monopoly given to authors to encourage them to publish; in US law there
is no notion of someone "owning" the actual work. It's not property,
what can be owned and transferred are certain rights over how the
work is duplicated.

As to your one informational example, well, the few stories I have
written and the programs I've done on my own time are released under
the GPL or as public domain.

> I agree that the publishers are far from guiltless, but there are other
> options to deal with them such as fostering alternatives such as
> micropayments to help put them out of business before their time.

I have no ethical problem with circumventing DRM for most purposes.
For example, I don't pirate games, but I always install a no-cd crack
when possible; having game CDs around small children is a recipe for
disaster.

I wouldn't download a Harry Potter book if I didn't own it in another
form. (Having lost interest after the third one, though, I'm unlikely
to download one in any event.) But if I already owned a copy, I
wouldn't be ethically troubled by getting it in electronic form. I've
grabbed MP3s for songs I have on cassette, for example, and I don't
feel a bit of guilt over that.

Just pointing out that it's a bit more complicated than you seem to
have considered. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

--
Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

"Men often believe - or pretend - that the "Law" is something
sacred, or at least a science - an unfounded assumption very
convenient to governments." - Robert Heinlein

There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.

I do find that it's sometimes difficult to do so, such as out of print
editions where the copyright is still in force... several cases in point
including http://bevhoward.com/ycltf.htm#copyright ;-)

Beverly Howard

Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:
> There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
> ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.
>
> I do find that it's sometimes difficult to do so, such as out of print
> editions where the copyright is still in force... several cases in point
> including http://bevhoward.com/ycltf.htm#copyright ;-)
>
> Beverly Howard

He's right, I feel. Legally, I can't download an e-book to read while on
the treadmill, even if I have a physical copy on the shelf. But I don't
feel that I'm doing anything morally wrong.

Getting out of paying for any of it in the first place, well...

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:23:03 -0500, jeff wrote:

> AaronJ wrote:
>> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>>>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>>>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>>>the same violations are visited on ourselves.
>>
>>
>> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
>> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>>
>> Other than legality what is the difference?
>
> In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
> live in a country ruled by law?
>

Yes I do. However it is also my democratic right to engage in civil
disobedience against laws that I feel are unjust, provided I am ready to
accept the consequences.

It is a perfectly reasonable point of view to take, that the widespread
breaking of copyright law (in the U.K. that is just about every single
person over the age of about 10) as civil disobedience.

In the end the laws can only work if the majority of people accept and
abide by them. The fact that there is such widespread breaking of
copyright law shows that in it's current form the majority of people do
not accept it as valid.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

jeff wrote:

>AaronJ wrote:
>> "Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We, as a society, have to respect the rights and property of others,
>>>for, if we fail to do so in any way and at any level (such as an illegal
>>>copy of a book) we implicitly forfeit any and all rights to object when
>>>the same violations are visited on ourselves.
>>
>>
>> I go to the library and borrow a book, read it, and return it.
>> I go to the net, download a book, read it, and erase it.
>>
>> Other than legality what is the difference?
>
>In one case, you have permission, and in the other, you do not. Do you
>live in a country ruled by law?

Yes and apparently in a country of illiterates. My post says "other than
legality"...

Nicolas George wrote:

>There is a slight difference*: while you have borrowed the book, others
>people can not read it. If a lot of people ask for the book, the library may
>buy more exemplaries.

Yes, the library impedes the process. But the process is the same nevertheless.

>The real condition is: if you can not read the book now for free (by
>borrowing it, which is legal, or by downloading it on illegal sources), what
>do you do?

There is a third condition. There are many books still in copyright that are no
longer in print. Then what?

>If the answer is that you will wait until you can borrow it, then there is
>absolutely no harm caused to the author.

You could buy it used, but the author gets nothing...

Nicolas George wrote:

>You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.
>
>The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author.

Actually it is mostly to prevent the harm to the publisher.
The author gets but a small percentage.

>Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
>example by asking borrowing fees in libraries.

Yep, if they thought they could get away with it, library borrowing would be as
illegal (immoral?) as downloading...

"Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev]" wrote:

>There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
>ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.

Ok, how about if I borrow the *same* paper library book that I also download as
an ebook. I keep the library book in my possession while I read the ebook on my
Palm. When finished I delete the ebook and return the library book. Am I covered
morally now? There is no financial difference to anybody...

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:45:43 -0400, Harry Hazardous
wrote the following in
ink distilled from the fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:
>Beverly Howard [Ms-MVP/MobileDev] wrote:

>> There are other examples such as buying the paper book and reading an
>> ecopy which makes ethical sense to me.

>> I do find that it's sometimes difficult to do so, such as out of print
>> editions where the copyright is still in force... several cases in point
>> including http://bevhoward.com/ycltf.htm#copyright ;-)

>> Beverly Howard

>He's right, I feel. Legally, I can't download an e-book to read while on
>the treadmill, even if I have a physical copy on the shelf. But I don't
>feel that I'm doing anything morally wrong.

>Getting out of paying for any of it in the first place, well...

Ok... and look at from another direction.

There are *millions* of HPB books out there. They are not subject to
licence as is MS-PX for example.... they our books so we can do with
them what we wish.

So... we read them... and pass them on to someone - free. This person
has acquired the book for nothing... can read it... and *also* pass it
on. Should they be ethically bound to pay the author or publisher a
'reading fee'??

And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

"AaronJ" wrote in message
news:09eod15vniuo3qbloe7nbokpn5et84t90f@4ax.com...
> Nicolas George wrote:
>
>>You are mistaking the letter of the law and its spirit.
>>
>>The spirit of the law is to prevent people from harming the author.
>
> Actually it is mostly to prevent the harm to the publisher.
> The author gets but a small percentage.
>
>>Authors, and especially publishers, always push toward a stricter law, for
>>example by asking borrowing fees in libraries.
>
> Yep, if they thought they could get away with it, library borrowing would
> be as
> illegal (immoral?) as downloading...

And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
charge.

Ike

www.eickleberrybooks.com

"Sky_rider" wrote in message
news:1oiod15jun1qa9hck3orit3gv6pkb3l8cl@4ax.com...
> Ok... and look at from another direction.
>
> There are *millions* of HPB books out there. They are not subject to
> licence as is MS-PX for example.... they our books so we can do with
> them what we wish.

Err... no. Just as being able to own and drive a car doesn't mean you can
now run people over with impunity, ownership of a CD or book doesn't mean
you can commit illegal actions with said CD or book. Note: I'm not saying I
necessarily agree with the laws themselves here... but I do disagree with
your interpretation of them.

> So... we read them... and pass them on to someone - free. This person
> has acquired the book for nothing... can read it... and *also* pass it
> on. Should they be ethically bound to pay the author or publisher a
> 'reading fee'??

If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal
BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while it
is not in your possession. Once your buddy passes it on, it's still legal
because he cannot reread the book or give out additional copies.

> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?

Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person. I
disagree.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:53:39 -0400, "Tim McKenny"
wrote the following in ink distilled from the
fermented blood of a Norwegian Ridgeback:

>"Sky_rider" wrote in message
>news:1oiod15jun1qa9hck3orit3gv6pkb3l8cl@4ax.com...
>> Ok... and look at from another direction.
>>
>> There are *millions* of HPB books out there. They are not subject to
>> licence as is MS-PX for example.... they our books so we can do with
>> them what we wish.
>
>Err... no. Just as being able to own and drive a car doesn't mean you can
>now run people over with impunity, ownership of a CD or book doesn't mean
>you can commit illegal actions with said CD or book. Note: I'm not saying I
>necessarily agree with the laws themselves here... but I do disagree with
>your interpretation of them.
>
>> So... we read them... and pass them on to someone - free. This person
>> has acquired the book for nothing... can read it... and *also* pass it
>> on. Should they be ethically bound to pay the author or publisher a
>> 'reading fee'??

>If you read a book and pass it on to your buddy, it's perfectly legal
>BECAUSE (and this is the IMPORTANT PART), you cannot read the book while it
>is not in your possession. Once your buddy passes it on, it's still legal
>because he cannot reread the book or give out additional copies.

Hmm... I can see where you're coming from, but from that perspective
there should be no reason why I can't make or download e-copies since
I bought the book (well two copies again actually ).

>> And if the one book is read *free* by 10 or 20 people?? What then?

>Still fine. Because, again, people do not have photographic memories and
>cannot reread the book once it is out of their possession.

Not the point.... if 5 of us sit round and read the read the book...
together, or 30 of us watch the DVD... then each of them is
watching/reading the book free and only one has paid for it!

>> Also, does this second person have the same moral or ethical
>> obligation not to read an e-book version since that is *also* free?

>Yep, he or she does indeed have that same moral obligation. For example:
>it's like saying "My friend loaned me a DVD... and now that I've seen it,
>that entitles me to download a bootlegged copy!" No, it doesn't, because
>when you returned that DVD to your friend, you also lost the ability to
>rewatch the film without borrowing his copy.

And if I keep give them carte blanche to wander in at any time and
watch the DVD? The whole copyright issue is bizarre and the laws cant
possibly cover all circumstances and situations..

>Correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that you're arguing that if
>you go out and purchase a copy of a book, CD, or film, then loan that copy
>you just purchased to another person, then it's as wrong as making a
>physical (or digital) DUPLICATE of the book and GIVING it to that person. I
>disagree.

Logically tho the person you've loaned or given it to is now able to
view the DVD for free... yes I've bought it... but... ?? Also, since I
bought the DVD, I ought to be able to make copies of it in case I
damage the original... but DVD's are copy protected and all my efforts
to copy them seem doomed to fail... tho others seem to manage it
--
Skyrider

Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
http://www.australianopinion.com

"Ray Ingles" wrote in message
news:slrnddq1vg.tpv.sorceror@dmc22317.local...
> In article , Tony Clark
> wrote:
>
SNIP

>
> E.g. see the Baen Free Library (http://www.baen.com/library/), which
> has worked on me. I've downloaded several books from them, and then gone
> on to purchase dead-tree ones from them too. Read the home page for a
> case that "Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the
> practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any
> existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced
> cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books,
> used book stores, promotional copies, etc."
>

Well I am not so sure that I agree with Baen's statement that there are no
practical differences between online piracy and other methods by which
people my obtain free books. It's one thing to loan a single copy of a book
to a friend it's another thing altogether to make a book available to
millions of people instantly online. That's sort of like saying there's no
practical difference between a handgun and a nuclear bomb.

I think we agree, however, that many of the copyright laws and DRM need
revision.

Cheers
TC

SNIP