[OT]Re: Books...

John Reimer terminal.node at gmail.com
Sat May 10 07:31:42 PDT 2008

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:00:21 +0000, Manfred Nowak wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> If someone provided us with such information in private communication
>> (which is easy to accomplish), then this would be true.
> I disagree.
> If someone has the (legal) (co-)ownership of some information, which is
> believed to be not in common knowledge, then only in rare circumstances
> one has the right to restrict the channel of distributions for that
> information.
> Without this principle you would not have been able to publish your
> book. But the same principle holds for Bob and his information of
> existing torrents.
>> did in a followup show that he thinks such breaches of copyright are
>> ok.
> I disagree. To me his statements do not expose such a thinking.
> He only emphasizes the pure fact, that there exists a free _torrent_ for
> _some_ ebook, which looks like to be the one of you and your colleagues.
> Bob did not give any clue, that the "advertized" ebook is indeed that of
> you and your colleagues.
> Furthermore it seems to be unknown, where Bob resides and therefore it
> is pure speculation that he might be bound to some copyright laws.
> -manfred

I think this is silly, manfred .  You are getting all technical over the
details.  It appears you are defending Bob's "freedom" to post the link
and disregarding the actual /effect/ of his post, which really is what is
important here.  Wouldn't it be better to consider the effect than to
baffle ourselves over the legality of the medium?  DRM, intellectual
property, and copyright will always have muddy waters because of their
very nature... but why don't we just keep it simple and recognize the need
for respect of the author's work.  It's likely the authors would have to
"buy" the book to give it away, so perhaps the readers should too?

Honestly, if nobody says something against this habit, this forum will
eventually be overwhelmed by this very mentality: each person decides for
himself what's free.  The inconsistancy among the definitions of freedom
will eventually completely cripple the interactions across cultures.
Perhaps that just the way it has to go, but I think it's pretty simple
just to respect the authors work and keep such links out of this public


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list