yigal100 at gmail.com
Sat May 10 17:10:39 PDT 2008
Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> The torrent by itself should not be illegal.
> I disagree.
> A torrent is a machine made and machine readable citation of _some_
> source. Without the content of the _original_ source a torrent would be
> meaningless. Therefore a torrent is purely mechanical "derived work"
> and _should_ require the same treatment as the original source.
>> Had I downloaded the book via the above torrent and than sent a
>> paycheck to the authors, would I still be violating the copyright?
> You _should_ be violating the copyright, because the content of the
> book is not licensed on a "try before you buy" basis "without the prior
> written permission".
>> (which they could do simply because they prefer this method of
> In some countries this might be called "gross negligence".
Do all the books in the library have a copyright that specifically
allows a "try before you buy" basis "without the prior written
permission", as you say? of course not.
Let me ask you my question again (slightly differently):
Had I sent a paycheck to the authors and then downloaded the book via
the above torrent, would I still be violating the copyright?
I prefer JJR's notion of common courtesy. I only disagree that being
respectful means avoid mentioning this torrent [that was the first
result in google it seems]. I agree with JJR that we should respect the
creators, only my view point is that as long as I've paid the authors it
shouldn't matter that much if I used the torrent link or downloaded via
the official site.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn