Attn: Gordon: Your "Electronics for Dummies"
DaemonWalker
Your Electronics for Dummies was post last night to
Alt.binaries.e-books.technical with a lot of other books that would be
very useful to newbiews in the group.
The Hirudinea.
Gordon McComb
That's sad. I wasn't aware that I spent 3+ months writing the thing just
to have people take it. At least a library, which serves an important
public need, buys each copy they loan out. It's nice people are so
willing to take away a person's means of making a living. I'm sure these
people think book authors are rich and don't need money. I'd like to
show them what a rich author drives: a 1992 Toyota Tercel with 217,000
miles on it.
Someday I'll have to find a way to get Countrywide, my mortgage lender,
to let me send them images of money that I download for free from
binaries newsgroups.
-- Gordon
mlw
It is a serious problem. The media business is going digital, it has too.
Unfortunately, digital files can not be made un-copyable any more than
water can be made unwet. Pay for media, books, magazines, etc. are all
suffering.
The problem seems to be that the business model on which this is founded is
dead. The publisher's business is based on a difficulty of deliverability.
Now that everything is digital and the internet can pass megabytes in
seconds, there is no real way publishers can make money. It is a dying
business, much the same way that you no longer see hay stands on the side
of the road for horses. It will take time, but all limitations will be
artificial and something that can be circumvented.
The next person to make a billion dollars will come up with a way to pay for
the creation of media creation.
Why don't you beat the people to the punch, create a web site for the book
and smear it with google ads? Make it a good site, indexed, searchable,
with samples etc. You may end up making more money with the site than with
a publisher.
I can even host it if you can't find anyone.
Si Ballenger
If you can see the full headers of the post (my isp doesn't
carry the binarys groups) you should see a line with
NNTP-Posting-Host: and an IP address. This address will usually
tell from which system/account the post came from. A complaint to
the ISP about posting copyrighted material might get the account
terminated with the message that people do care.
mlw
Still, it is a finger in the dike, so to speak. The market for such books is
dwindling. Gordon will probably admit it.
At issue is the added value which these books bring. Before the explosion of
information on the internet, there was a limited supply of usable and
current information available. Publishers made money conveying these works
to retail outlets to fulfill demand. These days, demand is so low as the
process of shipping materials to retail outlets is barely worth it.
In my business, I have worked with a lot of companies looking at this exact
problem and there three basic forms of print media: periodicals and
magazines, technical/non-fiction, and fiction.
Fiction is safe. H.G. Wells can be read today, as 100 years ago, and still
be valuable as literature. Read page to page while relaxing.
Periodicals and Magazines will die and be replaced with web sites which can
be profitable with advertisements and special offers.
Technical and non-fiction works are the most troubling. There is an
assumption that there is a "value" to a learned opinion and work, but the
question at hand is there a "market" for such work? Unlike a magazine or
periodical, technical books are not usually updated every day. Unlike a
fiction work, technical and non-fiction works are seldom read page to page
and technical works become outdated rather quickly and require updates,
further increasing cost and reducing the value of owning a specific printed
copy.
So, technical and non-fiction works have all the worst qualities of both.
Information likes to be searchable and indexed, books are not. Technical
information can change with progress, printed books do not.
The billion dollar question is: How does this form of writing get funded?
Can it be funded? Is it a buggywhip problem where there is simply no viable
market?
Markus Zingg
>to have people take it.
That's sad - really - but out of personal experience (not with a book
but a back then popular shareware) I can tell you that the influence
is probably not as big as it seems at first glance. Most people enjoy
a book because they can take it with them. I'm quite confident that
the wast mojority of those who might download it would never have
bought it in the first place.
It's amazing to see that most people actually are honest if the offer
(your book) is fairly priced and actualy honner the effort and pay. At
least that was the experience I made back then when once my software
was posted in a newsgroup. I also remember though how sad I felt back
then - that's why I thought to share my experience here.
HTH
Markus
Padu
"Si Ballenger"
>
> If you can see the full headers of the post (my isp doesn't
> carry the binarys groups) you should see a line with
> NNTP-Posting-Host: and an IP address. This address will usually
> tell from which system/account the post came from. A complaint to
> the ISP about posting copyrighted material might get the account
> terminated with the message that people do care.
That's probably a good thing to do. A friend of mine here in San Diego got
his account temporarily suspended because he had a copy of Borland Delphi on
his shareazaa. I guess someone from borland noticed that, called Cox and
they suspended the account for a few days as a first time warning.
Since that day, all of us (the san diego brazilian pirates) stopped
"sharing" things over the internet. The consequence was that now I bought
Delphi and VS2005 instead of downloading.
Cheers
Padu
Gordon McComb
> It is a serious problem. The media business is going digital, it has too.
> Unfortunately, digital files can not be made un-copyable any more than
> water can be made unwet. Pay for media, books, magazines, etc. are all
> suffering.
>
> The problem seems to be that the business model on which this is founded is
> dead. The publisher's business is based on a difficulty of deliverability.
> Now that everything is digital and the internet can pass megabytes in
> seconds, there is no real way publishers can make money. It is a dying
> business, much the same way that you no longer see hay stands on the side
> of the road for horses. It will take time, but all limitations will be
> artificial and something that can be circumvented.
>
> The next person to make a billion dollars will come up with a way to pay for
> the creation of media creation.
>
> Why don't you beat the people to the punch, create a web site for the book
> and smear it with google ads? Make it a good site, indexed, searchable,
> with samples etc. You may end up making more money with the site than with
> a publisher.
>
> I can even host it if you can't find anyone.
Thanks for the ideas. I've already pretty much dropped out of writing
traditional published books because it's so hard to make a living at it.
There are a few old hands still in the biz, but they tend to fall into
either of two categories: They're merely revising existing books (far
easier than writing a new one each time) or they write books to further
another type of business, like consulting, speaking, or newsletter
publishing. I recognize almost none of the names on the roster of
authors represented by my agent.
The thing about the ad-supported Web page concept is if it really paid
better than traditional publishing, everyone would be doing it. There
are no hidden secrets in this biz, and the action goes where the money
is. Publishers would be rushing to put their books up on their own pages
as, afterall, it's a lot cheaper than printing on paper.
There are still plenty of risks -- probably more than in traditional
publishing -- in ad-supported Web publishing. There are black hats who
know how to steal your keywords, dropping you from the top-10 Google
position to the bottom 100...or worse. There are even those who steal
pages outright, and change them with their own Gooooooogle ads. These
people know how to add and drop Google AdSense accounts faster than
Google can keep up with them. In a world where there are crooks with a
computer, really nothing is safe.
I've already mentioned here that I am working on something different
outside the traditional book market, but that's about all I can say
right now. I won't make a billion dollars with it, but if it helps put
new tires on my wife's car, I'm happy.
-- Gordon
Gordon McComb
> At
> least that was the experience I made back then when once my software
> was posted in a newsgroup. I also remember though how sad I felt back
> then - that's why I thought to share my experience here.
Markus, Much appreciate your sharing!
I agree that in the scheme of things this one instance doesn't mean a
lot. What gets me down is the callous disregard by a small but brazen
group to steal from other human beings (forget big corporations, I'm
talking individuals), then justify their actions with bogus excuse or
another.
-- Gordon
Too_Many_Tools
I for one still buy technical books...good technical books.
Your books are good technical books....all of them.
Thanks for the effort....I do alot of technical writing and appreciate
the work it takes to make a good technical book.
FWIW
TMT
mlw
Yea, I have done some stuff with mags and a couple book publishers in the
past. Nothing in my name, but collaborations. Not my day job, so to speak,
but a little extra income. Right now, there is nothing. I've gotten calls
from a few publishers asking if I had any ideas or knew anyone.
Practically every subject has a book and no one is buying books.
>
> The thing about the ad-supported Web page concept is if it really paid
> better than traditional publishing, everyone would be doing it. There
> are no hidden secrets in this biz, and the action goes where the money
> is. Publishers would be rushing to put their books up on their own pages
> as, afterall, it's a lot cheaper than printing on paper.
Yes and no. I can't name names, but some big companies are looking into
this. The problem with paper publishers is that they don't get it yet.
Conceptually, the sort of books you write are not well suited for paper
publication. They are best suited for an interactive web site that can be
searched and read as needed. Also, web sites are easy to update with
improvements and commentary.
Without giving too much away (funny how we all have our secrets), IMHO the
business of informative and HOWTO books is dead, and rightfully so. The
internet replaces that sort of reading much more naturally. The problem
isn't what you write or do, Gordon, but it is the format and medium in
which you do it.
I believe there is still a strong market for good writers who do research
and present ideas well. The hard part is inventing the facilitation of the
product. The encouraging part is that you, as the author, can self publish
and take the middle men (publishers, teamsters, retail outlest, etc.) out,
but the discouraging part is that there is no longer a publisher to give
advances or manage the marketing.
>
> There are still plenty of risks -- probably more than in traditional
> publishing -- in ad-supported Web publishing. There are black hats who
> know how to steal your keywords, dropping you from the top-10 Google
> position to the bottom 100...or worse. There are even those who steal
> pages outright, and change them with their own Gooooooogle ads. These
> people know how to add and drop Google AdSense accounts faster than
> Google can keep up with them. In a world where there are crooks with a
> computer, really nothing is safe.
Well, as you have seen, that is true no matter what. There is always abuse
and cheating.
>
> I've already mentioned here that I am working on something different
> outside the traditional book market, but that's about all I can say
> right now. I won't make a billion dollars with it, but if it helps put
> new tires on my wife's car, I'm happy.
Cool, let us know.
Too_Many_Tools
paper
publication. They are best suited for an interactive web site that can
be
searched and read as needed. Also, web sites are easy to update with
improvements and commentary."
I would disagree on this.
Ever try to find a web page a few years after you first saw it...and
now you really NEED that technical information?
Dead links are the scourge of the Internet. If those who profit from
the money I spend on technical publications expect me to use the
Internet for significant long term technical references, they will need
to step up to the plate and provide long term web support for that
information. Publishers, like manufacturers, are providing less and
less support as time goes on.
Another sensitive subject that a significant number of Internet users
are on dialup....and will always be on dialup. This precludes dealing
with large amounts of data...pdf files, video, large downloads. This
problem of lack of bandwidth is not going to go away. I also note that
in field situations where I have no Internet connnection I can still
use a reference book at full bandwidth.
Anyone who thinks web based references are the only references in the
future are deluding themselves.
TMT
Padu
"mlw"
>
> Practically every subject has a book and no one is buying books.
>
Call me old school, but I like printed books, and I still buy'em a lot (if
you want to give me a good present, go to my amazon wishlist). I like to
read them, I like to have them. e-book is ok, but I'm not so sure if I'll
have it in 10-20 years from now. My Z-80 book is still on my library.
> Conceptually, the sort of books you write are not well suited for paper
> publication. They are best suited for an interactive web site that can be
> searched and read as needed. Also, web sites are easy to update with
> improvements and commentary.
While the CTRL+F feature is good at any time, I never had problems finding
something in a paper book (if index is well done).
> Without giving too much away (funny how we all have our secrets), IMHO the
> business of informative and HOWTO books is dead, and rightfully so. The
> internet replaces that sort of reading much more naturally. The problem
> isn't what you write or do, Gordon, but it is the format and medium in
> which you do it.
Format is nothing without content.
Cheers
Padu
mlw
>
> "mlw"
>>
>> Practically every subject has a book and no one is buying books.
>>
>
> Call me old school, but I like printed books, and I still buy'em a lot (if
> you want to give me a good present, go to my amazon wishlist). I like to
> read them, I like to have them. e-book is ok, but I'm not so sure if I'll
> have it in 10-20 years from now. My Z-80 book is still on my library.
Yes, but do you need your Z80 book right now?
Persistence of medium is just one problem, of course, but the real issue is
the information contained within.
Think about trying to find a specific item of information. You have half a
dozen books on a subject, you need to find all 6 and skim through the index
and/or chapters to find what you are looking for.
>
>> Conceptually, the sort of books you write are not well suited for paper
>> publication. They are best suited for an interactive web site that can be
>> searched and read as needed. Also, web sites are easy to update with
>> improvements and commentary.
>
> While the CTRL+F feature is good at any time, I never had problems finding
> something in a paper book (if index is well done).
I have a lot of hobbies. One of which is cars. I have more or less given up
on my books and deal almost exclusively with the internet for information.
How do you find the torque pattern for tightening the heads of a small
block chevy engine? On the net, it is easy.
>
>> Without giving too much away (funny how we all have our secrets), IMHO
>> the business of informative and HOWTO books is dead, and rightfully so.
>> The internet replaces that sort of reading much more naturally. The
>> problem isn't what you write or do, Gordon, but it is the format and
>> medium in which you do it.
>
> Format is nothing without content.
Absolutely, and I hope people don't think I meant to lessen it, however, the
same exact content, one printed on type writer paper in monospaced courier
and another printed with multiple aesthetic fonts with highlights, bold,
and italics, which is easier to read?
Content is vital, but format is important as well.
mlw
> "Conceptually, the sort of books you write are not well suited for
> paper
> publication. They are best suited for an interactive web site that can
> be
> searched and read as needed. Also, web sites are easy to update with
> improvements and commentary."
>
> I would disagree on this.
>
> Ever try to find a web page a few years after you first saw it...and
> now you really NEED that technical information?
Yes, that is a HUGE problem.
>
> Dead links are the scourge of the Internet. If those who profit from
> the money I spend on technical publications expect me to use the
> Internet for significant long term technical references, they will need
> to step up to the plate and provide long term web support for that
> information. Publishers, like manufacturers, are providing less and
> less support as time goes on.
That is exactly one of the problems that does need to be addressed.
>
> Another sensitive subject that a significant number of Internet users
> are on dialup....and will always be on dialup. This precludes dealing
> with large amounts of data...pdf files, video, large downloads. This
> problem of lack of bandwidth is not going to go away. I also note that
> in field situations where I have no Internet connnection I can still
> use a reference book at full bandwidth.
See, I think that is wishful thinking. I bet you make more use of the web
than you are willing to admit. Yes, books are good for a static "snapshot"
in time, but not very good for current reference. By the time a technical
book is published and distributed, it is almost by definition obsolete.
>
> Anyone who thinks web based references are the only references in the
> future are deluding themselves.
Well, I think economics demand that reference books die. They are obsolete
before they get to the shelves, they cost a lot to print, move, and take up
a lot of shelf space at the book store that otherwise could be filled with
candy, games, mugs, or coffee.
While I agree there is, in fact, a need for reference "books," the billion
dollar question is how do you may a viable business at it. People say they
like books, but all the publishers know, they just don't like to buy them.
Like movies, for the time being, there will be blockbusters, but slowly the
big screen movie business is dying because of cable, satellite, and big
screen TVs and sound systems. Information and HOWTO books are being killed
by a glut of information on the web.
In formation on the web is also easier to use. First, its already in your
home, no need to go to the book store and find it, second, you can "find"
what you are looking for with Google, third it is mostly free, lastly, you
can print it, take notes on it, and put it in a notebook.
Gordon McComb
>
> "mlw"
> >
> > Practically every subject has a book and no one is buying books.
> >
>
> Call me old school, but I like printed books, and I still buy'em a lot (if
> you want to give me a good present, go to my amazon wishlist). I like to
> read them, I like to have them. e-book is ok, but I'm not so sure if I'll
> have it in 10-20 years from now. My Z-80 book is still on my library.
Sweeping generalizations aside, the truth is that book sales in general
are down from pre 9/11 days, but it's not just at the hand of the
Internet, because the sales trend also affects books where the Internet
provides no affective alternative (mass market fiction). The dynamics
include increased TV watching, video games, handhelds, longer job
commutes, piracy, and of course Web surfing, which includes surfing for
the latest Angelina Jolie pictures, not just programming examples for
robot arm kinematics. There are a lot of things competing for a person's
time.
The business of publishing a printed book includes the reality of
dealing with two major chains in the US that dominate the sales of
books. They have very specific sales requirements based on "turns" over
a given period of time. They like their shelf space to earn a certain
amount of money per month.
The problem is if sales of a book dip below a pre-programmed sales pace,
it will not be automatically reordered. The book is effectively dead at
that point, even though it might still have an audience. Special orders,
Amazon, and specialty online sources save such books from early
extinction, but the royalties from such sources are no comparison to the
sales from traditional Borders and Barnes & Noble stores.
I will still buy a good programming book rather than rely on online
resources because I have found, in general, that books provide better
and more consistent examples. I can usually also find what I need
faster, because search engine like Google have been so poisoned by the
black hats. And, while I can bookmark a page, I cannot (at least not
with the browser I use), tag a specific part of a longer page with the
equivalent of a Post-it. I cannot write in the margin of the page with
my own notes. I resort to printing out pages, but this is
counter-productive and wasteful.
-- Gordon
Gordon McComb
> I have a lot of hobbies. One of which is cars. I have more or less given up
> on my books and deal almost exclusively with the internet for information.
> How do you find the torque pattern for tightening the heads of a small
> block chevy engine? On the net, it is easy.
I'd have to say I wouldn't *trust* a Web page with something that could
warp the head if the info is wrong. You'd have to know the page is from
masters of the art, or you're just asking for trouble.
I'm a sucker for original repair manuals, and I pay good money to have
one. It's part of the overall experience of the hobby. What's a classic
car without a classic manual? I have one for my '73 Z, and my '74
Plymouth.
I have a VERY extensive collection of Popular Science, Popular
Mechanics, and similar magazines from the 30s to the late 60s. I've seen
some of them scanned and available on Web pages. Dude, it's not just the
information on the page! It's the smell of the paper, the original
five-and-dime store receipt for the magazine tucked inside, the old
Addressograph label on the front cover.
Granted, the cerebral reaction to old books and magazines is not what
we're talking about here, but I think it does point up the fact that
different people have different reasons for preferring one medium over
another.
-- Gordon
Padu
>
> Yes, but do you need your Z80 book right now?
> Persistence of medium is just one problem, of course, but the real issue
> is
> the information contained within.
Well, I don't need my car while I'm writing this... it's all a question of
time.
Interesting enough, last month I was paginating that old book and some
things that didn't make sense when I bought it do make sense now that I'm
more into robotics and stuff.
Of course I only keep the ones that really have some persistent content. For
example my Word 6.0 book is long gone, and that type of book I believe I
will never buy again since tutorials are available on the net for virtually
any type of software.
>
> Think about trying to find a specific item of information. You have half a
> dozen books on a subject, you need to find all 6 and skim through the
> index
> and/or chapters to find what you are looking for.
>
I'm halfway completing my thesis for my master. I have to do much more than
skimming through all 6 books I have in my shelf, plus the other dozen that I
borrowed from the library. Too_many_tools also have an excellent point on
citation. While it is theoretically permitted to cite online resourses, it
practice it is academically frown upon.
>> While the CTRL+F feature is good at any time, I never had problems
>> finding
>> something in a paper book (if index is well done).
>
> I have a lot of hobbies. One of which is cars. I have more or less given
> up
> on my books and deal almost exclusively with the internet for information.
> How do you find the torque pattern for tightening the heads of a small
> block chevy engine? On the net, it is easy.
I agree, it depends very much on the type of content. Who needs a printout
of a datasheet for example?
>> Format is nothing without content.
>
> Absolutely, and I hope people don't think I meant to lessen it, however,
> the
> same exact content, one printed on type writer paper in monospaced courier
> and another printed with multiple aesthetic fonts with highlights, bold,
> and italics, which is easier to read?
>
> Content is vital, but format is important as well.
Again I agree, but the inverse is not true though.
Cheers
Padu
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> I have a lot of hobbies. One of which is cars. I have more or less given
>> up on my books and deal almost exclusively with the internet for
>> information. How do you find the torque pattern for tightening the heads
>> of a small block chevy engine? On the net, it is easy.
>
> I'd have to say I wouldn't *trust* a Web page with something that could
> warp the head if the info is wrong. You'd have to know the page is from
> masters of the art, or you're just asking for trouble.
That is a problem, yes, although, you can usually pick out the gems from the
stones if you basically know what you are doing.
>
> I'm a sucker for original repair manuals, and I pay good money to have
> one. It's part of the overall experience of the hobby. What's a classic
> car without a classic manual? I have one for my '73 Z, and my '74
> Plymouth.
As do I, I have a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, I built a new motor for it, added
fuel injection, new transmission, etc. I have the Haynes book on it, but I
also have a notebook with all my changes and notes. There are times I need
really *really* obscure knowledge. :-)
>
> I have a VERY extensive collection of Popular Science, Popular
> Mechanics, and similar magazines from the 30s to the late 60s. I've seen
> some of them scanned and available on Web pages. Dude, it's not just the
> information on the page! It's the smell of the paper, the original
> five-and-dime store receipt for the magazine tucked inside, the old
> Addressograph label on the front cover.
Nostalgia, not withstanding -- I would never part with my old Byte and
Popular Electronics mags -- the economics of these things are no longer
practical.
>
> Granted, the cerebral reaction to old books and magazines is not what
> we're talking about here, but I think it does point up the fact that
> different people have different reasons for preferring one medium over
> another.
People may prefer certain media, and no one, including myself, is arguing
that. The point I am making is that the economics have changed and that
sort of media costs more than it makes, or at least doesn't offer enough
profit incentive to maintain it as a business.
I would *love* to go back to the 80's and 90's where these sorts of books
sold a hundred thousand copies, but these days, you're lucky to get 10,000
copies sold.
Think of it as the difference between tube and transistor amplifiers, or
vinyl vs CD, or 8-track vs cassette. The content remains the same, and
people will argue the various merits of the various medium, but the facts
are that times change and things that don't make economic sense go away.
The difficulty, it seems to me, is that the economic viability of the market
is dwindling but the replacement market has not been created [yet?]. This
is leaving a defacto standard, the internet, as a weak substitute.
Joe Pfeiffer
> > I'm a sucker for original repair manuals, and I pay good money to have
> > one. It's part of the overall experience of the hobby. What's a classic
> > car without a classic manual? I have one for my '73 Z, and my '74
> > Plymouth.
>
> As do I, I have a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, I built a new motor for it, added
> fuel injection, new transmission, etc. I have the Haynes book on it, but I
> also have a notebook with all my changes and notes. There are times I need
> really *really* obscure knowledge. :-)
Get the FSM! Haynes is no substitute.
I'm curious as to what the Plymouth is -- my daily driver is a 1978
Chrysler Newport.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Gordon McComb
>
> mlw <m...@nospamnoway.zz> writes:
>
> > > I'm a sucker for original repair manuals, and I pay good money to have
> > > one. It's part of the overall experience of the hobby. What's a classic
> > > car without a classic manual? I have one for my '73 Z, and my '74
> > > Plymouth.
> >
> > As do I, I have a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, I built a new motor for it, added
> > fuel injection, new transmission, etc. I have the Haynes book on it, but I
> > also have a notebook with all my changes and notes. There are times I need
> > really *really* obscure knowledge. :-)
>
> Get the FSM! Haynes is no substitute.
>
> I'm curious as to what the Plymouth is -- my daily driver is a 1978
> Chrysler Newport.
ORIGINAL manuals only! I also collect the original ad material and
brochures.
Stock Plymouth Valiant Brougham, 318 V8 (the small one), automatic. Even
has the original AM-only radio, though the radio is for looks only as
the sound system uses a new CD player. Last weekend I burned something
out, and the electrical system is dead. Something else to work on now
Because it's a V8 it's not my daily driver. And it has a rear seal leak
so it goes through oil. Plan to fix that when we get the engine rebuilt
(has 190K on it).
Both the Z and the Plymouth are "project" cars for me and my son. By the
time we're done with them we will have spent far more money on them than
they're worth.
-- Gordon
mlw
> mlw <m...@nospamnoway.zz> writes:
>
>> > I'm a sucker for original repair manuals, and I pay good money to have
>> > one. It's part of the overall experience of the hobby. What's a classic
>> > car without a classic manual? I have one for my '73 Z, and my '74
>> > Plymouth.
>>
>> As do I, I have a 1987 Pontiac Firebird, I built a new motor for it,
>> added fuel injection, new transmission, etc. I have the Haynes book on
>> it, but I also have a notebook with all my changes and notes. There are
>> times I need really *really* obscure knowledge. :-)
>
> Get the FSM! Haynes is no substitute.
I am so past the point where the FSM even makes sense. By the end of the
summer, I may be able to remove the ECM all together.
I have rewired the transmission so I can lock up the torque converter at
will, I have put an after market fuel injection system in it, and it
doesn't look like the dashboard relies on the ECM all that much.
My dream is to remove *all* silly GM writing and replace it with a computer,
a P.C. system, running Linux, of course.
pogo
him make some newsgroups worthless - or at least not worth the time it takes to scroll all the BS and/or write filters/rules to
avoid them. I can understand 1 or 2 chapters to see what the book's like, but even that should be from the publisher / authors. I
have a dead, powerless, no brains-on-board robot in the corner with more integrity ...
"Si Ballenger" <shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net> wrote in message news:445113a9....@news.comporium.net...
Too_Many_Tools
Internet is "free"....yet.
In time you will see Internet sales taxed.
Internet usage will also be taxed like the State and Federal fuel taxes
you are charged to maintain the highways you use.
TMT
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> Both the Z and the Plymouth are "project" cars for me and my son. By the
> time we're done with them we will have spent far more money on them than
> they're worth.
I spent more on my Newport than it was worth when I replaced the
heater motor. I think somebody who took a more rational view than I
do would argue I spend more on it than it's worth every time I fill
the gas tank... but it's my baby, inherited from my mom. Soon as I
get my wife's car (2000 Intrepid R/T) on the road, Baby goes in for
some serious body work.
SumGie
"Markus Zingg" <m.z...@nct.ch> wrote in message
news:7c8252h4vltcssch8...@4ax.com...
My sentiments exactly. I have been known to treat anything I find on the
web as shareware. I'll download it, with whatever keys or cracks are
offered with it, and try it out. If I find it useful, I'll go buy it. If
I read through a downloaded book once and then never find use for it again,
I delete and move on. In the case of programs, if I use it only a few
times, the same deal applies. Delete or go buy.
If I had paid good money just to find out that it wasn't something I'd ever
use again, that would have made me rather... perturbed!
What the publishing industry needs if it wants to survive is a machine that
can print and bind a single copy of a book, and have it ready to ship to the
customer's house next day.
Gordon McComb
> What the publishing industry needs if it wants to survive is a machine that
> can print and bind a single copy of a book, and have it ready to ship to the
> customer's house next day.
They've had this for a long while, avtually. Way back in '97 Ingram (a
major book distributor), IBM, and Barnes & Noble were in a co-venture to
produce such "print on demand" books. The venture is still around, and
is still churning out a million+ books per year:
https://www.lightningsource.com. I was involved in a startup funded by
B&N in 1999-2000 where I packaged several dozen books through this
method.
With POD you have the benefit of zero inventory but at a *much* higher
unit cost. POD has its place, but like everything else, it's not the one
answer to what ails the publishing industry.
-- Gordon
mlw
It is also encouraging that MP3 downloads tend to INCREASE CD sales. Every
independent study has shown this, it is only studies done by RIAA the try
to show differently -- but they focus on previous trends and expected
sales, not current trends and economy.
Gordon McComb
> It is also encouraging that MP3 downloads tend to INCREASE CD sales. Every
> independent study has shown this, it is only studies done by RIAA the try
> to show differently -- but they focus on previous trends and expected
> sales, not current trends and economy.
I think it's more accurate to say MP3 downloads can increase *music*
sales, as long as the full album is not widely and freely available
elsewhere. The CD is just one delivery mechanism, and its sales are
hardly booming these days -- entire CD retailers who have been selling
music for decades are shutting down. The per-song download merely
replaces the 45 single as a way to promote the full album, but it
doesn't work if folks can go online and get a rip of the album for free.
I'm no fan of ther RIAA or its tactics, but I'm not aware they are still
against MP3s and music downloads, just unauthorized music downloads.
-- Gordon
mlw
This has gotten so far off robotics it isn't funny, but, I think I need to
clarify my statements. "illegal" downloads tend to increase sales of music.
Time and time again, all statistics indicate that this increases overall
music sales. The problem is that some people do not buy the music and
simply use the downloaded version, but the flip side of the argument is
that other people who would not have otherwise heard the music will and a
percentage of them buy.
I dealt with some music creeps a few years back, they wanted to hire me to
write bots to populate kazaa and gnutella with bogus music tacks. They are
so anal, they can't see the forrest through the trees.
The internet is revolutionary in that it makes old ways of doing business
obsolete. Any business model that has to be protected by law and not by
economics is eventually going to be a failure.
Gordon McComb
> This has gotten so far off robotics it isn't funny, but, I think I need to
> clarify my statements. "illegal" downloads tend to increase sales of music.
> Time and time again, all statistics indicate that this increases overall
> music sales. The problem is that some people do not buy the music and
> simply use the downloaded version, but the flip side of the argument is
> that other people who would not have otherwise heard the music will and a
> percentage of them buy.
Doesn't this imply that legal downloads would enhance music sales just
the same as illegal downloads, assuming a wide enough distribution of
the files? I don't think there is anything about the illegal files that
makes them a larger contributor to album sales, except that the illegal
stuff tends to get traded in ways the prime demographic of music (14-24
year olds) will more likely see. Grandpa isn't typically trolling
Gnutella looking for Montovani. The labels are slowly learning how to
cope in the Internet age.
Publishers could probably take a cue from the music biz (pun intended)
and make more content available, but a surprising amount already is for
people who know where to find it. For example, many of the technical
books on Amazon are fully indexed and searchable, so you can get a
really good sense if it's going to help you.
Your analogy of the record industry is wll taken though, and not at all
off-topic. I feel publishers are even more behind the curve than record
labels in dealing with business in the Internet age. That's why I'm not
writing traditional books at this time. Publishers, especially of
non-fiction, are seriously in need of new ideas. However, they are major
copycats. Once some folks demonstrate a better method, they will all
flock to it.
-- Gordon
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> This has gotten so far off robotics it isn't funny, but, I think I need
>> to clarify my statements. "illegal" downloads tend to increase sales of
>> music. Time and time again, all statistics indicate that this increases
>> overall music sales. The problem is that some people do not buy the music
>> and simply use the downloaded version, but the flip side of the argument
>> is that other people who would not have otherwise heard the music will
>> and a percentage of them buy.
>
> Doesn't this imply that legal downloads would enhance music sales just
> the same as illegal downloads, assuming a wide enough distribution of
> the files?
Absolutely not. A lot of people would buy a product if they like it, but
won't pay for it if they don't know. The music business does not like the
idea that people may listen to music *before* the companies are
compensated.
Downloading (illegally, well, actually "fair use") music is a great way to
experience new music and a great way to enhance the tastes of listeners.
> I don't think there is anything about the illegal files that
> makes them a larger contributor to album sales, except that the illegal
> stuff tends to get traded in ways the prime demographic of music (14-24
> year olds) will more likely see. Grandpa isn't typically trolling
> Gnutella looking for Montovani. The labels are slowly learning how to
> cope in the Internet age.
>
> Publishers could probably take a cue from the music biz (pun intended)
> and make more content available, but a surprising amount already is for
> people who know where to find it. For example, many of the technical
> books on Amazon are fully indexed and searchable, so you can get a
> really good sense if it's going to help you.
Trust me, the *LAST* thing civilization needs is the publication business
learning from the music and movie industry.
If the publishing business took queues from RIAA and MPAA, looking over
someone's shoulder to read a headline of a news paper would be a license
violation and punishable by prison time.
>
> Your analogy of the record industry is wll taken though, and not at all
> off-topic. I feel publishers are even more behind the curve than record
> labels in dealing with business in the Internet age. That's why I'm not
> writing traditional books at this time. Publishers, especially of
> non-fiction, are seriously in need of new ideas. However, they are major
> copycats. Once some folks demonstrate a better method, they will all
> flock to it.
>
The question and fear I have is that they *will* take queues from MPAA and
RIAA, lobby for draconian laws and a further assault on the "fair use"
doctrine.
Padu
> Publishers could probably take a cue from the music biz (pun intended)
> and make more content available, but a surprising amount already is for
> people who know where to find it. For example, many of the technical
> books on Amazon are fully indexed and searchable, so you can get a
> really good sense if it's going to help you.
This is interesting. The first time I saw that feature on Amazon and
subsequently on google, I said: Gee, I'll never buy a book again. I can't
speak for everybody neither offer any kind of statistics, but in my case,
the opposite happened. I started to buy more books. When I need some
information from a book and I check it online and it does solve my problem
and I can see it is good quality, I'll buy it right away, even after my
problem was already solved.
Now, the other side of the coin is that if I see the book is crap, I won't
fall into the trap of buying it and then getting frustrated latter.
I think the same is happening with music. I don't need to buy a 16 music CD
to get one or two tracks that are really worthwhile. And I think that
someday (soon) the artists will realize that and they won't spend time
recording crappy musics they know won't sell. So I believe less music will
be produced, but with more quality. Also, there is the thing that sometimes
you don't buy a CD album because of the music it contains, but because you
are a fan. No matter how good or bad it is, I'll buy the latest Pearl Jam
album simply because I am their fan, and I can't put an MP3 on my stand.
Piracy will never end. The industry just need to come up with something to
avoid mass scale piracy. Who never recorded cassete tapes from radio music
before? How's that different from downloading a music from kazaa or similar?
Cheers
Padu
mlw
>
> I think the same is happening with music. I don't need to buy a 16 music
> CD to get one or two tracks that are really worthwhile. And I think that
> someday (soon) the artists will realize that and they won't spend time
> recording crappy musics they know won't sell. So I believe less music will
> be produced, but with more quality. Also, there is the thing that
> sometimes you don't buy a CD album because of the music it contains, but
> because you are a fan. No matter how good or bad it is, I'll buy the
> latest Pearl Jam album simply because I am their fan, and I can't put an
> MP3 on my stand.
This paragraph makes me shudder, it documents the eventual failure of music
as an "art" form. Like most things of cultural import, not all things are
snappy and "pop."
Reducing "Abbey Road" to its most popular tracks -- at the time --
eliminates, IMHO, it's worth as art. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" or "Dark Side
of the Moon" are works that stand as a whole.
In the old days, the 45 single, was the snappy "pop" song to sell an album.
Sure, some people bought just the 45, but a lot of people would buy the
album and get more from the artist and the art.
IMHO, what's missing today in the music industry, is the view that it is
art. It has been reduced to mere marketable product, leaving uncomfortable
things like ideas, messages, and thinking by the wayside.
>
> Piracy will never end. The industry just need to come up with something to
> avoid mass scale piracy. Who never recorded cassete tapes from radio music
> before? How's that different from downloading a music from kazaa or
> similar?
"Piracy" is a nonsense term created applied to a bogus concept, that people
should not share. The history of civilization is that ideas and works need
to be shared and economics be damned. Perhaps starving artists,
unfortunately, are a real and necessary part of the mix. A person with
little to lose is freer to express controversial ideas and concepts than
one afraid of losing his [b][m]illion dollar music deal.
There is a HUGE problem right now in this country with the notion of
"copyright," and "intellectual property." The original copyright statute
was intended to be a limited protection for the author, but balanced for
the better good of society. Read Benjamin Franklin's writings on the
subject. Today, copyright is being assaulted by Disney and RIAA trying to
make it into a form of wealth.
Don't even get me started on patents!!!
Padu
>
> This paragraph makes me shudder, it documents the eventual failure of
> music
> as an "art" form. Like most things of cultural import, not all things are
> snappy and "pop."
I don't think you got the essence of what I'm trying to convey.
>
> Reducing "Abbey Road" to its most popular tracks -- at the time --
> eliminates, IMHO, it's worth as art. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" or "Dark Side
> of the Moon" are works that stand as a whole.
That's why I have them in vinyl and CD. These are definitely worthy, but I
won't buy the latest modest mouse album because of 1 music only. If an
artist want me to buy the whole album, then he better create something
that's worthy.
> In the old days, the 45 single, was the snappy "pop" song to sell an
> album.
> Sure, some people bought just the 45, but a lot of people would buy the
> album and get more from the artist and the art.
>
> IMHO, what's missing today in the music industry, is the view that it is
> art. It has been reduced to mere marketable product, leaving uncomfortable
> things like ideas, messages, and thinking by the wayside.
That's why I don't buy albums anymore. Eventually there's one or two bands
that will produce an album that's really art, others will produce one song
that is art, the rest is filling. I don't buy filling.
>> Piracy will never end. The industry just need to come up with something
>> to
>> avoid mass scale piracy. Who never recorded cassete tapes from radio
>> music
>> before? How's that different from downloading a music from kazaa or
>> similar?
>
> "Piracy" is a nonsense term created applied to a bogus concept, that
> people
> should not share. The history of civilization is that ideas and works need
> to be shared and economics be damned. Perhaps starving artists,
> unfortunately, are a real and necessary part of the mix. A person with
> little to lose is freer to express controversial ideas and concepts than
> one afraid of losing his [b][m]illion dollar music deal.
Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and sometimes
I produce software that is for share and some other times that is not for
share. The latest is the one that pays my bills, and I'm not willing to
share it. If someones insists in "sharing" a software that I'm not willing
to share, than it is stealing.
If we lived in a communist (in the "community" sense) where the government
would provide me everything I need to live with confort, than I would share
anything I'd produce. Blame the system, not me. IMHO, if you are in a
capitalist regime, be a capitalist. If you are in a socialist regime, be a
socialist.
> There is a HUGE problem right now in this country with the notion of
> "copyright," and "intellectual property." The original copyright statute
> was intended to be a limited protection for the author, but balanced for
> the better good of society. Read Benjamin Franklin's writings on the
> subject. Today, copyright is being assaulted by Disney and RIAA trying to
> make it into a form of wealth.
>
> Don't even get me started on patents!!!
I agree that copyrighting an idea is complicated, but a song or an
executable are not ideas, they are concrete objects made of 1's and 0's. I
don't see them different from an MP3 player or a bottle of water.
Cheers
Padu
Christopher X. Candreva
: year olds) will more likely see. Grandpa isn't typically trolling
: Gnutella looking for Montovani. The labels are slowly learning how to
: cope in the Internet age.
You might be surprised. I haven't looked for Montovani, but I have found a
large number of old time radio shows (Jack Benny, Burns & Allen, etc) on the
OpenNap remanent of the old Napster network, there is even a particular
server dedicated to them (OldShows.no-ip.info)
(When Napster shut down, there were already freely available clones of their
servers, so people just kept running them. Lots of out of the US ones with
illegal stuff. I suspect that no one renewed the copyrights on the Jack
Benny radio show however. :-)
--
==========================================================
Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816
WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
http://www.westnet.com/
Christopher X. Candreva
: Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and sometimes
Piracy is not the same as stealing, in a very important sense: When I steal
something from you, you don't have it any more. When I make an illegal copy,
you still have your original.
This is not to say it is right -- any more than stealing is OK because it's
not murder. :-)
Gordon McComb
>
> Padu <pa...@merlotti.com> wrote:
>
> : Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and sometimes
>
> Piracy is not the same as stealing, in a very important sense: When I steal
> something from you, you don't have it any more.
Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're
taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is
pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an
individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made
with the sale. It's no different than stealing money out of their
wallet. You receive the value of the creation, but they get bupkis.
Some argue that they wouldn't have paid for the software (or whatever)
in the first place. In which case they don't need it enough to either
buy it or steal it. Leave it alone, and let the people who want it buy
it. Or let it languish unbought, if it's trash. These days with so much
available legally for free on the Internet any excuses for piracy is
just so much drivel.
>When I make an illegal copy, you still have your original.
WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
artist this argument makes zero sense.
-- Gordon
D. Jay Newman
> "mlw"
>
>>This paragraph makes me shudder, it documents the eventual failure of
>>music
>>as an "art" form. Like most things of cultural import, not all things are
>>snappy and "pop."
>
> I don't think you got the essence of what I'm trying to convey.
>
>>Reducing "Abbey Road" to its most popular tracks -- at the time --
>>eliminates, IMHO, it's worth as art. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" or "Dark Side
>>of the Moon" are works that stand as a whole.
>
> That's why I have them in vinyl and CD. These are definitely worthy, but I
> won't buy the latest modest mouse album because of 1 music only. If an
> artist want me to buy the whole album, then he better create something
> that's worthy.
Pigs are flying. I'm actually agreeing with mlw!
The problem with your last statement is that you would get the
"worthy" albums but only pick the popular tracks from the rest.
How would you know which albums are "worthy" without hearing the
entire album?
Also I've had albums grow on me. After a few listenings I find I
like some of the songs I previously thought were crap.
>>"Piracy" is a nonsense term created applied to a bogus concept, that
>>people
>>should not share. The history of civilization is that ideas and works need
>>to be shared and economics be damned. Perhaps starving artists,
>>unfortunately, are a real and necessary part of the mix. A person with
>>little to lose is freer to express controversial ideas and concepts than
>>one afraid of losing his [b][m]illion dollar music deal.
>
> Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and sometimes
> I produce software that is for share and some other times that is not for
> share. The latest is the one that pays my bills, and I'm not willing to
> share it. If someones insists in "sharing" a software that I'm not willing
> to share, than it is stealing.
No. Piracy is a word meaning a specific type of stealing: robbing a ship
at sea.
What we're talking about is copyright violation.
While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't
actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may
increase sales.
> If we lived in a communist (in the "community" sense) where the government
> would provide me everything I need to live with confort, than I would share
> anything I'd produce. Blame the system, not me. IMHO, if you are in a
> capitalist regime, be a capitalist. If you are in a socialist regime, be a
> socialist.
I'm an unrepentent capitalist. However, capitalist values in no way
prohibit copyright violation or stealing in any form.
> I agree that copyrighting an idea is complicated, but a song or an
> executable are not ideas, they are concrete objects made of 1's and 0's. I
> don't see them different from an MP3 player or a bottle of water.
This I agree with. Yes, people *should* pay for things if there is a
charge and they feel it is worth it. If it isn't worth the charge
then they shouldn't use the product.
However, often times copyright violation (or fair use depending on the
ruling) increases sales. My wife and her friends make "mix tapes" (CDs
now) to give to each other. My wife and her friends have bought albums
by the groups they liked.
--
D. Jay Nemwan
http://enerd.ws/robots/
Author of _Linux Robotics_
mlw
> Pigs are flying. I'm actually agreeing with mlw!
>
Oh, thanks, now I have to wipe down my monitor screen. Wow, that was a good
laugh.
mlw
> Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
>>
>> Padu <pa...@merlotti.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and
>> : sometimes
>>
>> Piracy is not the same as stealing, in a very important sense: When I
>> steal something from you, you don't have it any more.
>
> Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're
> taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is
> pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an
> individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made
> with the sale. It's no different than stealing money out of their
> wallet. You receive the value of the creation, but they get bupkis.
I disagree, strongly, in fact. One of the base concepts of Copyright,
current RIAA and MPAA efforts aside, is that copying is done "not for
profit" and as precedent and I believe codified as law, that it does not
diminish the value of the work.
If I am unlikely to ever by a particular work and I do not attempt to resell
anything, the copyright owner loses nothing by my use of the copyrighted
work.
The analogy is based on news paper. If I fish a newspaper out of the trash,
I have deprived no one of that newspaper. I can read the newspaper. The
copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by my use. I came
across the work under "fair use." I have every right to use it.
An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who cares
what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me a copy,
I should be able to use it as long as: I do not profit from it and my use
of it does not diminish the value of the work.
That's how we lived in the 80s it was a better way to live. This DMCA ridden
IP crazy world is the death of freedom of expression.
>
> Some argue that they wouldn't have paid for the software (or whatever)
> in the first place. In which case they don't need it enough to either
> buy it or steal it. Leave it alone, and let the people who want it buy
> it. Or let it languish unbought, if it's trash. These days with so much
> available legally for free on the Internet any excuses for piracy is
> just so much drivel.
These days I use Linux and GPL software, it is just safer.
>
>>When I make an illegal copy, you still have your original.
>
> WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
> I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
> artist this argument makes zero sense.
In the case of the guy posting your book on usenet, that is a clear
violation because it can be argued that it diminishes the value of your
work, and that's wrong.
Christopher X. Candreva
: Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're
: taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is
: pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an
: individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made
Depriving someone of income is not necessarily theft. It could be
embezelment, fraud, larceny, dumping (selling your stuff below cost to get
rid of competitors) -- I'm sure there are more.
I understand your position as a small businessman (Am There, Doing That),
but at the same time the PR campaign that "Copyright Infringement is
Theft" ticks me off, because legally is is NOT, at least not yet, and it
seems somewhat disingenuous coming from companies that have been routinely
screwing their artists for years.
: WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
: I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
: artist this argument makes zero sense.
I think you just made my point for me.
If I am churning out illegal copies of your book, you may be out some sales
of books you might have sold. Or you might not, if I'm incompetent and can't
actually distribute them to anyone.
If I steal your original manuscript[1], you can't make any copies at all and
most definitely can't sell anything to anyone. If I'm incompetent and
destroy it, you're screwed permanently.
Gordon McComb
> While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't
> actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may
> increase sales.
So, let's say I hire you to do some work for me. Maybe you're a lawyer
and I need you to write my will. You turn over the work and I accept it.
Only, I don't pay you. By the definition you've given, what harm have I
done to you, seeing I didn't *take* anything away from you? Or haven't
I. You never had my money to begin with, so it's not like I took it away
from you. But didn't I just taken away from you your hard work, effort,
and skill for MY benefit, without giving you anything in return? Or is
stealing only limited to tangible things, like candy bars or TV sets? I
don't think so.
Apply this to the situation where the business model is based on selling
multiple copies of something. This model provides a way for someone to
impart knowledge or skill or talent at a price that everyone can afford.
Without the multiple copies business model, the person would have to
charge a single recipient a tremendous amount, and few could afford it.
This is how copyrights directly benefit the public. But somehow, a
portion of the public think it's not enough to be have cheap books or
music or sofrware, they think it shouldn't cost anything at all.
-- Gordon
Gordon McComb
> I disagree, strongly, in fact. One of the base concepts of Copyright,
> current RIAA and MPAA efforts aside, is that copying is done "not for
> profit" and as precedent and I believe codified as law, that it does not
> diminish the value of the work.
When works were difficult to copy, or the copies were inferior, this
made some sense. It didn't pay much to go after casual copying, because
it was a thin minority of the business. Digital copying changes that.
Multiply the incidences of the copies by the ease with which they can be
made, and a work could easily be distributed far wider without pay than
with it. Tell me how this doesn't "diminish the value" the work. In
copyright (not trademark) the value is the total sales.
> The analogy is based on news paper. If I fish a newspaper out of the trash,
> I have deprived no one of that newspaper. I can read the newspaper. The
> copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by my use. I came
> across the work under "fair use." I have every right to use it.
Poor analogy. The cost of the newspaper pays for the printing of that
copy. Newspapers make money on the ads, which you are exposed to the
same as the original purchaser. Magazines and newspapers encourage such
re-reading.
>An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who cares
>what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me a copy,
Lame. If you don't value it enough to buy it, why are you using it? If
you're using it and the person who wrote it expected to be paid, then
you're talking something and giving back nothing. That's called
stealing. There is enough good software openly given away that there is
ASBOLUTELY NO reason to make these kinds of excuses.
-- Gordon
mlw
> "mlw"
>>
>> This paragraph makes me shudder, it documents the eventual failure of
>> music
>> as an "art" form. Like most things of cultural import, not all things are
>> snappy and "pop."
>
> I don't think you got the essence of what I'm trying to convey.
>
>>
>> Reducing "Abbey Road" to its most popular tracks -- at the time --
>> eliminates, IMHO, it's worth as art. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" or "Dark
>> Side of the Moon" are works that stand as a whole.
>
> That's why I have them in vinyl and CD. These are definitely worthy, but I
> won't buy the latest modest mouse album because of 1 music only. If an
> artist want me to buy the whole album, then he better create something
> that's worthy.
How do you know "today" what is worthy "tomorrow." I have many CD (and used
to have albums) that I purchased over a decade ago, and find that I like
different tracks than the ones I did when I originally bought the CD. Art
grows with you, or at least it should.
I have the Burt Reynolds movie "Hooper," and I watched it the other day.
When I was young, I identified with the character "ski" (the young kid) and
now I am more established and experienced, I identify more with
"Sonny." (Burt's character) It is not long until I will identify with the
older character "Jocko."
As "art," the movie was a typical light weight Burt Reynolds good ol'boy
film, but it really was a treatment of growing older. Three generations:
beginner, expert, and aging master. Of course there was a lot of car
crashes, beer, and fights, but it was art damn it!!
Anyway, your tastes change as you get older. I recognize it more the older I
get. Reducing an artist message to one small clip that you may be
momentarily attracted too, will probably blind you to the larger and deeper
message that a true artist wishes to convey.
Britney Spears, that isn't art, it is product. Arranged and mixed by people
who want to sell albums. That works for the MP3 download world.
>
>
>> In the old days, the 45 single, was the snappy "pop" song to sell an
>> album.
>> Sure, some people bought just the 45, but a lot of people would buy the
>> album and get more from the artist and the art.
>>
>> IMHO, what's missing today in the music industry, is the view that it is
>> art. It has been reduced to mere marketable product, leaving
>> uncomfortable things like ideas, messages, and thinking by the wayside.
>
>
> That's why I don't buy albums anymore. Eventually there's one or two bands
> that will produce an album that's really art, others will produce one song
> that is art, the rest is filling. I don't buy filling.
Well, that is a known problem with the current music business.
>
>>> Piracy will never end. The industry just need to come up with something
>>> to
>>> avoid mass scale piracy. Who never recorded cassete tapes from radio
>>> music
>>> before? How's that different from downloading a music from kazaa or
>>> similar?
>>
>> "Piracy" is a nonsense term created applied to a bogus concept, that
>> people
>> should not share. The history of civilization is that ideas and works
>> need to be shared and economics be damned. Perhaps starving artists,
>> unfortunately, are a real and necessary part of the mix. A person with
>> little to lose is freer to express controversial ideas and concepts than
>> one afraid of losing his [b][m]illion dollar music deal.
>
> Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and
> sometimes I produce software that is for share and some other times that
> is not for share. The latest is the one that pays my bills, and I'm not
> willing to share it. If someones insists in "sharing" a software that I'm
> not willing to share, than it is stealing.
I read this one time: A computer file can not be made uncopyable any more
than water can be made unwet.
There is an amount of zen you have to use. It is easy to get mad about
certain things, but one needs to thing a little more broad mindedly.
I've been writing software for over 20 years. Not many people have the
luxury of making money on their software. Yea, there are a number of
companies that do but for every Microsoft there are at least a thousand
software companies that go out of business each year. For every small
consultant or software house that sustains a living with software NRE time,
there are tens of thousands who do not.
Believe me, I wish I could write something once and sell it over and over
again, but it hasn't worked that way, and unless you have a particular
vertical market that you have been particularly good at targeting, I don't
see how it can.
>
> If we lived in a communist (in the "community" sense) where the government
> would provide me everything I need to live with confort, than I would
> share anything I'd produce. Blame the system, not me. IMHO, if you are in
> a capitalist regime, be a capitalist. If you are in a socialist regime, be
> a socialist.
I is precisely capitalism that says your stuff will be copied. There is no
economic limit to copying, only a repressive legal regime that forbids it.
Capitalism always wins.
>
>> There is a HUGE problem right now in this country with the notion of
>> "copyright," and "intellectual property." The original copyright statute
>> was intended to be a limited protection for the author, but balanced for
>> the better good of society. Read Benjamin Franklin's writings on the
>> subject. Today, copyright is being assaulted by Disney and RIAA trying to
>> make it into a form of wealth.
>>
>> Don't even get me started on patents!!!
>
> I agree that copyrighting an idea is complicated, but a song or an
> executable are not ideas, they are concrete objects made of 1's and 0's. I
> don't see them different from an MP3 player or a bottle of water.
It is far more complex. If I copy a file and you never know it, I never sell
it, and I would never have bought it in the first place, has any harm been
done? How about if I have it, someone hears it, and then buys it? You
actually derive benefit from my actions.
Gordon McComb
> Depriving someone of income is not necessarily theft. It could be
> embezelment, fraud, larceny, dumping (selling your stuff below cost to get
> rid of competitors) -- I'm sure there are more.
Weird. I just looked up most of these words in the dictionary and
they're all defined using the word "theft" or "stealing." I don't get
your point, but in any case, are things like fraud and larceny okay
compared to theft? One is more socially acceptable than the other?
> : WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
> : I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
> : artist this argument makes zero sense.
>
> I think you just made my point for me.
>
> If I am churning out illegal copies of your book, you may be out some sales
> of books you might have sold. Or you might not, if I'm incompetent and can't
> actually distribute them to anyone.
You're just one person. If the practice is acceptable (as you appear to
want it to be), multipled by thousands of people who share your view,
then how could copying even for personal use yield a sustainable living
for anyone? This is a point you're not appearing to grasp. I don't care
just about Chris. I acare about Chris X 1,000, or Chris X 10,000.
>If I steal your original manuscript[1], you can't make any copies at all and
>most definitely can't sell anything to anyone. If I'm incompetent and
>destroy it, you're screwed permanently.
Um, not at all the point. My original manuscript after the book is
published is worth exactly what each copy is worth. If the copies are
worthless because of rampant illegal distribution, so is my manuscript.
-- Gordon
mlw
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>> While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't
>> actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may
>> increase sales.
>
> So, let's say I hire you to do some work for me. Maybe you're a lawyer
> and I need you to write my will. You turn over the work and I accept it.
>
> Only, I don't pay you. By the definition you've given, what harm have I
> done to you, seeing I didn't *take* anything away from you? Or haven't
> I. You never had my money to begin with, so it's not like I took it away
> from you. But didn't I just taken away from you your hard work, effort,
> and skill for MY benefit, without giving you anything in return? Or is
> stealing only limited to tangible things, like candy bars or TV sets? I
> don't think so.
Actually, your analogy is poor, a lawyer is "work for hire." There is a
contract between you and the lawyer that defines what he is expected to do,
and how much you are expected to pay him.
In your case, you chose what you wanted to write and the assumed value is
the public sales of your product. There is nothing you can enforce.
>
> Apply this to the situation where the business model is based on selling
> multiple copies of something.
How easy are those "somethings" to copy?
> This model provides a way for someone to
> impart knowledge or skill or talent at a price that everyone can afford.
This may simply be an anomaly of technology. Before the printing press, it
was very difficult, one had to teach in person or write by hand. Cost was
VERY prohibitive.
With the printing press, it is much easier. Cost was slightly prohibitive
and became less so over time.
Now with computers and world wide networks, it is so easy that it may not be
a viable business.
> Without the multiple copies business model, the person would have to
> charge a single recipient a tremendous amount, and few could afford it.
Thus, technology has changed, yet again, the business of men. For the
better? For the worse? Who knows? It is certain that scribes probably hated
the Gutenberg press.
> This is how copyrights directly benefit the public. But somehow, a
> portion of the public think it's not enough to be have cheap books or
> music or sofrware, they think it shouldn't cost anything at all.
We are in a transitional time. Our old methods of conveying creativity for
profit man no longer be viable. Laws to protect business models are bad.
Gordon McComb
> Actually, your analogy is poor, a lawyer is "work for hire." There is a
> contract between you and the lawyer that defines what he is expected to do,
> and how much you are expected to pay him.
>
> In your case, you chose what you wanted to write and the assumed value is
> the public sales of your product. There is nothing you can enforce.
Title 17 U.S.C. disagrees with you. The law says I can enforce my
copyrights, and the ownership of copyright confers upon me the same
validity as a contractual agreement. If you are a citizen of the US, my
declaration of copyright very much forces you to adhere to the laws of
the United States, as much as any contract would. In fact, copyright law
would probably trump contract law, but that's beside the point.
> How easy are those "somethings" to copy?
How does practicality change integrity? If someone forgets their wallet
on the top of their car is it okay to just take it? The ease with which
a crime can be made in no way diminishes the crime.
> Now with computers and world wide networks, it is so easy that it may not be
> a viable business.
No longer viable perhaps if you accept that people are no longer willing
to be honest, and will not pay for something that they very happily use.
Sadly, in the end people will get LESS rather than more from digital
technology. Hope you like DRM.
> We are in a transitional time. Our old methods of conveying creativity for
> profit man no longer be viable. Laws to protect business models are bad.
Copyrights don't protect business models. They do protect people who
wish to share their skills or talent with the public, and -- in order to
make a living -- use the business model of mass market distribution
copies for pay. Take away copyright and the business model goes away,
but this doesn't mean copyright law is expressly designed to protect any
type of business.
-- Gordon
cast...@aol.com
more books because of theft of works, We the readers of this thread(and
uncountable others) will be made to suffer. I personally am hoping for
some more technical reading, whether the "market" is or is not ready
for it. Personal experience and track records of the volume of reading
on this particular resource leads me to think lots of folks want more.
I meet them and talk to them everyday. I sure hope ,however the deed
that started this thread is corrected. I hope to see more technology
get to everyone-Yep even if they have to and should pay for it.
Mark
Padu
>> That's why I have them in vinyl and CD. These are definitely worthy, but
>> I won't buy the latest modest mouse album because of 1 music only. If an
>> artist want me to buy the whole album, then he better create something
>> that's worthy.
>
> Pigs are flying. I'm actually agreeing with mlw!
>
> The problem with your last statement is that you would get the
> "worthy" albums but only pick the popular tracks from the rest.
>
> How would you know which albums are "worthy" without hearing the
> entire album?
>
> Also I've had albums grow on me. After a few listenings I find I
> like some of the songs I previously thought were crap.
Not the popular, but the ones I like. It is not always that I am in
agreement with popular picks. iTunes let me listen to a sample of the music,
which is often times enough for me to like or not like a music.
But in general, the criteria for an album being worthy or not worthy is
highly personal. Sometimes it is worthy independent of the music quality
(Vitalogy from Pearl Jam is a very good example).
>> Piracy is another word for stealing. I am a software engineer, and
>> sometimes I produce software that is for share and some other times that
>> is not for share. The latest is the one that pays my bills, and I'm not
>> willing to share it. If someones insists in "sharing" a software that I'm
>> not willing to share, than it is stealing.
>
> No. Piracy is a word meaning a specific type of stealing: robbing a ship
> at sea.
And a mouse is a word meaning a specific living thing from the animal
kingdom.
> What we're talking about is copyright violation.
>
> While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't
> actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may
> increase sales.
If you are Microsoft, perhaps. Well, even them are taking more active
measures to avoid piracy. And yes, you are taking money from me. While I
admire people on the open source initiative (and I sometimes helped the
effort), there is this notion around shared by some that software should be
free. How come?
>
>> If we lived in a communist (in the "community" sense) where the
>> government would provide me everything I need to live with confort, than
>> I would share anything I'd produce. Blame the system, not me. IMHO, if
>> you are in a capitalist regime, be a capitalist. If you are in a
>> socialist regime, be a socialist.
>
> I'm an unrepentent capitalist. However, capitalist values in no way
> prohibit copyright violation or stealing in any form.
Capitalist values may not, but capitalist countries do, and socialist
countries even more.
>
>> I agree that copyrighting an idea is complicated, but a song or an
>> executable are not ideas, they are concrete objects made of 1's and 0's.
>> I don't see them different from an MP3 player or a bottle of water.
>
> This I agree with. Yes, people *should* pay for things if there is a
> charge and they feel it is worth it. If it isn't worth the charge
> then they shouldn't use the product.
>
> However, often times copyright violation (or fair use depending on the
> ruling) increases sales. My wife and her friends make "mix tapes" (CDs
> now) to give to each other. My wife and her friends have bought albums
> by the groups they liked.
The market is too big to make general assumptions. While the act of
distributing mix tapes may have produced a sale or two, I doubt downloading
music increase general sales. If it did, the industry wouldn't be so
desperate by now.
Cheers
Padu
Padu
"mlw"
> How do you know "today" what is worthy "tomorrow." I have many CD (and
> used
> to have albums) that I purchased over a decade ago, and find that I like
> different tracks than the ones I did when I originally bought the CD. Art
> grows with you, or at least it should.
I'm buying today. I have no means to foresee what I am going to like
tomorrow. Apart from vintage value, if I like something else tomorrow, I'll
buy it tomorrow. What't the big deal?
>
> I have the Burt Reynolds movie "Hooper," and I watched it the other day.
> When I was young, I identified with the character "ski" (the young kid)
> and
> now I am more established and experienced, I identify more with
> "Sonny." (Burt's character) It is not long until I will identify with the
> older character "Jocko."
>
> As "art," the movie was a typical light weight Burt Reynolds good ol'boy
> film, but it really was a treatment of growing older. Three generations:
> beginner, expert, and aging master. Of course there was a lot of car
> crashes, beer, and fights, but it was art damn it!!
>
We're talking about personal tastes now. Perhaps I may think that Britney
Spears music is more art than any Burt Reynolds movie.
> Anyway, your tastes change as you get older. I recognize it more the older
> I
> get. Reducing an artist message to one small clip that you may be
> momentarily attracted too, will probably blind you to the larger and
> deeper
> message that a true artist wishes to convey.
They do. When I was 15 I used to like Michael Jackson... I don't know how
could I. I had a mullet... what the heck! Give me a razor and a time machine
please!
>
> Britney Spears, that isn't art, it is product. Arranged and mixed by
> people
> who want to sell albums. That works for the MP3 download world.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't buy music because it is art
or not. I buy music because I like it or not. I buy albums if they are
worthy or not, and I reserve the right to tell if they are worthy or not
according to my own criteria, that may or may seem logic by you.
> I read this one time: A computer file can not be made uncopyable any more
> than water can be made unwet.
Perhaps not, but there is technology out there to avoid unauthorized use.
I'm not naive enough to say that they are completely effective. A pirate
will steal from you if he wishes so and have enough skills, as well as a
thief will enter into your house and rob you no matter what you do. The
challenge is to find the balance between blocking people from making use of
your software without being authorized and annoying the legit users to the
point they don't buy from you anymore.
>
> There is an amount of zen you have to use. It is easy to get mad about
> certain things, but one needs to thing a little more broad mindedly.
> I've been writing software for over 20 years. Not many people have the
> luxury of making money on their software. Yea, there are a number of
> companies that do but for every Microsoft there are at least a thousand
> software companies that go out of business each year. For every small
> consultant or software house that sustains a living with software NRE
> time,
> there are tens of thousands who do not.
> Believe me, I wish I could write something once and sell it over and over
> again, but it hasn't worked that way, and unless you have a particular
> vertical market that you have been particularly good at targeting, I don't
> see how it can.
I've made money in every company that I owned and/or worked for. If not, I'd
be doing something else now. The need for software is big enough to afford a
huge market, and if you stay on top of things, you can make a decent living
out of it. I'm not denying that it is difficult though, there's competition,
and technology is always changing, but busting your ass doing a product to
find out that it is being stolen somewhere is not of my liking.
>
>>
>> If we lived in a communist (in the "community" sense) where the
>> government
>> would provide me everything I need to live with confort, than I would
>> share anything I'd produce. Blame the system, not me. IMHO, if you are in
>> a capitalist regime, be a capitalist. If you are in a socialist regime,
>> be
>> a socialist.
>
> I is precisely capitalism that says your stuff will be copied. There is no
> economic limit to copying, only a repressive legal regime that forbids it.
> Capitalism always wins.
And it is precisely capitalism that tells me (and the whole industry) that
copy protection mechanisms are vital for the business.
>> I agree that copyrighting an idea is complicated, but a song or an
>> executable are not ideas, they are concrete objects made of 1's and 0's.
>> I
>> don't see them different from an MP3 player or a bottle of water.
>
> It is far more complex. If I copy a file and you never know it, I never
> sell
> it, and I would never have bought it in the first place, has any harm been
> done? How about if I have it, someone hears it, and then buys it? You
> actually derive benefit from my actions.
In theory, if you would never buy it, then why copy in the first place?
In practice, it's never black and white. I like the shareware approach to
general applications. Download it and if you like it then you buy. For
example, I use an unlicensed MikroPascal copy for firmware development at
home, and the software developers were clever enough to allow you to use it
like this forever, with the limitation that you cannot compile programs
bigger than a certain size. I'm so used to that environment now that I had
to buy it here in the company.
Cheers
Padu
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> I'm buying today. I have no means to foresee what I am going to like
> tomorrow. Apart from vintage value, if I like something else tomorrow, I'll
> buy it tomorrow. What't the big deal?
It misses serendipity. There are many songs I've liked that never got
any airplay, and I never would have heard them if they weren't on the
CD. Likewise, I tend to think of a CD as a coherent work (showing my
age, I guess), so unless there's something totally unlistenable I
listen to the whole thing. There are many songs I've listened to
grudgingly on the first hearing, but by the 20th found they were some
of my favorites. That wouldn't have happened without the whole CD.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
D. Jay Newman
> Gordon McComb wrote:
>>Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're
>>taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is
>>pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an
>>individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made
>>with the sale. It's no different than stealing money out of their
>>wallet. You receive the value of the creation, but they get bupkis.
>
> I disagree, strongly, in fact. One of the base concepts of Copyright,
> current RIAA and MPAA efforts aside, is that copying is done "not for
> profit" and as precedent and I believe codified as law, that it does not
> diminish the value of the work.
Sorry. Fair use includes copying part of a work under certain
circumstanses, but not the whole of a work. This includes
non-profit uses.
> If I am unlikely to ever by a particular work and I do not attempt to resell
> anything, the copyright owner loses nothing by my use of the copyrighted
> work.
If it isn't worth it to buy it, thenb it isn't right to use it.
For example, if I have a house that nobody is living in, you
cannot live in it without coming to some arrangement with me.
> The analogy is based on news paper. If I fish a newspaper out of the trash,
> I have deprived no one of that newspaper. I can read the newspaper. The
> copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by my use. I came
> across the work under "fair use." I have every right to use it.
*Sombody* bought the newspaper. At some point this person got tired of
it and left it in the trash. In some places you cannot take it even
then because the trash belongs to the municipality (yes, it does
seem silly).
And "fair use" doesn't come into it if you read the newspaper or
even resell it. At this point it's your newspaper.
> An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who cares
> what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me a copy,
> I should be able to use it as long as: I do not profit from it and my use
> of it does not diminish the value of the work.
If you use software that you have not paid for then you are gaining
some value that you are not passing back to the copyright owner.
It doesn't matter if you downloaded a copy of the work or somebody
gave you a copy.
> That's how we lived in the 80s it was a better way to live. This DMCA ridden
> IP crazy world is the death of freedom of expression.
The DMCA is crazy, but this *isn't* the way *I* lived in the 80s.
> These days I use Linux and GPL software, it is just safer.
Yes. And there are special rules that govern GPL software.
You are allowed to sell it, but you must give the source
away.
>>>When I make an illegal copy, you still have your original.
>>
>>WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
>>I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
>>artist this argument makes zero sense.
>
> In the case of the guy posting your book on usenet, that is a clear
> violation because it can be argued that it diminishes the value of your
> work, and that's wrong.
Yes. However it doesn't matter to me if your use of my work actually
diminishes the value of the work. If the work isn't paid for, I
don't want you using it.
--
D. Jay Newman
Author of _Linux Robotics_
D. Jay Newman
> Gordon McComb <NOSPA...@norobotoidspam.com> wrote:
>
> : Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're
> : taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is
> : pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an
> : individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made
>
> Depriving someone of income is not necessarily theft. It could be
> embezelment, fraud, larceny, dumping (selling your stuff below cost to get
> rid of competitors) -- I'm sure there are more.
Actually many of the above are classified as theft. Embezelment
certainly is as are many of the others. Dumping isn't theft
but may or may not be a crime depending on where you are.
> I understand your position as a small businessman (Am There, Doing That),
> but at the same time the PR campaign that "Copyright Infringement is
> Theft" ticks me off, because legally is is NOT, at least not yet, and it
> seems somewhat disingenuous coming from companies that have been routinely
> screwing their artists for years.
Copyright infringement is *not* theft. I agree there. However
copyright infringement can deprive the copyright owner of money.
> : WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
> : I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
> : artist this argument makes zero sense.
>
> I think you just made my point for me.
>
> If I am churning out illegal copies of your book, you may be out some sales
> of books you might have sold. Or you might not, if I'm incompetent and can't
> actually distribute them to anyone.
And at this point you've gone into serious crime. Properly copyrighted
material is protected under US law and the copyright owner is entitled
not only to the value lost, but also damages. That is, if you ever get
caught. And for this purpose it doesn't matter if you sell it or give
it away.
> If I steal your original manuscript[1], you can't make any copies at all and
> most definitely can't sell anything to anyone. If I'm incompetent and
> destroy it, you're screwed permanently.
Yes. Strangely enough that may be a much lesser crime under US law
unless the victim can prove that his manuscript is worth something.
For example, stealing my manuscript is barely a crime; stealing
a Steven King manuscript would get you into a world of hurt.
--
D. Jay Newman
Author of _Linux Robotics_
D. Jay Newman
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
>>While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't
>>actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may
>>increase sales.
>
>
> So, let's say I hire you to do some work for me. Maybe you're a lawyer
> and I need you to write my will. You turn over the work and I accept it.
Gordon: I *agree* with you.
I have two points:
1. Copryright infringement is not classified as theft under US law.
2. Openly free copies, ilegal or otherwise, sometimes help sell
books.
Of course I agree that copyright infringement is wrong. It's also
a fact of life.
And another point: it's probably a bad idea to do that to a lawyer. :)
> Only, I don't pay you. By the definition you've given, what harm have I
> done to you, seeing I didn't *take* anything away from you? Or haven't
The problem with this is that the lawyer has spent time on one specific
item (your will). He has billable hours. These are technically (by US
law) different from intellectual property.
> I. You never had my money to begin with, so it's not like I took it away
> from you. But didn't I just taken away from you your hard work, effort,
> and skill for MY benefit, without giving you anything in return? Or is
> stealing only limited to tangible things, like candy bars or TV sets? I
> don't think so.
Morally I agree with you. However, under US law copyright infringment
is *not* classified as theft.
> -- Gordon
--
D. Jay Newman
Author of _Linux Robotics_
Gordon McComb
> > I understand your position as a small businessman (Am There, Doing That),
> > but at the same time the PR campaign that "Copyright Infringement is
> > Theft" ticks me off, because legally is is NOT, at least not yet, and it
> > seems somewhat disingenuous coming from companies that have been routinely
> > screwing their artists for years.
>
> Copyright infringement is *not* theft. I agree there. However
> copyright infringement can deprive the copyright owner of money.
By international treaty, the US recognizes copyright as property. Like
it or not that's the law, we assume created by lawmakers the world over
for the benefit of the people. If you take the wiki definition (just for
one) of "theft," then the word squarely applies to misappropriation of a
copyrighted work, in any form:
'Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of
someone else's property without that person's willful consent. In law,
it is usually the broadest term for a crime against property. It is a
general term that encompasses offences such as burglary, embezzlement,
larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud
(theft by deception), and sometimes criminal conversion. Legally, theft
is generally considered to be synonymous with larceny.'
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) involves 183 member
countries, and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. Far away from Washington
DC, the US Congress, Disney, the RIAA, or the MPAA. It doesn't really
matter how you or I or anyone else defines the word "theft"; what
matters is how 183 nations around the world define it, and how these
terms are used within the laws these countries have agreed to follow.
-- Gordon
Gordon McComb
> Morally I agree with you. However, under US law copyright infringment
> is *not* classified as theft.
OTOH several amendments to Title 17 have the word "THEFT" in their
titles.
I know there is some debate over "theft" vs. "infringement," involving,
IMO, a misunderstood US Supreme Court ruling that, in any case, is now
moot because of the DMCA.
"Infringe" means nothing more than to encroach, and that is nothing out
of context. As I pointed out in another message, the US is legally bound
by international treaty, as implemented by the DMCA, to consider
copyright as a form of property. Therefore it can be "stolen." Most
people know the DMCA as the law that makes it illegal to circumvent
encryption, but it also includes provisions that bound the US to a
number of international copyright treaties.
-- Gordon
D. Jay Newman
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>Copyright infringement is *not* theft. I agree there. However
>>copyright infringement can deprive the copyright owner of money.
> WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) involves 183 member
> countries, and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. Far away from Washington
> DC, the US Congress, Disney, the RIAA, or the MPAA. It doesn't really
> matter how you or I or anyone else defines the word "theft"; what
> matters is how 183 nations around the world define it, and how these
> terms are used within the laws these countries have agreed to follow.
>
> -- Gordon
Gordon:
I based my notes on seminars we had on copyright when I worked for
Penn State. Things may have changed since then. I will look up
the various definitions.
And yes, I still think that copyright infringement is wrong,
besides being illegal.
However, the legal release of on-line materials may enhance
the sales of printed material.
--
D. Jay Newman
Author of _Linux Robotics_
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> Gordon McComb wrote:
>
>>>Rethink this. Hard or soft goods, you're not stealing a *thing*, you're
>>>taking away from a person the *value* of the thing. When software is
>>>pirated you are depriving the creator -- more often than not an
>>>individual or a small company -- from the livlihood they would have made
>>>with the sale. It's no different than stealing money out of their
>>>wallet. You receive the value of the creation, but they get bupkis.
>>
>> I disagree, strongly, in fact. One of the base concepts of Copyright,
>> current RIAA and MPAA efforts aside, is that copying is done "not for
>> profit" and as precedent and I believe codified as law, that it does not
>> diminish the value of the work.
>
> Sorry. Fair use includes copying part of a work under certain
> circumstanses, but not the whole of a work. This includes
> non-profit uses.
Actually, there are four tests for fair use, that is only one of them, they
are:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
Not all of these tests have to be satisfied as far as I know.
>
>> If I am unlikely to ever by a particular work and I do not attempt to
>> resell anything, the copyright owner loses nothing by my use of the
>> copyrighted work.
>
> If it isn't worth it to buy it, thenb it isn't right to use it.
I'm pretty sure no one who uses a computer deeply believes this. They may
think they believe it, but unless you are a rarity you have programs you
have copied.
I know this isn't copyright, but did you send unisys money to use the GIF
decoder? Are you going to send Forgent Networks money to use your JPEG
software?
>
> For example, if I have a house that nobody is living in, you
> cannot live in it without coming to some arrangement with me.
That is fundamentally different, and you should know that. Merely using a
house creates wear and diminishes the value.
However, if I stayed there, and you never, ever knew, and I left nothing
broken or worn, would it really make a difference?
>
>> The analogy is based on news paper. If I fish a newspaper out of the
>> trash, I have deprived no one of that newspaper. I can read the
>> newspaper. The copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by
>> my use. I came across the work under "fair use." I have every right to
>> use it.
>
> *Sombody* bought the newspaper. At some point this person got tired of
> it and left it in the trash. In some places you cannot take it even
> then because the trash belongs to the municipality (yes, it does
> seem silly).
>
> And "fair use" doesn't come into it if you read the newspaper or
> even resell it. At this point it's your newspaper.
OK, I accept that.
>
>> An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who
>> cares what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me
>> a copy, I should be able to use it as long as: I do not profit from it
>> and my use of it does not diminish the value of the work.
>
> If you use software that you have not paid for then you are gaining
> some value that you are not passing back to the copyright owner.
>
> It doesn't matter if you downloaded a copy of the work or somebody
> gave you a copy.
I think there is a cultural "IP" brainwashing going on that people need to
really sit back and think about. We *really* need to think about what
"property" is.
Think carefully about libraries, the property is the paper on which the work
is published. The library allows anyone to borrow the book. Surely that is
a violation of your "use without compensation" ideals.
Now, lets go back to the copy of the software. In the 1980s it was PERFECTLY
legal to use a single copy of software as long as only a single copy of it
was used at any particular time.
In my previous example, what if I added the criterion that I would only use
that copy when the original copyright owner (or anyone else who had a copy)
was using it. Would it be legal then? An example may be a backup program.
One person buys, 7 people use, one on each day. Is that legal? It used to
be!
>
>> That's how we lived in the 80s it was a better way to live. This DMCA
>> ridden IP crazy world is the death of freedom of expression.
>
> The DMCA is crazy, but this *isn't* the way *I* lived in the 80s.
Maybe *you* didn't, but everyone I knew in business and the universities
did. Everyone had "Copy II PC."
>
>> These days I use Linux and GPL software, it is just safer.
>
> Yes. And there are special rules that govern GPL software.
> You are allowed to sell it, but you must give the source
> away.
Actually, people argue this all the time. You can't "sell" the software.
"Selling" software implies a new license of some sort or transfer of
ownership rights. You can not take someone's GPL code and sell it. You are
allowed to charge for the service of copying and distribution. Also You
don't have to give the source away if you make no modifications. You are
only required to make your changes public.
>
>>>>When I make an illegal copy, you still have your original.
>>>
>>>WTFF do I care if I still have my original? -- in my case, a manuscript.
>>>I'm in the specific business of selling the copies! To an author or
>>>artist this argument makes zero sense.
>>
>> In the case of the guy posting your book on usenet, that is a clear
>> violation because it can be argued that it diminishes the value of your
>> work, and that's wrong.
>
> Yes. However it doesn't matter to me if your use of my work actually
> diminishes the value of the work. If the work isn't paid for, I
> don't want you using it.
The question is the definition of "property." Granted, software and recorded
music seem different from printed word, but never the less we live with
copyright.
Copyright is based on the notion that once something is made public, it
ceases to be the exclusive property of another. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an
individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and
stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all
others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called
an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me,
received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> I disagree, strongly, in fact. One of the base concepts of Copyright,
>> current RIAA and MPAA efforts aside, is that copying is done "not for
>> profit" and as precedent and I believe codified as law, that it does not
>> diminish the value of the work.
>
> When works were difficult to copy, or the copies were inferior, this
> made some sense. It didn't pay much to go after casual copying, because
> it was a thin minority of the business. Digital copying changes that.
> Multiply the incidences of the copies by the ease with which they can be
> made, and a work could easily be distributed far wider without pay than
> with it. Tell me how this doesn't "diminish the value" the work. In
> copyright (not trademark) the value is the total sales.
I think that the copyright business is an accident of technology. I have
been thinking about this for close to a decade. We saw the first rumblings
of this when cassette tapes made copying music easy. Then VCRs, then DAT
tapes, now everything.
It is human nature to take copies of things. It has only been with
technology that "copies" and copying has been a viable business. Now,
technology has taken that away. The value of the work has been diminished
by progress, the very progress, which at an earlier time, created the value
in the first place.
I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just pointing out the facts.
Fortifying business models with laws is also very bad. I read about a case
in Chicago where a publically displayed sculpture could not be photographed
because it violated the artists "intellectual property."
The copyright and IP craze is a bad thing for the US and the arts.
Getting artists and writers paid, is, of course, important, but laws that
feed powerful corporations and harm the rights of individuals is not the
answer.
>
>> The analogy is based on news paper. If I fish a newspaper out of the
>> trash, I have deprived no one of that newspaper. I can read the
>> newspaper. The copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by
>> my use. I came across the work under "fair use." I have every right to
>> use it.
>
> Poor analogy. The cost of the newspaper pays for the printing of that
> copy. Newspapers make money on the ads, which you are exposed to the
> same as the original purchaser. Magazines and newspapers encourage such
> re-reading.
Already agreed.
>
>>An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who
>>cares what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me a
>>copy,
>
> Lame. If you don't value it enough to buy it, why are you using it? If
> you're using it and the person who wrote it expected to be paid, then
> you're talking something and giving back nothing. That's called
> stealing. There is enough good software openly given away that there is
> ASBOLUTELY NO reason to make these kinds of excuses.
Time was, we were all able to share our property. I could lend my lawn mower
to fred next door. When I wasn't using it, Fred could. OK, say I have 5
other friends, we set a schedule, Monday through sunday, each gets to use
the mower. Is that wrong?
Now, the software in question, suppose it is backup software, again, I share
it with 6 friends, we each get a night on which we run a backup. Is it now
wrong to share?
Now, think about music, I have a CD, I rip my CD to the hard disk. I have a
computer connected to my stereo in my living room. (Its true) and I rip all
my music with high quality. I have almost 5000 songs on my hard disk. I
don't listen to my music every day. In fact, probably only once a month.
What if I share my music with my friends. There is NO chance any two of use
would be playing the same songs at the same time. Is that wrong?
It is a slippery slope, and a very bad one for society. It is being driven
by powerful corporations and they are harming our rights daily.
I understand and I sympathize with the plight of the authors and artists, as
I have also suffered loss of income, but the big picture is a VERY BIG
picture and we should not lose sight of it.
The problem is not how to ENFORCE copyright with draconian laws, but how to
get the creators compensated, these are two very different things.
D. Jay Newman
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
>>mlw wrote:
>>Sorry. Fair use includes copying part of a work under certain
>>circumstanses, but not the whole of a work. This includes
>>non-profit uses.
>
> Actually, there are four tests for fair use, that is only one of them, they
> are:
>
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
> commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the
> copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work.
>
> Not all of these tests have to be satisfied as far as I know.
I may be wrong, but I think that in practice *all* of the tests
must be considered.
Notice that test #1 specifically states "nonprofit educational
purposes" rather than just "nonprofit purposes".
This would not need to be included if it was not meant to
be considered together with the other rules.
And I believe that "educational purposes" are legally for
the purpose of teaching others, not yourself.
I am not a lawyer. As a writer I am starting to look
into copyright law.
>>If it isn't worth it to buy it, thenb it isn't right to use it.
>
> I'm pretty sure no one who uses a computer deeply believes this. They may
> think they believe it, but unless you are a rarity you have programs you
> have copied.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe this. The only applications on
my computer are legally obtained. I do *not* illegally copy software
(or anything else if possible).
I have no illegal software on any of the computers in my house to my
knowledge. Neither my wife nor I would use such software anyway.
> I know this isn't copyright, but did you send unisys money to use the GIF
> decoder? Are you going to send Forgent Networks money to use your JPEG
> software?
Actually both of these entities have agreed that the decoders are
fine. Only the software that make such images costs money. And
I have paid for such things indirectly by buying commercial
graphics programs.
>>For example, if I have a house that nobody is living in, you
>>cannot live in it without coming to some arrangement with me.
>
> That is fundamentally different, and you should know that. Merely using a
> house creates wear and diminishes the value.
>
> However, if I stayed there, and you never, ever knew, and I left nothing
> broken or worn, would it really make a difference?
I might not know if a single book from my library was stolen, but
it would still be theft.
Even if, as a squatter, you added value to the house (by keeping
the garden flowering and repainting and such), you would still
be there illegally.
>>>An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who
>>>cares what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me
>>>a copy, I should be able to use it as long as: I do not profit from it
>>>and my use of it does not diminish the value of the work.
>>
>>If you use software that you have not paid for then you are gaining
>>some value that you are not passing back to the copyright owner.
>>
>>It doesn't matter if you downloaded a copy of the work or somebody
>>gave you a copy.
>
> I think there is a cultural "IP" brainwashing going on that people need to
> really sit back and think about. We *really* need to think about what
> "property" is.
>
> Think carefully about libraries, the property is the paper on which the work
> is published. The library allows anyone to borrow the book. Surely that is
> a violation of your "use without compensation" ideals.
No, the library has legally obtained that book. This would be like
loaning a book of your's to a friend. While I have the book checked
out of the library, nobody else can read it.
> Now, lets go back to the copy of the software. In the 1980s it was PERFECTLY
> legal to use a single copy of software as long as only a single copy of it
> was used at any particular time.
For some software, yes. It was accepted practice regardless of the
legality for personal software. Professional software was different.
> In my previous example, what if I added the criterion that I would only use
> that copy when the original copyright owner (or anyone else who had a copy)
> was using it. Would it be legal then? An example may be a backup program.
> One person buys, 7 people use, one on each day. Is that legal? It used to
> be!
I believe that this is like lending a book. I believe that legally
(unless the EUL says differently) that the origianl owner must
uninstall his copy before lending to his friend, who must
install it.
>>>That's how we lived in the 80s it was a better way to live. This DMCA
>>>ridden IP crazy world is the death of freedom of expression.
>>
>>The DMCA is crazy, but this *isn't* the way *I* lived in the 80s.
>
> Maybe *you* didn't, but everyone I knew in business and the universities
> did. Everyone had "Copy II PC."
So everybody you knew was probably violating the law? Once clue
is that if you had to use special software to copy an program,
it probably is against the copyright agreement.
>>>These days I use Linux and GPL software, it is just safer.
>>
>>Yes. And there are special rules that govern GPL software.
>>You are allowed to sell it, but you must give the source
>>away.
>
> Actually, people argue this all the time. You can't "sell" the software.
> "Selling" software implies a new license of some sort or transfer of
> ownership rights. You can not take someone's GPL code and sell it. You are
> allowed to charge for the service of copying and distribution. Also You
> don't have to give the source away if you make no modifications. You are
> only required to make your changes public.
This is a very old argument. You *are* allowed to sell any GPL'ed
software as long as you adhere to the GPL. As of my last reading,
you either had to make the source available or point to where the
source was.
I can sell gcc. It would be silly of somebody to buy it, but
the sale would (as of my last reading of the GPL) be fully
legal. Of course, my customer could then sell lots more copies,
all in the name of the GPL.
>>>In the case of the guy posting your book on usenet, that is a clear
>>>violation because it can be argued that it diminishes the value of your
>>>work, and that's wrong.
>>
>>Yes. However it doesn't matter to me if your use of my work actually
>>diminishes the value of the work. If the work isn't paid for, I
>>don't want you using it.
>
> The question is the definition of "property." Granted, software and recorded
> music seem different from printed word, but never the less we live with
> copyright.
>
> Copyright is based on the notion that once something is made public, it
> ceases to be the exclusive property of another. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Actually copyright has to do with published works and not ideas. Earl
Stanley Gardener wrote some great lawyer/detective stories; this doesn't
prevent anybody else from using his ideas to write stoires of their
own. They just can't take his words or make a derivative work (say by
writing new Perry Mason stories without the current copyright owner's
permisson).
> "It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an
> individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and
> stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all
> others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called
> an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
> to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
> possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
> Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
> every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me,
> received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
> taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
This only talks about ideas, not their implementation.
--
D. Jay Newman
Author of _Linux Robotics_
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>
>>>mlw wrote:
>
>>>Sorry. Fair use includes copying part of a work under certain
>>>circumstanses, but not the whole of a work. This includes
>>>non-profit uses.
>>
>> Actually, there are four tests for fair use, that is only one of them,
>> they are:
>>
>> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
>> of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>> (3) the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the
>> copyrighted work as a whole; and
>> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
>> copyrighted work.
>>
>> Not all of these tests have to be satisfied as far as I know.
>
> I may be wrong, but I think that in practice *all* of the tests
> must be considered.
Yes, "considered."
>
> Notice that test #1 specifically states "nonprofit educational
> purposes" rather than just "nonprofit purposes".
"educational" is a very slippery word, there is no institutional requirement
that I am aware of.
>
> This would not need to be included if it was not meant to
> be considered together with the other rules.
>
> And I believe that "educational purposes" are legally for
> the purpose of teaching others, not yourself.
Why? People have the right to teach themselves.
>
> I am not a lawyer. As a writer I am starting to look
> into copyright law.
I have had to study a *lot* of IP crap the last few years. In much of this
discussion, I am playing devil's advocate, but I am *very* concerned about
intellectual property law running crazy.
>
>>>If it isn't worth it to buy it, thenb it isn't right to use it.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure no one who uses a computer deeply believes this. They may
>> think they believe it, but unless you are a rarity you have programs you
>> have copied.
>
> Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe this. The only applications on
> my computer are legally obtained. I do *not* illegally copy software
> (or anything else if possible).
Then I applaud you! I don't know anyone else that doesn't have an
unregistered copy of WinZip or something on their machine.
>
> I have no illegal software on any of the computers in my house to my
> knowledge. Neither my wife nor I would use such software anyway.
Again, good for you, you lead an honest life. Did you ever see "Dogma?" Loki
won't kill you.
>
>> I know this isn't copyright, but did you send unisys money to use the GIF
>> decoder? Are you going to send Forgent Networks money to use your JPEG
>> software?
>
> Actually both of these entities have agreed that the decoders are
> fine. Only the software that make such images costs money. And
> I have paid for such things indirectly by buying commercial
> graphics programs.
Assuming, of course, that you don't have devices or programs purchased
before the JPEG patent was announced or were produced without paying
royalties. Have you actually verified that you are in compliance? It is
probably impossible to know for sure.
>
>>>For example, if I have a house that nobody is living in, you
>>>cannot live in it without coming to some arrangement with me.
>>
>> That is fundamentally different, and you should know that. Merely using a
>> house creates wear and diminishes the value.
> >
>> However, if I stayed there, and you never, ever knew, and I left nothing
>> broken or worn, would it really make a difference?
>
> I might not know if a single book from my library was stolen, but
> it would still be theft.
You would know because it wasn't there.
>
> Even if, as a squatter, you added value to the house (by keeping
> the garden flowering and repainting and such), you would still
> be there illegally.
Yes, yes, "illegally," sure, everyone breaks the law every day doing
something: littering, speeding, saying curse words in public, eating
peanuts in church, or thousands of other "important" laws. It is
impossible in the U.S.A. to go 24 hours and NOT break the law in some way.
Some things are more illegal than others. Typically, though not always, the
important measure is "harm" in the choice of enforcement.
>
>>>>An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who
>>>>cares what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me
>>>>a copy, I should be able to use it as long as: I do not profit from it
>>>>and my use of it does not diminish the value of the work.
>>>
>>>If you use software that you have not paid for then you are gaining
>>>some value that you are not passing back to the copyright owner.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter if you downloaded a copy of the work or somebody
>>>gave you a copy.
>>
>> I think there is a cultural "IP" brainwashing going on that people need
>> to really sit back and think about. We *really* need to think about what
>> "property" is.
>>
>> Think carefully about libraries, the property is the paper on which the
>> work is published. The library allows anyone to borrow the book. Surely
>> that is a violation of your "use without compensation" ideals.
>
> No, the library has legally obtained that book. This would be like
> loaning a book of your's to a friend. While I have the book checked
> out of the library, nobody else can read it.
That's because of the physical property of matter having to be in only one
place at a time. That is an artifact of an old process of using chemicals
to stain dead trees. Sooner or later, human kind will abandon such
antiquated practices.
Then what? When there is no more physical media to regulate usership. The IP
movement in this country sees this inevitable change as a gold rush!!! What
happens when you have a book and you can't re-read it or loan it or sell
it? What of "fair use" then?
>
>> Now, lets go back to the copy of the software. In the 1980s it was
>> PERFECTLY legal to use a single copy of software as long as only a single
>> copy of it was used at any particular time.
>
> For some software, yes. It was accepted practice regardless of the
> legality for personal software. Professional software was different.
Why? Why is that allowed? Is it property or not? If it is property, I should
have the right to do with it as I please, if it is not property, then it is
governed by a set of rules that attempt to mimic property, and in a
democracy those rules are subject to the people.
>
>> In my previous example, what if I added the criterion that I would only
>> use that copy when the original copyright owner (or anyone else who had a
>> copy) was using it. Would it be legal then? An example may be a backup
>> program. One person buys, 7 people use, one on each day. Is that legal?
>> It used to be!
>
> I believe that this is like lending a book. I believe that legally
> (unless the EUL says differently) that the origianl owner must
> uninstall his copy before lending to his friend, who must
> install it.
Why does a software published have the RIGHT to define, beyond copyright and
"fair use" what I can do with something I purchased?
>
>>>>That's how we lived in the 80s it was a better way to live. This DMCA
>>>>ridden IP crazy world is the death of freedom of expression.
>>>
>>>The DMCA is crazy, but this *isn't* the way *I* lived in the 80s.
>>
>> Maybe *you* didn't, but everyone I knew in business and the universities
>> did. Everyone had "Copy II PC."
>
> So everybody you knew was probably violating the law? Once clue
> is that if you had to use special software to copy an program,
> it probably is against the copyright agreement.
Think about "copyright agreement" in the sense of property. If I buy a book
shelf, do I not have the right to first sale? Do I not have the right to do
with it as I please? Can I not lend it to whom ever I want? Why is media or
software treated differently? Why is a bookshelf different from the book?
These are serious questions that very large companies are working hard to
answer, and not in yours or my best interest.
>
>>>>These days I use Linux and GPL software, it is just safer.
>>>
>>>Yes. And there are special rules that govern GPL software.
>>>You are allowed to sell it, but you must give the source
>>>away.
>>
>> Actually, people argue this all the time. You can't "sell" the software.
>> "Selling" software implies a new license of some sort or transfer of
>> ownership rights. You can not take someone's GPL code and sell it. You
>> are allowed to charge for the service of copying and distribution. Also
>> You don't have to give the source away if you make no modifications. You
>> are only required to make your changes public.
>
> This is a very old argument. You *are* allowed to sell any GPL'ed
> software as long as you adhere to the GPL. As of my last reading,
> you either had to make the source available or point to where the
> source was.
>
> I can sell gcc. It would be silly of somebody to buy it, but
> the sale would (as of my last reading of the GPL) be fully
> legal. Of course, my customer could then sell lots more copies,
> all in the name of the GPL.
This is a semantic argument, but I've been having these discussions for well
over a decade now and this is based on long standing legal advice.
When you sell software, you are assigning or conveying a license to someone
else for compensation. Unless you are the author, you have no right to do
any such thing. GPL software is available to anyone who abides by the GPL
and the GPL states that you are not legally permitted to re-license the
software.
You have every right to sell the CD on which the software is recorded.
You have every right to copyright an aggregation of GPL packages.
You have every right to sell the boxes in which your CD with your
copyrighted aggregation is transferred.
You do not, however, have the right to sell GPL software of which you are
not the author because you don't own it.
Practically speaking, there is very little differences in our position. I
may sell a CD of gimp, debian, firefox, and other packages as "MLW's
Backoffice Powerpack" for $199 at retail outlets, but I am selling the
package and my work in creating it, but it can not be said that I am
selling the software I did not write because it is not mine.
Technically speaking, the positions are hugely different.
>
>>>>In the case of the guy posting your book on usenet, that is a clear
>>>>violation because it can be argued that it diminishes the value of your
>>>>work, and that's wrong.
>>>
>>>Yes. However it doesn't matter to me if your use of my work actually
>>>diminishes the value of the work. If the work isn't paid for, I
>>>don't want you using it.
>>
>> The question is the definition of "property." Granted, software and
>> recorded music seem different from printed word, but never the less we
>> live with copyright.
>>
>> Copyright is based on the notion that once something is made public, it
>> ceases to be the exclusive property of another. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
>
> Actually copyright has to do with published works and not ideas. Earl
> Stanley Gardener wrote some great lawyer/detective stories; this doesn't
> prevent anybody else from using his ideas to write stoires of their
> own. They just can't take his words or make a derivative work (say by
> writing new Perry Mason stories without the current copyright owner's
> permisson).
What is or is not protected by copyright is a crap shoot these days. It is a
dangerous world right now if you are in the "creation" business.
>
>> "It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an
>> individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and
>> stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
>> all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power
>> called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he
>> keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into
>> the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself
>> of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
>> because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
>> from me, received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
>> lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
>
> This only talks about ideas, not their implementation.
For copyright, it is "expression," not implementation.
Gordon McComb
> > Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe this. The only applications on
> > my computer are legally obtained. I do *not* illegally copy software
> > (or anything else if possible).
>
> Then I applaud you! I don't know anyone else that doesn't have an
> unregistered copy of WinZip or something on their machine.
I don't have any "copied" software either. And who needs WinZip when XP
comes with a folder zipping function?
> Think about "copyright agreement" in the sense of property. If I buy a book
> shelf, do I not have the right to first sale? Do I not have the right to do
> with it as I please? Can I not lend it to whom ever I want? Why is media or
> software treated differently? Why is a bookshelf different from the book?
You can sell, loan, or burn your books. No one will stop you. You just
can't make copies of your books and give them away to other people. WHY
this is such a hard concept for some people I do not know. Except in
narrow circumstances, only the copyright holder has the right to make
copies. "Copy" and "right"...hmmmmmm.
There is one notable exception to the notion of being able to do
whatever you want with a book. Now that the US recognizes the Berne
Convention, authors maintain a moral copyright in addition to a legal
copyright. It means you cannot sully the work of an author in a revised
edition (exceptions: clearly recognizable satire, etc.), remove the
author's name from the work, add your name to the work, or do anything
else that reduces the right of the artist to be identified with the
original work. The concept of moral copyright is not new, though it's
relatively new to the US. It goes back to the mid 19th century.
-- Gordon
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> > Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe this. The only applications on
>> > my computer are legally obtained. I do *not* illegally copy software
>> > (or anything else if possible).
>>
>> Then I applaud you! I don't know anyone else that doesn't have an
>> unregistered copy of WinZip or something on their machine.
>
> I don't have any "copied" software either. And who needs WinZip when XP
> comes with a folder zipping function?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but everyone I know personally has
something. I'm very much surprised.
>
>> Think about "copyright agreement" in the sense of property. If I buy a
>> book shelf, do I not have the right to first sale? Do I not have the
>> right to do with it as I please? Can I not lend it to whom ever I want?
>> Why is media or software treated differently? Why is a bookshelf
>> different from the book?
>
> You can sell, loan, or burn your books. No one will stop you. You just
> can't make copies of your books and give them away to other people. WHY
> this is such a hard concept for some people I do not know. Except in
> narrow circumstances, only the copyright holder has the right to make
> copies. "Copy" and "right"...hmmmmmm.
The context of my paragraph was about software, oddly enough, I was poetic
about the "bookshelf" and the "book," oh well, just confusing I guess.
But, my friend, what happens when a book is no longer made from dead trees?
Gordon McComb
> But, my friend, what happens when a book is no longer made from dead trees?
From a legal or moral standpoint nothing, because either way you're
copying what someone wrote down. You're not doing it to make more blank
pieces of dead trees.
If you're saying that because technology now makes it easy to make
copies, you're correct. If you're saying there are people who think
nothing of copying something and getting copies of something, you are
also correct. They're doing it to avoid paying for something they know
is not free, and in the end, we'll ALL pay for it. There will be copy
protection on everything, and DRM will severely restrict fair use.
Because people abused copying, things will get to a point where you
won't even be able to loan your legitimate electronic copy of The Da
Vinca Code to someone. Only you, the original buyer, will have access to
it.
-- Gordon
mlw
I want to say something, and it is more of a philosophy point of view than
purely a legal one. I'm a huge fan of Benjamin Franklin, and I think he had
a lot of insights and ideas that are lost on most people. High schools
didn't do this man justice and few people take the time to understand what
he wrote. Anyway, to paraphrase.
The problem with copyright and creative works, and I believe this includes
software, is that it is not purely property. You can never take it out of
the mind of the user.
A physical object, say a hammer, I can lend a person, he or she may use it
for a period of time, and then, when it is returned, it can no longer
perform the work for which it was intended.
Copyrighted works can never be removed from a persons mind. Ideas and facts
and images stay. We can continually draw from them. When we learn something
from them, or alter our thinking because of them, they become part of us.
Eventually, if the copyrighted work becomes important, it becomes part of
society. It, itself, becomes too important to be controlled by a single
entity. This is the reason for the public domain.
Have you ever read Philip K. Dick's short story "Paycheck?"
The never ending quest to keep mickey mouse permanently and forever out of
the public domain has hurt society, IMHO. (as well as the opinions of a lot
of people)
The big picture here is copying. Copyrighted works are always copied in the
minds of everyone that uses them. Ideas, thoughts, and facts are used all
the time. Computer interfaces we "learn," or new ways of doing things. We
have to let go of this anal fear of copying and realize that, for the
better of society, as they say, that horse has left the barn.
As a part time author, I too have lost income because of the economic
challenges of publishing, but I realize that it has to be and we have to
challenge things like DRM and new more restrictive laws to protect the
public domain for generations to come.
The problem isn't controlling copying and making it a crime or impossible,
but to derive income from it. Make it easier/value added to return to the
original source. Our current system for compensating artists is not that
old, I don't think it needs to be set in stone. It is only in the last
couple centuries that content creators could even make money selling their
works. More often than not, it was merely work for hire.
In 50 or 100 years from now, what survives as literature when we no longer
use dead trees? What happens to great works that are locked up in DRM and
the keys are long lost? What happens to history?
Not to sound melodramatic, but this is the first time in human history where
we may start reversing the longevity of history. Until this point in time,
writings and art we intended to be immortal, testaments to the time and the
peoples that created them. Sure, there is always some profit motive, but
the work survives. Very soon now, with DRM and laws, maintaining history is
will become illegal or impossible. Libraries being limited to what they can
share. User's unable to lend books. It is a dangerous time, and we are
losing truly important rights for mere money.
Gordon McComb
> The big picture here is copying. Copyrighted works are always copied in the
> minds of everyone that uses them.
When they perfect Vulcan mind melds I guess copyright holders will feel
emperiled, but until then I guess "copying to one's mind" is a colorful
though not very accurate way to describe learning. I know few people who
can read something and then make an exact duplicate of it, or would
bother if they could. What a person takes away from learning about
anything, from any source, is uniquely theirs. Obviously, copyright has
nothing to do with people retaining what they've learned.
-- Gordon
mlw
Come on Gordon, there was a lot more point in my post than that one sentence
out of context!
"The big picture here is copying. Copyrighted works are always copied in the
Gordon McComb
> Come on Gordon, there was a lot more point in my post than that one sentence
> out of context!
To me the whole point of "learning = copying" is so specious I didn't
feel the need to respond point by point. There is nothing even remotely
like copying when someone learns something, as the learning process
involves integrating new information with existing information,
producing a result unique to each individual. Absolutely not like
copying. What people learn from a book are ideas and facts, and you know
neither is copyrightable. They do not "copy" the text into their brains,
and the vast majority cannot remember the word-for-word sequence that is
the subject of copyrightability.
-- Gordon
mlw
You are being far to literal.
Joe Pfeiffer
While you're exactly right on this, there have been some lawsuits
(including one against google) claiming that copying data from disk to
the CPU to manipulate it is "copying" in the sense copyright guards
against.
JGCASEY
It is the meaning that is copied not the carrier of that meaning.
Where did you get the information for your book? If I had the
same sources that you used to get that information I wouldn't
need to read your book any more than you would.
There is an important role for those who can translate technical
text into a simpler form for those who haven't the time to become
experts in a particular field. Some translate for love, some for money.
In an ideal situation, if there is nothing really creative in the ideas
written, the translator should at least get a fixed one off payment.
Still if a lot of people want to read your works... The author of
the Harry Potter series seemed to do ok. What would have
happened if her works were copied over the web before she sold
any of her books?
--
JC
Gordon McComb
> It is the meaning that is copied not the carrier of that meaning.
Copyright has NEVER applied to ideas ("meaning"), so it's pointless to
argue this.
> Where did you get the information for your book? If I had the
> same sources that you used to get that information I wouldn't
> need to read your book any more than you would.
I synergized what I learned, with prior facts and experiences that are
unique to me. I wrote those down, creating a unique expression of those
ideas. When you read the book you'll do the same. What you take from the
book will be UNIQUE to you, and you alone. Your learning is not a copy
of the text, but an experience as unique as a fingerprint.
> In an ideal situation, if there is nothing really creative in the ideas
> written,
Sigh. I'll repeat this once more: COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS.
Never has, never will, doesn't need to. Clear now?
-- Gordon
JGCASEY
JGCASEY wrote:
>> It is the meaning that is copied not the carrier
>> of that meaning.
>
>
> Copyright has NEVER applied to ideas ("meaning"),
> so it's pointless to argue this.
I wasn't writing about copyright the reference was
to mlw's comment that it was copied to the brain.
It wasn't about laws, morals or ethics.
I know they say that "ideas" are not subject to
copyright.
Even so I notice that a house design is subject to
copyright and I would say putting the kitchen there
and the lounge here is an idea. So I guess it also
depends what you decide the word "idea" means.
Another example are algorithms. I would say that
if I came up with a new algorithm it would be a
new "idea" but subject to copyright.
>> Where did you get the information for your book?
>> If I had the same sources that you used to get
>> that information I wouldn't need to read your
>> book any more than you would.
>
>
> I synergized what I learned, with prior facts
> and experiences that are unique to me. I wrote
> those down, creating a unique expression of those
> ideas. When you read the book you'll do the same.
Mmmm. Ok :)
Clifford Heath
> It is the meaning that is copied not the carrier of that meaning.
> Where did you get the information for your book?
Information exists not in the things but in the arrangement of
those things. Gordon's book has value because of the arrangement,
which is distinct from and additional to the source material he
drew on. His copyright extends to his arrangement of the source
material, and not to the source material itself.
But perhaps that's what you're both saying?
JGCASEY
My post was really only with regard to mlw's comment
"Copyrighted works are always copied in the minds of
everyone that uses them."
It wasn't meant to be about Gordon or his excellent
books as such.
I accept Gordon's take that an author synergizes what
they have learned, with prior facts and experiences
that are unique to them and that constitutes an origonal
and creative work.
I haven't seen Gordon's "Electronics for Dummies" but it
was what I felt was missing from his "The Robot Builder's
Bonanza". If the work is useful enough for anyone to want
to copy it, it is worth paying for. Unfortunately most
people believe stealing is ok as long as you can get away
with it and those that produce the goods have to find some
way of preventing it from happening.
--
JC
mlw
>
> Another example are algorithms. I would say that
> if I came up with a new algorithm it would be a
> new "idea" but subject to copyright.
Gordon is right about "ideas" not being subject to copyright. A computer
algorithm is an idea of "process" and thus can not be copyrighted.
In IP Law:
Copyright protects the expression of ideas.
Patents protect processes
Trademark law protects symbols of companies, Tony The Tiger, etc.
Trade Secret protect those materials, ideas, expressions, etc. that are held
secret by their holders.
A computer algorithm gained the ability to be patented in the 1980s.
There is a lot of work being done by some very bad lawyers to expand
copyright to cover more abstract aspects of an expression, i.e. form and
structure, methods and concepts, etc.
JGCASEY
mlw wrote:
> JGCASEY wrote:
>
> >
> > Another example is algorithms. I would say that
> > if I came up with a new algorithm it would be a
> > new "idea" but subject to copyright.
>
> Gordon is right about "ideas" not being subject to
> copyright. A computer algorithm is an idea of "process"
> and thus can not be copyrighted.
An idea has to be an idea about something which would
make that something copyright be it a process or anything
else. Clearly there is something I am missing here.
> In IP Law:
> Copyright protects the expression of ideas.
> Patents protect processes
> Trademark law protects symbols of companies,
> Tony The Tiger, etc.
> Trade Secret protect those materials, ideas,
> expressions, etc. that are held secret by their holders.
>
> A computer algorithm gained the ability to be patented
> in the 1980s.
>
> There is a lot of work being done by some very bad
> lawyers to expand copyright to cover more abstract
> aspects of an expression, i.e. form and structure,
> methods and concepts, etc.
The only socially responsible and useful role of a patent
is to allow people to be adequately rewarded for their
contribution and it ideally needs to be commensurate to
the worth of that contribution. In practice it is all
about politics, power and control.
--
JC
Gordon McComb
> An idea has to be an idea about something which would
> make that something copyright be it a process or anything
> else. Clearly there is something I am missing here.
Two people can come up with the exact same idea. For copyrights, it's
not the idea, but how the idea is expressed, that makes it special. So,
maybe I have an idea about creating a robot that runs on burps from Dr.
Pepper. Someone else might come up with the same. We can both write
about the idea, and we can both have our work copyrighted.
For a patent you can protect the idea, but the idea has to be pass
certain requirements of being novel, useful, and non-obvious. A
copyright can protect something brand new, or something dull, useless,
and so obvious a two year old could think of it.
> The only socially responsible and useful role of a patent
> is to allow people to be adequately rewarded for their
> contribution and it ideally needs to be commensurate to
> the worth of that contribution. In practice it is all
> about politics, power and control.
*Everything* is about politics, power, and control. We all long for a
little bit more than we already have.
We should probably get back to building 'bots now. I have an idea for
one that uses carbonation from a certain fruity soda pop...
-- Gordon
JGCASEY
> JGCASEY wrote:
> > An idea has to be an idea about something which would
> > make that something copyright be it a process or anything
> > else. Clearly there is something I am missing here.
>
> Two people can come up with the exact same idea.
> For copyrights, it's not the idea, but how the idea is
> expressed, that makes it special. So, maybe I have an
> idea about creating a robot that runs on burps from Dr.
> Pepper. Someone else might come up with the same. We
> can both write about the idea, and we can both have our
> work copyrighted.
>
> For a patent you can protect the idea, but the idea has
> to be pass certain requirements of being novel, useful,
> and non-obvious. A copyright can protect something brand
> new, or something dull, useless, and so obvious a two
> year old could think of it.
>
> > The only socially responsible and useful role of a patent
> > is to allow people to be adequately rewarded for their
> > contribution and it ideally needs to be commensurate to
> > the worth of that contribution. In practice it is all
> > about politics, power and control.
>
> *Everything* is about politics, power, and control.
> We all long for a little bit more than we already have.
That is what sparked my interest in robots as a kid.
Something to do my chores for me. Reminds me of the Roomba
TV advertisement where the wife says, "I love my Roomba
but I have control", or words to that effect as she waves
her remote control about.
> We should probably get back to building 'bots now. I have
> an idea for one that uses carbonation from a certain fruity
> soda pop...
Hey! Sorry. I have already had that idea and I want to
patent it :-)
-- John
D. Jay Newman
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>And I believe that "educational purposes" are legally for
>>the purpose of teaching others, not yourself.
>
> Why? People have the right to teach themselves.
US law and precident tends to disagree with you on
this.
> I have had to study a *lot* of IP crap the last few years. In much of this
> discussion, I am playing devil's advocate, but I am *very* concerned about
> intellectual property law running crazy.
So am I. However, I do think that the intention of the laws
is to serve the good of society. And as has been pointed out
already in this thread, losing authors because they can't make
money doesn't serve the good of society.
>>Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe this. The only applications on
>>my computer are legally obtained. I do *not* illegally copy software
>>(or anything else if possible).
>
> Then I applaud you! I don't know anyone else that doesn't have an
> unregistered copy of WinZip or something on their machine.
When I found I needed Winzip, I went to the web site and bought
it. Before that it wasn't on my system.
For now the functions included in Windows XP work for me.
>>I have no illegal software on any of the computers in my house to my
>>knowledge. Neither my wife nor I would use such software anyway.
>
> Again, good for you, you lead an honest life. Did you ever see "Dogma?" Loki
> won't kill you.
I never said that I lived an honest life. I merely stated I don't do
illegal software. :)
>>Actually both of these entities have agreed that the decoders are
>>fine. Only the software that make such images costs money. And
>>I have paid for such things indirectly by buying commercial
>>graphics programs.
>
> Assuming, of course, that you don't have devices or programs purchased
> before the JPEG patent was announced or were produced without paying
> royalties. Have you actually verified that you are in compliance? It is
> probably impossible to know for sure.
I have not verified my systems in full. However, all the computers
in my house are built with software after these patents were
announced. Now, I have no idea if some of my home video
equipment includes such things. However, I bought this equipment
(legally) and am assuming that the companies deal with such things.
> Yes, yes, "illegally," sure, everyone breaks the law every day doing
> something: littering, speeding, saying curse words in public, eating
> peanuts in church, or thousands of other "important" laws. It is
> impossible in the U.S.A. to go 24 hours and NOT break the law in some way.
> Some things are more illegal than others. Typically, though not always, the
> important measure is "harm" in the choice of enforcement.
Yes, it is fairly difficult to go without breaking some little
laws somewhere. On a long trip maybe I accidentally go over
the speed limit for a bit. I try not to break the laws I know
about, though.
> That's because of the physical property of matter having to be in only one
> place at a time. That is an artifact of an old process of using chemicals
> to stain dead trees. Sooner or later, human kind will abandon such
> antiquated practices.
True.
> Then what? When there is no more physical media to regulate usership. The IP
> movement in this country sees this inevitable change as a gold rush!!! What
> happens when you have a book and you can't re-read it or loan it or sell
> it? What of "fair use" then?
There will be some way of compensating the information creators
and editors. If they can't pay their bills, there will be less
information created in a usable way.
>>For some software, yes. It was accepted practice regardless of the
>>legality for personal software. Professional software was different.
>
> Why? Why is that allowed? Is it property or not? If it is property, I should
> have the right to do with it as I please, if it is not property, then it is
> governed by a set of rules that attempt to mimic property, and in a
> democracy those rules are subject to the people.
It doesn't matter what form of governemtn you have; the rules are set by
society. And in this case it seems to be of benefit to society that IP
is protected as (or similar to) property. If the copyright owners choose
to give up some of their rights, that is their business.
And professional software tends to be more expensive so the copyright
owners tend to be more careful.
>>I believe that this is like lending a book. I believe that legally
>>(unless the EUL says differently) that the origianl owner must
>>uninstall his copy before lending to his friend, who must
>>install it.
> Why does a software published have the RIGHT to define, beyond copyright and
> "fair use" what I can do with something I purchased?
Actually the EUL usually *gives* you rights above and beyond
what is avialble trhough fair use.
For example, some software allows you to use a copy
for personal use in addition to use at work. Otherwise
it is wrong to use it in both places.
>>So everybody you knew was probably violating the law? Once clue
>>is that if you had to use special software to copy an program,
>>it probably is against the copyright agreement.
>
> Think about "copyright agreement" in the sense of property. If I buy a book
> shelf, do I not have the right to first sale? Do I not have the right to do
> with it as I please? Can I not lend it to whom ever I want? Why is media or
> software treated differently? Why is a bookshelf different from the book?
Yes, you have the right of first sale, even with software. Copyrighted
software you must destroy your copy when you sell it.
To a degree you have to do with it as you please. However, by buying
the copy your have already agreed to be bound by the copyright
law.
> These are serious questions that very large companies are working hard to
> answer, and not in yours or my best interest.
Agreed.
> You do not, however, have the right to sell GPL software of which you are
> not the author because you don't own it.
Sure you do. You can easily sell such software on a website. By using
the GPL, the copyright owner gives up certain rights.
>>Actually copyright has to do with published works and not ideas. Earl
>>Stanley Gardener wrote some great lawyer/detective stories; this doesn't
>>prevent anybody else from using his ideas to write stoires of their
>>own. They just can't take his words or make a derivative work (say by
>>writing new Perry Mason stories without the current copyright owner's
>>permisson).
>
> What is or is not protected by copyright is a crap shoot these days. It is a
> dangerous world right now if you are in the "creation" business.
I agree. However, like all such things, the pendulum will swing
again. The laws will eventually catch up with technology.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
>>>And I believe that "educational purposes" are legally for
>>>the purpose of teaching others, not yourself.
>>
>> Why? People have the right to teach themselves.
>
> US law and precident tends to disagree with you on
> this.
I respectfully disagree with you on this.
>
>> I have had to study a *lot* of IP crap the last few years. In much of
>> this discussion, I am playing devil's advocate, but I am *very* concerned
>> about intellectual property law running crazy.
>
> So am I. However, I do think that the intention of the laws
> is to serve the good of society. And as has been pointed out
> already in this thread, losing authors because they can't make
> money doesn't serve the good of society.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. In the "arts," there are always popular
"stars" and people who can't make a living at it. Edgar Allen Poe died
penniless. Whether or not someone can make a living at their art is of no
consequence to society or quality.
It is a harsh world, and though we may wish for an idealistic solution,
sometimes reality is quite unfair.
Which serves society better? DRM and the regulation of thoughts and ideas by
large corporations and governments, or paying authors with an obsolete
methodology.
Sorry, I believe that removing the old guard of publishers and media
companies and the laws that have been enacted to prop them up, will make
way for artists and creators to better make a living. Publishers and media
companies have only been around for a short time, artists have been around
for about the same amount of time as prostitutes.
Ah ha! Pay up! LOL.
>
> > Yes, yes, "illegally," sure, everyone breaks the law every day doing
>> something: littering, speeding, saying curse words in public, eating
>> peanuts in church, or thousands of other "important" laws. It is
>> impossible in the U.S.A. to go 24 hours and NOT break the law in some
>> way. Some things are more illegal than others. Typically, though not
>> always, the important measure is "harm" in the choice of enforcement.
>
> Yes, it is fairly difficult to go without breaking some little
> laws somewhere. On a long trip maybe I accidentally go over
> the speed limit for a bit. I try not to break the laws I know
> about, though.
"accidentally" go over the speed limit? Umm, OK. I "believe" that.
>
>> That's because of the physical property of matter having to be in only
>> one place at a time. That is an artifact of an old process of using
>> chemicals to stain dead trees. Sooner or later, human kind will abandon
>> such antiquated practices.
>
> True.
>
>> Then what? When there is no more physical media to regulate usership. The
>> IP movement in this country sees this inevitable change as a gold rush!!!
>> What happens when you have a book and you can't re-read it or loan it or
>> sell it? What of "fair use" then?
>
> There will be some way of compensating the information creators
> and editors. If they can't pay their bills, there will be less
> information created in a usable way.
Paying artists or not has never affected the supply of art, it has, of
course, affected art dealers.
>
>>>For some software, yes. It was accepted practice regardless of the
>>>legality for personal software. Professional software was different.
>>
>> Why? Why is that allowed? Is it property or not? If it is property, I
>> should have the right to do with it as I please, if it is not property,
>> then it is governed by a set of rules that attempt to mimic property, and
>> in a democracy those rules are subject to the people.
>
> It doesn't matter what form of governemtn you have; the rules are set by
> society. And in this case it seems to be of benefit to society that IP
> is protected as (or similar to) property. If the copyright owners choose
> to give up some of their rights, that is their business.
Actually, society has spoken, it thinks it is OK to download and copy media.
It is government and corporations that are trying to make this "wrong."
>
> And professional software tends to be more expensive so the copyright
> owners tend to be more careful.
>
>>>I believe that this is like lending a book. I believe that legally
>>>(unless the EUL says differently) that the origianl owner must
>>>uninstall his copy before lending to his friend, who must
>>>install it.
>
>> Why does a software published have the RIGHT to define, beyond copyright
>> and "fair use" what I can do with something I purchased?
>
> Actually the EUL usually *gives* you rights above and beyond
> what is avialble trhough fair use.
That is clearly not true. Most ELUA documents limit what you can do with the
software, far beyond fair use. They also seek to limit liability. Seek to
degrade your rights to privacy. Seek to eliminate your right of first sale.
Take about and hour and carefully read Microsoft's EULA for Windows XP.
>
> For example, some software allows you to use a copy
> for personal use in addition to use at work. Otherwise
> it is wrong to use it in both places.
If I use it at work and I use it at home, I am only using one copy, right?
That scenario should be fair use, should it not?
>
>>>So everybody you knew was probably violating the law? Once clue
>>>is that if you had to use special software to copy an program,
>>>it probably is against the copyright agreement.
>>
>> Think about "copyright agreement" in the sense of property. If I buy a
>> book shelf, do I not have the right to first sale? Do I not have the
>> right to do with it as I please? Can I not lend it to whom ever I want?
>> Why is media or software treated differently? Why is a bookshelf
>> different from the book?
>
> Yes, you have the right of first sale, even with software. Copyrighted
> software you must destroy your copy when you sell it.
Microsoft, with its EULA, seeks to eliminate right of first sale. If you buy
a computer with XP, but do not wish to use XP, and use Linux, Microsoft
calls selling the XP software illegal.
Furthermore, if you "use" the software, you can not then sell it, no matter
what. At least no legally.
>
> To a degree you have to do with it as you please. However, by buying
> the copy your have already agreed to be bound by the copyright
> law.
The EULA is not copyright law.
>
>> These are serious questions that very large companies are working hard to
>> answer, and not in yours or my best interest.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> You do not, however, have the right to sell GPL software of which you are
>> not the author because you don't own it.
>
> Sure you do. You can easily sell such software on a website. By using
> the GPL, the copyright owner gives up certain rights.
You snipped the argument and addressed none of it, simply restated your
position without logical reason. That's pretty lame, so lets look at the
argument again:
When you sell software, you are assigning or conveying a license to someone
else for compensation. Unless you are the author, you have no right to do
any such thing. GPL software is available to anyone who abides by the GPL
and the GPL states that you are not legally permitted to re-license the
software.
You have every right to sell the CD on which the software is recorded.
You have every right to copyright an aggregation of GPL packages.
You have every right to sell the boxes in which your CD with your
copyrighted aggregation is transferred.
>
>>>Actually copyright has to do with published works and not ideas. Earl
>>>Stanley Gardener wrote some great lawyer/detective stories; this doesn't
>>>prevent anybody else from using his ideas to write stoires of their
>>>own. They just can't take his words or make a derivative work (say by
>>>writing new Perry Mason stories without the current copyright owner's
>>>permisson).
>>
>> What is or is not protected by copyright is a crap shoot these days. It
>> is a dangerous world right now if you are in the "creation" business.
>
> I agree. However, like all such things, the pendulum will swing
> again. The laws will eventually catch up with technology.
Assuming of course our government still works. I have deep fears about that
as well.
D. Jay Newman
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
> Which serves society better? DRM and the regulation of thoughts and ideas by
> large corporations and governments, or paying authors with an obsolete
> methodology.
I have *never* stated that I agree with DRM or with the RIAA. In fact
I think that for many reasons both of these are bad for society.
>>Yes, it is fairly difficult to go without breaking some little
>>laws somewhere. On a long trip maybe I accidentally go over
>>the speed limit for a bit. I try not to break the laws I know
>>about, though.
>
> "accidentally" go over the speed limit? Umm, OK. I "believe" that.
Have you ever tried to stay at *exactly* the speed limit? Perhaps
if I did some road rallies I'd have the experience. :)
>>There will be some way of compensating the information creators
>>and editors. If they can't pay their bills, there will be less
>>information created in a usable way.
>
> Paying artists or not has never affected the supply of art, it has, of
> course, affected art dealers.
Hmmm. You are making a bunch of assumptions there. There are many
books I've enjoyed that wouldn't have been written had the authors
not thought they were going to be paid.
>>It doesn't matter what form of governemtn you have; the rules are set by
>>society. And in this case it seems to be of benefit to society that IP
>>is protected as (or similar to) property. If the copyright owners choose
>>to give up some of their rights, that is their business.
>
> Actually, society has spoken, it thinks it is OK to download and copy media.
> It is government and corporations that are trying to make this "wrong."
Many people have said that is what they *want*. They haven't said
this is good for society. There is a distinction.
>>>Why does a software published have the RIGHT to define, beyond copyright
>>>and "fair use" what I can do with something I purchased?
>>
>>Actually the EUL usually *gives* you rights above and beyond
>>what is avialble trhough fair use.
>
> That is clearly not true. Most ELUA documents limit what you can do with the
> software, far beyond fair use. They also seek to limit liability. Seek to
> degrade your rights to privacy. Seek to eliminate your right of first sale.
You also haven't read the EULAs. There is some give and take.
>>For example, some software allows you to use a copy
>>for personal use in addition to use at work. Otherwise
>>it is wrong to use it in both places.
>
> If I use it at work and I use it at home, I am only using one copy, right?
> That scenario should be fair use, should it not?
The software I was thinking of, Microsoft Word, had wording in it
that gave you the right to use your workplace copy at home. In the
usual situation of working for somebody else, you do not have the
right to use your employer's software for your own use (unless they
cede that right to you).
>>Yes, you have the right of first sale, even with software. Copyrighted
>>software you must destroy your copy when you sell it.
>
> Microsoft, with its EULA, seeks to eliminate right of first sale. If you buy
> a computer with XP, but do not wish to use XP, and use Linux, Microsoft
> calls selling the XP software illegal.
That is because Microsoft entered into a contract with the computer
reseller to sell them Windows at a highly discounted rate. Therefore
the limitation on resale.
>>To a degree you have to do with it as you please. However, by buying
>>the copy your have already agreed to be bound by the copyright
>>law.
>
> The EULA is not copyright law.
No, it is a condition of sale, and the legality is up for debate in
many places.
> You snipped the argument and addressed none of it, simply restated your
> position without logical reason. That's pretty lame, so lets look at the
> argument again:
That is because I wanted to keep the attributions down.
> When you sell software, you are assigning or conveying a license to someone
> else for compensation. Unless you are the author, you have no right to do
> any such thing. GPL software is available to anyone who abides by the GPL
> and the GPL states that you are not legally permitted to re-license the
> software.
Actually you aren't. You are *selling* a piece of software. The GPL
gives me the right to transfer copies to anybody I choose to as long
as I stick to the GPL. At no time do I claim copyright on somebody
else's software.
> You have every right to sell the CD on which the software is recorded.
> You have every right to copyright an aggregation of GPL packages.
> You have every right to sell the boxes in which your CD with your
> copyrighted aggregation is transferred.
I also have a right to charge whatever I want for the priviledge of
downloading GPL software, or selling it by any means. The copyright
owner has agreed to be bound by the conditions of the GPL and has
given away his rights to prevent copies from being made.
>>I agree. However, like all such things, the pendulum will swing
>>again. The laws will eventually catch up with technology.
>
> Assuming of course our government still works. I have deep fears about that
> as well.
And that too shall eventually change.
mlw
> mlw wrote:
>> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
>> Which serves society better? DRM and the regulation of thoughts and ideas
>> by large corporations and governments, or paying authors with an obsolete
>> methodology.
>
> I have *never* stated that I agree with DRM or with the RIAA. In fact
> I think that for many reasons both of these are bad for society.
But these are the same things!!
>
>>>Yes, it is fairly difficult to go without breaking some little
>>>laws somewhere. On a long trip maybe I accidentally go over
>>>the speed limit for a bit. I try not to break the laws I know
>>>about, though.
>>
>> "accidentally" go over the speed limit? Umm, OK. I "believe" that.
>
> Have you ever tried to stay at *exactly* the speed limit? Perhaps
> if I did some road rallies I'd have the experience. :)
You could always drive under the limit.
>
>>>There will be some way of compensating the information creators
>>>and editors. If they can't pay their bills, there will be less
>>>information created in a usable way.
>>
>> Paying artists or not has never affected the supply of art, it has, of
>> course, affected art dealers.
>
> Hmmm. You are making a bunch of assumptions there. There are many
> books I've enjoyed that wouldn't have been written had the authors
> not thought they were going to be paid.
The availability of a particular work is subject to a lot of factors,
including, historically of course, the quality of scotch available to the
author.
>
>>>It doesn't matter what form of governemtn you have; the rules are set by
>>>society. And in this case it seems to be of benefit to society that IP
>>>is protected as (or similar to) property. If the copyright owners choose
>>>to give up some of their rights, that is their business.
>>
>> Actually, society has spoken, it thinks it is OK to download and copy
>> media. It is government and corporations that are trying to make this
>> "wrong."
>
> Many people have said that is what they *want*. They haven't said
> this is good for society. There is a distinction.
I'm not sure I agree, what you or I think is "good" for society is different
than what society does, which is by definition, what society does.
>
>>>>Why does a software published have the RIGHT to define, beyond copyright
>>>>and "fair use" what I can do with something I purchased?
>>>
>>>Actually the EUL usually *gives* you rights above and beyond
>>>what is avialble trhough fair use.
>>
>> That is clearly not true. Most ELUA documents limit what you can do with
>> the software, far beyond fair use. They also seek to limit liability.
>> Seek to degrade your rights to privacy. Seek to eliminate your right of
>> first sale.
>
> You also haven't read the EULAs. There is some give and take.
Actually, I have had to read a LOT of eula, they are very scary documents.
>
>>>For example, some software allows you to use a copy
>>>for personal use in addition to use at work. Otherwise
>>>it is wrong to use it in both places.
>>
>> If I use it at work and I use it at home, I am only using one copy,
>> right? That scenario should be fair use, should it not?
>
> The software I was thinking of, Microsoft Word, had wording in it
> that gave you the right to use your workplace copy at home. In the
> usual situation of working for somebody else, you do not have the
> right to use your employer's software for your own use (unless they
> cede that right to you).
I find this absurd that we think this is correct.
>
>>>Yes, you have the right of first sale, even with software. Copyrighted
>>>software you must destroy your copy when you sell it.
>>
>> Microsoft, with its EULA, seeks to eliminate right of first sale. If you
>> buy a computer with XP, but do not wish to use XP, and use Linux,
>> Microsoft calls selling the XP software illegal.
>
> That is because Microsoft entered into a contract with the computer
> reseller to sell them Windows at a highly discounted rate. Therefore
> the limitation on resale.
The contract between Microsoft and the computer reseller is not a contract
into which YOU have entered, and thus should not be binding on you.
>
>>>To a degree you have to do with it as you please. However, by buying
>>>the copy your have already agreed to be bound by the copyright
>>>law.
>>
>> The EULA is not copyright law.
>
> No, it is a condition of sale, and the legality is up for debate in
> many places.
Correction, it is not a condition of "sale," as you can buy it without
agreeing to it. (often times can't even read it prior to sale.) It is a
condition of use, well, actually, ownership as it controls what you can do
with your property.
>
>> You snipped the argument and addressed none of it, simply restated your
>> position without logical reason. That's pretty lame, so lets look at the
>> argument again:
>
> That is because I wanted to keep the attributions down.
>
>> When you sell software, you are assigning or conveying a license to
>> someone else for compensation. Unless you are the author, you have no
>> right to do any such thing. GPL software is available to anyone who
>> abides by the GPL and the GPL states that you are not legally permitted
>> to re-license the software.
>
> Actually you aren't. You are *selling* a piece of software.
This is not true. In a copyrighted work, unless you sell ownership of the
work (which you can't because you don't own it), you are actually selling a
license or right to use it. Since GPL gives people these rights anyway, you
are not selling anything.
> The GPL
> gives me the right to transfer copies to anybody I choose to as long
> as I stick to the GPL.
Yes, "transfer copies," and that's key. Look at my statements below.
> At no time do I claim copyright on somebody
> else's software.
Exactly, thus you can't sell "the software" but you can sell the process of
providing such copies. It is a semantic argument in most cases, but there
are important differences.
>
>> You have every right to sell the CD on which the software is recorded.
>> You have every right to copyright an aggregation of GPL packages.
>> You have every right to sell the boxes in which your CD with your
>> copyrighted aggregation is transferred.
>
> I also have a right to charge whatever I want for the priviledge of
> downloading GPL software, or selling it by any means. The copyright
> owner has agreed to be bound by the conditions of the GPL and has
> given away his rights to prevent copies from being made.
>
>>>I agree. However, like all such things, the pendulum will swing
>>>again. The laws will eventually catch up with technology.
>>
>> Assuming of course our government still works. I have deep fears about
>> that as well.
>
> And that too shall eventually change.
Hopefully
Christopher X. Candreva
: While violating your copyright may cost you some sales, it doesn't
: actually take anything from you. And sometimes illegal copies may
: increase sales.
I made a number of posts in this discussion that seem to have been swallowed
by my news provider. Which may be a good thing, as not only was I not saying
what I was thinking correctly, there are people who say it better.
Aside from you :-) Baen books has been giving away free un-DRMed copies of
some of their books for a few years now, and claim it makes them money.
There are essays on the subject there by actual professional authors who say
why much better than I did:
If the marked for technical books has gotten as bad as you (collective you)
have said it is, IMHO as a reader y'all might want to talk to Jim Baen. If
anyone has figured out how to make money in a niche market, he has. Not
necessarily the same niche, but I would bet he has some ideas.
--
==========================================================
Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 967-7816
WestNet Internet Services of Westchester
http://www.westnet.com/
Shawn B.
> DaemonWalker wrote:
>> Gordon,
>>
>> Your Electronics for Dummies was post last night to
>> Alt.binaries.e-books.technical with a lot of other books that would be
>> very useful to newbiews in the group.
>>
>> The Hirudinea.
>
> That's sad. I wasn't aware that I spent 3+ months writing the thing just
> to have people take it. At least a library, which serves an important
> public need, buys each copy they loan out. It's nice people are so
> willing to take away a person's means of making a living. I'm sure these
> people think book authors are rich and don't need money. I'd like to
> show them what a rich author drives: a 1992 Toyota Tercel with 217,000
> miles on it.
>
> Someday I'll have to find a way to get Countrywide, my mortgage lender,
> to let me send them images of money that I download for free from
> binaries newsgroups.
>
> -- Gordon
Ok I know that this thread has been beat to death, but I hadn't checked
the group in a while and this is a subject that is dear to me. As
someone who has made a living at creating software, I feel the pain of
writers who now face illegal copying and publishing of their work.
It's true that the publishing world is changing thanks (or no thanks) to
the Internet, and this means that book publishing as we know it will
soon be dead, mostly that is. I believe that books will never go away
completely, only the ability to make large sums of money on them. I,
like Gorden, prefer to have an original paper copy of someone's work.
However, within a few generations, that will no doubt change as the
digital world becomes second nature to most humans, and the idea of
paper as medium is looked down upon as old tech.
There may still be a silver lining for writers though. One possible
direction is pay per access web sites. By removing the publisher
altogether and making your work available to the masses through a self
controlled pay site, you may be able to generate enough revenue to live
off of (maybe), especially if the text is searchable by search engines,
but not accessible without a password. This means there needs to be an
API that allows seach engines like Google to search copyrighted text,
but only return an excerpt of the original text and the main web address.
This would mean that all the search engines would have to be on board
with the idea, or at least be forced to be on board with it by the feds.
I'm not in favor of the feds strong arming the industry, but this is
about copyright infringement and if the industry is not willing to
police itself and protect original work, the feds will have no choice.
Just a thought...
Shawn
JGCASEY
Shawn B. wrote:
...
> It's true that the publishing world is changing thanks (or no thanks) to
> the Internet, and this means that book publishing as we know it will
> soon be dead, mostly that is. I believe that books will never go away
> completely, only the ability to make large sums of money on them.
Someone must have forgotten to tell JK Rowling, the author of the
popular Harry Potter series who is now richer than the Queen of
England.
--
JC
Shawn B.
Obviously I didn't mean today. Soon meaning in the next few
generations. Although you can begin to see the effects on the younger
generations even today. Anyone with kids has seen a fundamental change
in the way they read vs. their parents. Personally, I stopped buying
the newspaper years ago and read it on-line.
Shawn
DaemonWalking
might want to let the posters ISP be aware of copyright infringement.
I will be honest, if it was your older Bonanza books I would not have
said anything. But it is your new book so I thought I would let you
know. Plus there were A LOT of books that would be useful here like
the OOPIC/PIC programing guides. I have your hard copy of the first 2
Robotics books and still refer back to them. But i think that how some
books are treated is way off base for the copyright law. Like Hero 1
books. the thing was back in 85, Give the manuals away and sell the
parts/kits.
The Hirudinea
R. Steven Rainwater
>>What the publishing industry needs if it wants to survive is a machine that
>>can print and bind a single copy of a book, and have it ready to ship to the
>>customer's house next day.
>
> They've had this for a long while, avtually. Way back in '97 Ingram (a
> major book distributor), IBM, and Barnes & Noble were in a co-venture to
> produce such "print on demand" books. The venture is still around, and
> is still churning out a million+ books per year:
> https://www.lightningsource.com.
I haven't heard of lightningsource.com but there's a relatively well
known company called Lulu that was founded by Bob Young (co-founder of
Red Hat). The do exactly what you're suggesting. You can upload your
content and anyone who wants to can buy it in a variety of different
dead tree forms. There's no cost to the author of any kind for the POD
service. If you'd like, they also offer distribution services for a
small fee.
You can browse available books here:
http://www.lulu.com/browse/homepage.php
If you do a search on robotics, you'll find some interesting stuff.
-Steve
Gordon McComb
> I haven't heard of lightningsource.com but there's a relatively well
> known company called Lulu that was founded by Bob Young (co-founder of
> Red Hat). The do exactly what you're suggesting. You can upload your
> content and anyone who wants to can buy it in a variety of different
> dead tree forms. There's no cost to the author of any kind for the POD
> service. If you'd like, they also offer distribution services for a
> small fee.
>
> http://www.lulu.com/
Most POD resellers use Lightningsource, which is the actual printer.
Outfits like Lulu.com act as middlemen, and Lightningsource is designed
to interface with the trade. However, if your book submission meets
their technical requirements they'll work with individuals.
Lulu, Cafepress, iUniverse, Xlibris, and a whole slew of others are
great if you're doing just one book, and/or you don't want to deal with
the mechanics. But if you're going to do several, it pays to get your
own block of ISBNs, learn the technical requirements of Lightningsource,
and go direct. Rather than paying you a "royalty," you keep 100% of the
net price of the book (i.e., minus printing and distribution costs,
which you must pay regardless of who's used). You'd be surprised what
"free" means to POD resellers.
-- Gordon
SumGie
"Gordon McComb" <NOSPA...@NOrobotoidSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:445928...@NOrobotoidSPAM.com...
> JGCASEY wrote:
>> It is the meaning that is copied not the carrier of that meaning.
>
> Copyright has NEVER applied to ideas ("meaning"), so it's pointless to
> argue this.
I didn't plan to get too involved in this discussion, because I do plan to
use it in a research paper I'm writing, (yes, i'll cite everyone I quote)
but I have to respond to this.
And please, don't think I'm advocating what the guy did by posting the
book... I just want to point out a flaw with this one statement.
Since it was the meaning of the little black marks on the pages of your book
which got copied onto that newsgroup, and not the actual marks themselves,
then obviously the posting of the book online, in a totally different form,
was not a copyright infringement. No need for further duscussion. All the
man copied was the meaning, after all...
Um, you see the problem with your argument? Copyright DOES protect the
meaning. If it didn't, then any change, at all, to the format (color, type
size, binding method, etc...) of a book would protect it from copyright law.
I could reprint your book on light purple paper, and say that the only thing
I copied was the meaning... "look, the format is different! It's obviously
a different work, not a copy" and that argument would fly!
That guy didn't post your book, he posted the meaning of your book. Your
book was not in a form that COULD be posted. It had to be converted into
pure meaning, and then into a different form that could convey that meaning
before he could post it.
>
> Sigh. I'll repeat this once more: COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS.
> Never has, never will, doesn't need to. Clear now?
>
> -- Gordon
You're mistaken. Ideas are precisely what copyright, and patent for that
meatter, attempt to protect, and that is why copyright and patent are having
such a hard time here in the information (read that: IDEA) age.
Wayne C. Gramlich
> "Gordon McComb" <NOSPA...@NOrobotoidSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:445928...@NOrobotoidSPAM.com...
[snip a lot of stuff]
> That guy didn't post your book, he posted the meaning of your book. Your
> book was not in a form that COULD be posted. It had to be converted into
> pure meaning, and then into a different form that could convey that meaning
> before he could post it.
>
>> Sigh. I'll repeat this once more: COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS.
>> Never has, never will, doesn't need to. Clear now?
>>
>> -- Gordon
>
> You're mistaken. Ideas are precisely what copyright, and patent for that
> meatter, attempt to protect, and that is why copyright and patent are having
> such a hard time here in the information (read that: IDEA) age.
Double Sigh.
Please read the following circular from the US Government
copyright office:
<http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html>
I'll quote the relevant section to you:
WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for
federal copyright protection. These include among others:
...
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles,
discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description,
explanation, or illustration
...
Here is the same information from the US Copyright Office FAQ:
<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#idea>
How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods
of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or
drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware
that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in
your written or artistic work.
Also from the FAQ:
<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#infringement>
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted
work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed,
or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright
owner.
When Gordon's book was posted on alt.binaries.e-books.technical, the
person who did the posting was guilty of infringing on the Electronics
for Dummies copyright. People who download copies from ABET are
also guilty of copyright infringement.
In general it is nice to theorize about copyrights, but please do
a little homework first.
-Wayne
zwsd...@gmail.com
mlw wrote:
> Practically every subject has a book and no one is buying books.
Sure. And the Patent Office should be closed down because everything
that can ever be invented, has already been invented. (Actually, it
/should/ be closed down, because it is a haven for the most egregious
kind of abuses, but that's a separate thread).
Everything I've ever had published has been leaked onto the Internet.
My first book was released at a time when the publisher was
experimenting with including the text as a PDF on an accompanying
CD-ROM. That PDF showed up on the peer-to-peer networks before the
official release date. The publisher no longer offers this text option,
btw.
My second book was physically dissected by someone and digitized using
a page-fed scanner. (Actually, at least two such "someones" did it). I
believe the electronic downloadable edition also had its DRM stripped
off, and that became a third electronic edition. All of those editions
are floating about on the networks.
I anticipate my third book will encounter a similar attack as soon as
it comes out of copyedit.
It hasn't stopped me from starting my fourth book.
Gordon McComb
>
> You're mistaken. Ideas are precisely what copyright, and patent for that
> meatter, attempt to protect, and that is why copyright and patent are having
> such a hard time here in the information (read that: IDEA) age.
Do yourself the favor of learning a thing or two about a subject you
post about. You can find literally tons of information on copyright
basics online, and all it takes is a little effort on your part to
educate yourself. Within the first page of even the simplest of
brochures on copyright you will find the explanation that copyright
protects expression, and not ideas. Simple stuff, easy to learn. Please
do, and stop spreading false information.
-- Gordon
Harry Rosroth
> We should probably get back to building 'bots now
Speaking of which, I've seen lots of parts of robots but not
complete functioning robots that you've built. Care to share ?
Have you entered any contests ?
Harry Rosroth
"Gordon McComb" <NOSPA...@NOrobotoidSPAM.com> wrote in message
> Harry Rosroth wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which, I've seen lots of parts of robots but not
>> complete functioning robots that you've built. Care to share ?
>> Have you entered any contests ?
>
>
> For what I've been concentrating on the last six years or so you can
> visit BudgetRobotics.com. Keeps me busy enough.
I've seen those excellent pages and read all your books. I'm a fan,
however,
I find it some what discouraging that one of the most knowledge people
in amateur robotics doesn't seem to actually build complete, functioning,
autonomous robots. None appear in your books; none are show cased.
Curious.
I continue to value your excellent advice.
Brian Dean
> I find it some what discouraging that one of the most knowledge
> people in amateur robotics doesn't seem to actually build complete,
> functioning, autonomous robots. None appear in your books; none are
> show cased. Curious.
Robot, Schmobot. Don't forget Gordon's unique and unparalleled talent
of spotting the purple panties in an otherwise randomly cluttered
"where's Waldo" dorm room photo. That alone has raised Gordon to the
level of minor deity in my mind :-) If he can build robots, too, well,
so much the better.
Cheers,
-Brian
--
Brian Dean
ATmega128 based MAVRIC controllers
http://www.bdmicro.com/
Gordon McComb
> Robot, Schmobot. Don't forget Gordon's unique and unparalleled talent
> of spotting the purple panties in an otherwise randomly cluttered
> "where's Waldo" dorm room photo.
My superior robotic vision system at work.
I wonder how this thread will read out of context to the Purple Panties
Episode.
-- Gordon