So, briefly, what do you think about the Kindle now?

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by azog

You know what's kinda funny. Just recently there have been some blog headlines about Amazon and their DRM-free music service:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/03/w...-drm-pressure/

I wonder why the contradiction between their music service or their Kindle service?

I think the book publishers are probably still a bit more tight-fisted than the music companies. Music companies have been in the electronic content business on a large scale for quite awhile longer. Bear in mind that Amazon has to negotiate with them to sell ebooks and if they're not willing to let Amazon sell DRM-free then it's not like they can turn around and just do it anyway. I'm not saying that Amazon actually wants to sell DRM-free. I have no idea, but just because they're doing some music that way and not books doesn't necessarily make them hypocrites.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd like to think rather better about people. Most people, I believe, take the view that just because it's possible to copy an eBook doesn't make it morally justifiable to do so.

If one follows the line of reasoning that because one can steal it, people will do so, nobody would buy a car because they could just go out and steal one. Stealing a car is not technically difficult, after all. Want a new TV? Break into your neightbour's house and steal theirs. You'd have to be stupid to pay for a TV when you can steal one for free. Wouldn't you?

Sure, most people wouldn't break into their neighbor's house and steal a TV. But if you got a magic wand, and by waving it, you could get a TV exactly like your neighbor's, without taking it away... Well... is that wrong? And even if it is, how many people wouldn't wave the wand? But by doing so, you're 'stealing' from the TV manufacturer, the TV retailer, and a host of other people.

If you ask most people what they would wish for when they encounter a genie, they tend not to think about the effect on the car industry if they ask for a Ferrari, or the effect on the economy if they ask for a million dollars. Both of those are "stealing" just like copying a CD is, but somehow people treat them differently.

[rflashman]

Originally Posted by markbot

3) In the future, publishers need a version with the footnotes embedded. We know the kindle can do user footnotes. There is no reason why the book publishers can't insert bookmarks into the passage. So far, none of the books I sampled or bought had any footnotes. Footnotes are absolutely worth money, especially in the more arcane texts.

I purchased Beyond Reason by Roger Fisher and this book has footnotes properly linked within the text. So whenever you see an asterisk, it has a hyperlink to the footnote. Works quite nicely.

[tklaus]

Originally Posted by bingle

If you ask most people what they would wish for when they encounter a genie, they tend not to think about the effect on the car industry if they ask for a Ferrari, or the effect on the economy if they ask for a million dollars. Both of those are "stealing" just like copying a CD is, but somehow people treat them differently.

Asking for wishes to be granted by a genie is stealing? I knew it sounded too good to be true.

[rflashman]

Originally Posted by tklaus

Asking for wishes to be granted by a genie is stealing? I knew it sounded too good to be true.

Be sure to ask the Genie for a "Genuine Ferrari", not a copy generated through Magic.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by rflashman

Be sure to ask the Genie for a "Genuine Ferrari", not a copy generated through Magic.

But by doing so, you're taking revenue from the car dealership that might have sold that Ferrari - and the creative designers who came up with the car, the marketers who made you want the car... Shouldn't they be compensated when you get to drive this car?

As a society, we've been handed a genie that can duplicate books, movies, music, and software at our command. And most people don't see asking a genie for their wish to be wrong. The people that profit off of content now have to take into account the effect of the genie on the marketplace.

Because you can't put the genie back into the bottle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bingle

As a society, we've been handed a genie that can duplicate books, movies, music, and software at our command. And most people don't see asking a genie for their wish to be wrong. The people that profit off of content now have to take into account the effect of the genie on the marketplace.

Because you can't put the genie back into the bottle.

It's a matter of education. The problem we have today is that we have a generation of teenagers who have no respect for other peoples' property rights. Unless we're careful, they are going to grow up into a generation of adults who have no respect for other peoples' property, either. I suspect that, in the majority of cases, these childrens' parents don't know what they are up to, and would be horrified if they did know that their children were taking thousands of $ (in many cases much more) worth of other peoples' property without paying for it.

Children need to be taught, both in school and by their parents, that using someone else's intellectual property without paying for it is WRONG.

Before anyone says that this can't be done, there are many examples of the attitudes of society changing over time. 30 years ago in the UK, although drink driving was illegal, it was something which a lot of people did and was socially acceptable, although illegal. Today, virtually everyone regards it as completely unacceptable and welcomes the fact that the courts hand out long driving bans and even prison sentences for anyone caught driving a car under the influence of alcohol. This change in attitude has come about entirely as a result of public education. The same thing could (and should, IMHO) be done concerning having RESPECT (and that's what it is - a matter of respect) for other peoples' intellectual property rights.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a matter of education. The problem we have today is that we have a generation of teenagers who have no respect for other peoples' property rights.

And what "property rights" are you talking about?

Ideas cannot be owned. If they could, we would have no need for copyrights and patents. Property laws would be able to cover the situation.

The rhetoric of "copying is stealing" is just a smoke screen. Copying is not stealing. Name a single person who was charged with theft for copying something. You can't. Those people were charged with "copyright violation" not "theft".

Also remember that copyright was created for the benefit of society not the author. Current copyright laws do not benefit society and are far out of touch with reality. So why are you surprised when people ignore them?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And what "property rights" are you talking about?

Those protected in the UK, for example, by the 1988 "Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act", and by similar laws in all other civilized countries.

Ideas cannot be owned. If they could, we would have no need for copyrights and patents. Property laws would be able to cover the situation.

A book, piece of software, movie, MP3 files, etc, is not an "idea". Even a patent has to be more than an idea; it has to be a concrete application of an idea in the form of a practically-applicable process or product.

The rhetoric of "copying is stealing" is just a smoke screen. Copying is not stealing. Name a single person who was charged with theft for copying something. You can't. Those people were charged with "copyright violation" not "theft".

Where, in the post above, did I say that it was stealing? I said that these people were taking other peoples' intellectual property without paying for it. The law calls that "copyright infringement", not "theft". I personally regard that as merely a matter of semantics, but I'm not calling it "stealing".

Also remember that copyright was created for the benefit of society not the author. Current copyright laws do not benefit society and are far out of touch with reality. So why are you surprised when people ignore them?

Obeying the law is the moral basis of society. The law gives me rights as an author which I expect other people to respect, just as I respect the rights which the law gives them. If somebody violates my legal rights, I expect them to be punished according to the penalties specified by the law. Unless or until that law is changed, I am entitled to expect people to respect the rights that the law grants me.

If somebody feels that the law is outdated or unjust, they should take action, through the appropriate judicial processes, to have that law changed, not merely take it upon their own head to ignore that law. If they do ignore it, they have no cause for complaint if they are punished for doing so.

You claim that the law "does not benefit society", but I disagree. I can't make a living from writing a book or a computer program unless the law protects my rights as an author to receive income from doing so. If I don't get paid, I'm not going to create that product, and society loses out. That was the reason that copyright laws were introduced, and it's as valid today as it was in the 16th century. No protection for authors = no books.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Those protected in the UK, for example, by the 1988 "Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act", and by similar laws in all other civilized countries.

Which do not have anything to do with property rights. They are all government granted rights intended to help society as a whole.

Originally Posted by HarryT

A book, piece of software, movie, MP3 files, etc, is not an "idea".

They are the physical (some more than others) manifestation of an idea. People typically don't buy a book to have the physical object. They buy it for the idea contained inside it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Where, in the post above, did I say that it was stealing? I said that these people were taking other peoples' intellectual property without paying for it. The law calls that "copyright infringement", not "theft". I personally regard that as merely a matter of semantics, but I'm not calling it "stealing".

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware of the fantasy world in which you live. The the reality is that copyright infringement is not stealing.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Obeying the law is the moral basis of society.

I take it that the schools in the UK don't teach what Ghandi did, then.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If somebody feels that the law is outdated or unjust, they should take action, through the appropriate judicial processes, to have that law changed,

And how, exactly, does one do that when the law is created by a non-elected body (i.e. WIPO)?

Originally Posted by HarryT

You claim that the law "does not benefit society", but I disagree. I can't make a living from writing a book or a computer program unless the law protects my rights as an author to receive income from doing so.

And without content going into the public domain, and by copyrights never expiring, you cannot write your book or software without falling into legal issues.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If I don't get paid, I'm not going to create that product, and society loses out. That was the reason that copyright laws were introduced, and it's as valid today as it was in the 16th century. No protection for authors = no books.

Explain how, in any stretch of reality that doesn't include several stiff drinks, extending copyright 90 years beyond author's death "protects the author".

[HarryT]

I certainly don't believe in "perpetual copyright". I'd personally like to see works enter the public domain on the death of the author.

You have not explained, though, how I can make a living as an author and software developer if people can freely copy my works without having to pay for them. I don't write software "for the good of society"; I write it to make a living. What is the incentive for me to write that software if it can be freely copied by people without paying for it?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You have not explained, though, how I can make a living as an author and software developer if people can freely copy my works without having to pay for them.

How do you make a living as an author today?

As you keep complaining about, we currently live in a world where people can copy anything without paying for it.

[HarryT]

I make a living by taking active steps to protect my rights, and persecuting people who violate them. Eg, I got a kid thrown out of university last year for selling copies of my software on eBay (and being stupid enough to use his university e-mail address). You seem to be suggesting that I should just sit back and do nothing; I can't accept that.

I don't LIKE having to persecute people and be "nasty" to them. I just want people to obey the law and respect my legal rights. I really don't think that this is asking too much from people. As I said at the start of this, I believe it's a matter of public education.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I just want people to obey the law and respect my legal rights. I really don't think that this is asking too much from people. As I said at the start of this, I believe it's a matter of public education.

No. It's a matter of respect.

Copyright - as it stands today - is disrespectful to society. If you expect society to respect copyright, your expectations are unrealistic.

If you want people to stop violating copyright, then you, an author, need to start pressuring your gov't to amend the laws to be respectful. You need them to make laws that protect you - the author - not a faceless entity that creates nothing yet holds copyrights.

[rflashman]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Those protected in the UK, for example, by the 1988 "Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act", and by similar laws in all other civilized countries.

Hey Harry...

Hate to break it to you, but your profile carries an Avatar that is copyrighted by someone other than yourself. I am pretty sure you haven't paid the BBC (or the parent company behind Dr. Who) for the rights to use their copyrighted image. So while you are busy throwing some stones, might want to check out your glass house.