Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #1911 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-23 12:06 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-03-23 19:23 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-23 12:06 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-23 12:11 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-23 14:43 +0000
Re: ebooks Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-03-23 16:14 +0000
Re: ebooks root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2014-03-23 18:09 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-23 19:21 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-23 20:34 +0000
Re: ebooks Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2014-06-13 14:14 -0400
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-13 21:44 +0100
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-13 16:53 -0400
Re: ebooks Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-06-14 08:37 +0100
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-14 18:34 -0400
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-15 10:40 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-15 12:05 +0100
Re: ebooks Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-06-15 11:20 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-15 12:37 +0100
Re: ebooks root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2014-06-15 17:48 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-15 15:59 -0400
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-16 06:30 +1000
Re: ebooks Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2014-06-16 04:04 -0500
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-16 11:44 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-16 10:32 -0400
Re: ebooks Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2014-06-16 10:43 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-06-16 13:13 -0400
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-17 06:45 +1000
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-17 06:36 +1000
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-15 22:43 +0000
Re: ebooks Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-06-15 23:26 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-06-16 22:01 +0100
Re: ebooks "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-15 06:27 +1000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-23 19:09 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-24 01:55 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 10:35 +0000
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-24 13:01 -0400
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-24 17:15 +0100
Re: ebooks Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-03-24 15:07 +0000
Re: ebooks Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-03-24 17:13 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-03-24 13:07 -0500
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-24 13:28 -0500
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-24 21:48 +0100
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:57 +0000
Re: ebooks "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 08:14 +1100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 00:01 +0000
Re: ebooks "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 07:17 +1100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 23:44 +0000
Re: ebooks "Lanto J." <lantoj78@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 12:01 +1100
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-26 13:36 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-26 20:08 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-24 14:48 -0400
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-25 18:13 -0400
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 01:20 -0400
Re: ebooks Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-03-25 05:49 +0000
Re: ebooks Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-03-25 07:06 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-03-25 08:19 -0500
Re: ebooks Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-03-25 09:40 -0400
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-26 11:14 +1100
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-25 15:42 -0400
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-25 11:47 -0500
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-25 19:25 -0400
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-26 12:19 -0400
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 08:25 -0500
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-26 16:01 -0400
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-26 20:38 +0000
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 08:19 +1100
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 15:58 -0500
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-27 06:28 -0400
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-26 22:03 +0100
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 00:46 -0400
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-26 15:01 -0500
Re: ebooks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-03-26 20:57 +0000
Re: ebooks "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-03-27 13:23 +0000
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-27 17:48 +0100
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-27 08:26 -0500
Re: ebooks greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-27 14:55 +0000
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-27 10:05 -0500
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-27 11:55 -0500
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-27 14:25 -0500
Re: ebooks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-03-27 20:44 +0000
Re: ebooks Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-28 01:38 +0000
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-27 22:37 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 23:52 -0400
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-28 16:07 +1100
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-28 10:52 -0500
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-28 11:57 -0500
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-28 14:41 -0500
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-28 21:27 +0000
Re: ebooks "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-03-28 17:02 -0500
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-28 23:46 -0400
Re: ebooks Philip Shaw <jnufcvyvuc@tznvy.pbz> - 2014-04-02 01:32 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-02 14:28 +0000
Re: ebooks Philip Shaw <jnufcvyvuc@tznvy.pbz> - 2014-04-07 05:32 +0000
Re: ebooks "John" <j@j.j> - 2014-04-17 16:36 -0700
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-04-02 07:31 -0800
Re: ebooks scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-03-26 13:38 +0000
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 11:14 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 00:56 -0400
Re: ebooks Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2014-03-27 16:52 +0000
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-27 14:03 -0500
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 23:07 -0400
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-27 21:44 +0100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-26 13:51 +0000
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-26 09:22 -0800
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-26 13:54 -0500
Re: ebooks davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2014-03-27 03:41 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-03-27 07:36 -0400
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-28 03:40 -0400
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-27 17:59 +0100
Re: ebooks Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-03-26 15:38 -0700
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-26 22:09 -0400
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-27 13:55 -0500
Re: ebooks Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-28 02:27 +0000
Re: ebooks cb@bobby.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2014-03-28 10:42 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 23:12 -0400
Re: ebooks Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-03-28 23:17 -0700
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-26 16:06 -0400
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-26 09:19 -0800
Re: ebooks "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-26 13:50 -0500
Re: ebooks Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-03-26 20:00 +0000
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-26 13:30 -0800
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-26 15:51 -0500
Re: ebooks Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-26 13:09 -0600
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-26 19:23 -0400
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-27 08:12 +1100
Re: ebooks despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-03-26 19:24 -0400
Re: ebooks Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-26 23:40 +0000
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-27 06:36 -0400
Knuth/TeX (was Re: ebooks) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-27 14:33 +0000
Re: Knuth/TeX (was Re: ebooks) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-03-27 14:01 -0500
Re: ebooks rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2014-03-27 03:10 +0000
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-25 08:19 -0500
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:16 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 13:32 +0000
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-25 15:20 +0000
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-25 15:49 -0400
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-25 15:58 +0000
Re: ebooks Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-27 01:46 -0400
Re: ebooks "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-03-25 08:48 -0800
Re: ebooks RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-25 21:20 +0000
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-26 07:31 +1100
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-25 08:42 -0400
Re: ebooks Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-03-24 12:52 -0600
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-24 20:12 -0400
Re: ebooks Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-03-24 15:54 -0500
Re: ebooks Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> - 2014-03-24 22:19 +0000
Re: ebooks "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> - 2014-03-25 07:54 +1100
Re: ebooks scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-03-24 16:21 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-24 17:02 +0000
Re: ebooks Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-03-24 12:21 -0500
Re: ebooks Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-03-24 19:50 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:48 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-24 23:42 +0000
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:07 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 23:40 +0000
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-26 21:57 +0100
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-28 13:58 +0000
Re: ebooks Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-03-28 15:44 +0100
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 11:35 +1100
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 07:28 +1100
Re: ebooks Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:31 +0000
Re: ebooks Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-25 00:06 +0000
Re: ebooks "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 07:06 +1100
Re: ebooks Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-03-24 10:25 -0400
Re: ebooks Mike Sanders <mike@taco-shack.cow> - 2014-03-24 06:04 +0000
Re: ebooks Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-26 13:17 +0100
Re: ebooks Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2014-03-23 19:23 -0400
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 12:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v9%Xu.27164$Jp6.13451@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #1942 |
Rich wrote: > How very true. The intermediaries served a purpose when "publishing" > involved needing to apply ink to paper, bind the result into a book, > ship the book to a seller, etc. > And - in the way that manufacturers of buggies, buggy whips, and the like - should follow the same path to oblivion as they add little or no value to the product hence have no claim to any profit (or at least beyond amount they may contribute). -- Will Honea
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lgq3io$n1d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1938 |
On 03/24/2014 11:07 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:35:24 +0000 > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > >> Creative types are adaptable and will eventually find new ways of >> earning from their work, but the intermediaries who depend on both the >> creators and the consumers co-operating with them, will have to work out >> some new way to survive, otherwise they will vanish. We can expect them >> to fight very hard, and possibly 'dirty', to preserve themselves. > > I would be perfectly happy to see the intermediaries vanish and the > creators benefit directly from the consumers. As far as I'm concerned they > only exist to funnel creations in one direction and money in the other, if > they can be rendered obsolete so much the better. > Publishers and distributors perform a worthwhile service. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 15:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lgq626$cjk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1953 |
On 24-Mar-14 19:12, Peter Flass wrote: There seems to be something wrong with your clock and/or time zone setting; this message is timestamped 3+ hours in the future. > On 03/24/2014 11:07 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> I would be perfectly happy to see the intermediaries vanish and >> the creators benefit directly from the consumers. As far as I'm >> concerned they only exist to funnel creations in one direction and >> money in the other, if they can be rendered obsolete so much the >> better.>> > > Publishers and distributors perform a worthwhile service. But, notably, that service is not publishing or distributing, which are obsolete concepts. Some folks apparently can't get past the names to see what other services those companies provide that are still valuable. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lgqb0n$3hv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1953 |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:12:10 -0400, Peter Flass wrote: > On 03/24/2014 11:07 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:35:24 +0000 Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Creative types are adaptable and will eventually find new ways of >>> earning from their work, but the intermediaries who depend on both the >>> creators and the consumers co-operating with them, will have to work >>> out some new way to survive, otherwise they will vanish. We can >>> expect them to fight very hard, and possibly 'dirty', to preserve >>> themselves. >> >> I would be perfectly happy to see the intermediaries vanish and the >> creators benefit directly from the consumers. As far as I'm concerned >> they only exist to funnel creations in one direction and money in the >> other, if they can be rendered obsolete so much the better. >> >> > Publishers and distributors perform a worthwhile service. But the part of that service that is valuable has changed. Copy editing and promotion are invaluable. Loading dead trees onto trucks less so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Slp" <slp0987@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 07:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpbkcrFik0iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1938 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20140324150738.5356ce46db117f1d68f9734f@eircom.net... > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:35:24 +0000 > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > >> Creative types are adaptable and will eventually find new ways of >> earning from their work, but the intermediaries who depend on both the >> creators and the consumers co-operating with them, will have to work out >> some new way to survive, otherwise they will vanish. We can expect them >> to fight very hard, and possibly 'dirty', to preserve themselves. > > I would be perfectly happy to see the intermediaries vanish and the > creators benefit directly from the consumers. It's less clear how useful editors are. As far as I'm concerned they > only exist to funnel creations in one direction and money in the other, That's overstated with the best of the editors. if > they can be rendered obsolete so much the better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lgpm1p$291$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1933 |
In article <slrnlj02jc.1j0.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: >On 2014-03-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> Fortunately, stripping the DRM from ebooks is trivial. > >But doing so contravenes the 'licence' or 'end user licensing agreement' >to which you have to agree before you can access the original file. The >publishers will compare this with a thief getting into a money-box by >picking a simple lock; what matters is that it was done, not how easy it >might have been. If the licence to read an ebook is found to be >enforceable in law then the publishers will start going after people who >they believe have breached that licence - just as the recorded music >industry have been chasing people who make unencrypted copies of CDs and >MPEGs available. "Lex iniusta non est lex." _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj0p8r.him.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1933 |
In message <slrnlj02jc.1j0.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <slrnlitso1.23e.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> >> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: >>> The biggest problem with ebooks is navigation; you can't slide a >>> finger-nail between pages at roughly the right distance between front >>> and back and then flick pages to find what you want, >> >> I can. Not PHYSICAL pages, but yes, I slide my finger along the bottom >> until I'm say, half way in, then tap right/left to flip pages to the >> right page. >> >>> If I'm going to pay for a book, I want a hard copy; a proper >>> paperback at least. I am repelled by the idea of paying money for a >>> licence to possess one digital copy which is not transferable to >>> anyone else, and possibly not even to another device owned by me, and >>> which can be withdrawn at any time the provider sees fit. Books are >>> for sharing and passing on and going back to; that's perfectly >>> possible with ebooks, but not while the publishers try to impose >>> 'digital rights management' and 'licenses' and other nonsense making >>> such activities 'shady' or 'illegal'. >> >> Fortunately, stripping the DRM from ebooks is trivial. > But doing so contravenes the 'licence' or 'end user licensing agreement' > to which you have to agree before you can access the original file. Don't care. I consider the license illegal and immoral. > The publishers will compare this with a thief getting into a money-box > by picking a simple lock; what matters is that it was done, not how > easy it might have been. If the licence to read an ebook is found to > be enforceable in law then the publishers will start going after > people who they believe have breached that licence - just as the > recorded music industry have been chasing people who make unencrypted > copies of CDs and MPEGs available. Yeah, that's worked out so well for them. > With printed books and pressed gramophone records, it's easy for the > industry to enforce the idea that if you want another copy, you have to > get it from them and pay for it. They can't control what you do with > that copy, but they can be reasonably certain that any copies in > circulation have been made by them and paid for. That hasn't been true for decades. Ever heard of a company named Xerox? > This is fine for end users, at least in the short term, but is very bad > news for the content providers whose income depends on getting paid per > copy created. And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. > It's bad enough for it to make some businesses > unsustainable; as already noted in this thread, actual bricks and mortar > book shops (and record shops too) are becoming rarer. iTunes is the world's #1 music retailer, and has been for years. > Publishers too face a real threat to their long term survival, and > that in turn means that writers will lose that avenue of support and > payment. Adapt or change. The last 10 or so ebooks I've bought came from the author, no publisher involved (nor needed). -- Personal isn't the same as important. What sort of person could think like that? And it dawned on him that while Ankh in the past had had its share of evil rulers, and simply bad rulers, it had never yet come under the heel of a good ruler. That might be the most terrifying prospect of all. --Men at Arms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 12:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <53306997.A7B71152@bytecraft.com> |
| In reply to | #1941 |
Lewis wrote: > In message <slrnlj02jc.1j0.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > > On 2014-03-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> In message <slrnlitso1.23e.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> > >> > >>> If I'm going to pay for a book, I want a hard copy; a proper > >>> paperback at least. I am repelled by the idea of paying money for a > >>> licence to possess one digital copy which is not transferable to > >>> anyone else, and possibly not even to another device owned by me, and > >>> which can be withdrawn at any time the provider sees fit. Books are > >>> for sharing and passing on and going back to; that's perfectly > >>> possible with ebooks, but not while the publishers try to impose > >>> 'digital rights management' and 'licenses' and other nonsense making > >>> such activities 'shady' or 'illegal'. > >> > >> Fortunately, stripping the DRM from ebooks is trivial. > > > But doing so contravenes the 'licence' or 'end user licensing agreement' > > to which you have to agree before you can access the original file. > > Don't care. I consider the license illegal and immoral. How so? It is a serious question so I can understand your comments. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bpbgjnFjsb5U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1941 |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:02:19 +0000, Lewis wrote: > And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. One very good example being O'Reilly and all their nice books. -- Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post *lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj1did.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1950 |
On 2014-03-24, Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:02:19 +0000, Lewis wrote: > > >> And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. > > One very good example being O'Reilly and all their nice books. Reference works that need frequent or continuous amendment are going to generate income for the producers as the consumers need the latest version. Novels and poems tend not to change, so generating income from them is trickier particularly in digital form. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 23:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj1gn8.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1962 |
In message <slrnlj1did.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-24, Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:02:19 +0000, Lewis wrote: >> >> >>> And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. >> >> One very good example being O'Reilly and all their nice books. > Reference works that need frequent or continuous amendment are going to > generate income for the producers as the consumers need the latest > version. Novels and poems tend not to change, so generating income from > them is trickier particularly in digital form. There are people making 5 or 6 figures a year selling $1 books on Amazon. There are writers making a living selling books themselves via their own websites. Cory Doctorow *gives* *away* all his books for free, but still seems to be making good money from people paying him for the books anyway. -- First we must assume a spherical cow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj36ub.14r.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1963 |
On 2014-03-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <slrnlj1did.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: >> On 2014-03-24, Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:02:19 +0000, Lewis wrote: >>> >>> >>>> And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. >>> >>> One very good example being O'Reilly and all their nice books. > >> Reference works that need frequent or continuous amendment are going >> to generate income for the producers as the consumers need the latest >> version. Novels and poems tend not to change, so generating income >> from them is trickier particularly in digital form. > > There are people making 5 or 6 figures a year selling $1 books on > Amazon. Really? Their own work, or out-of-copyright works which others provide free? > There are writers making a living selling books themselves via > their own websites. I don't know how many (or what proportion) 'make a living' that way. > Cory Doctorow *gives* *away* all his books for free, but still seems > to be making good money from people paying him for the books anyway. He has the luxury of having already been an established writer, and having income streams not dependent on selling his fiction. The fiction works are sold as traditional books, the digital versions are distributed under a restrictive 'creative commons' licence - not as restrictive as, and a lot more realistic than, the licences imposed by most large publishing houses. Other pioneers have taken the 'pay as much as you want' or 'send me a dollar if you can' approach with some success. These are all praiseworthy experiments. I don't think it's possible to say that any of them have a long-term future. Doctorow's approach has the merit of providing a means for existing publishing houses and systems to continue profitably whilst at the same time making his work accessible to people who can't afford to buy books or are beyond the reach of the traditional book trade (but who do have access to a computer of some sort, and the internet - how large a constituency is that?). -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj44ut.17j7.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1976 |
In message <slrnlj36ub.14r.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > On 2014-03-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <slrnlj1did.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> >> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: >>> On 2014-03-24, Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:02:19 +0000, Lewis wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. >>>> >>>> One very good example being O'Reilly and all their nice books. >> >>> Reference works that need frequent or continuous amendment are going >>> to generate income for the producers as the consumers need the latest >>> version. Novels and poems tend not to change, so generating income >>> from them is trickier particularly in digital form. >> >> There are people making 5 or 6 figures a year selling $1 books on >> Amazon. > Really? Yes. > Their own work Yes. >> There are writers making a living selling books themselves via >> their own websites. > I don't know how many (or what proportion) 'make a living' that way. >> Cory Doctorow *gives* *away* all his books for free, but still seems >> to be making good money from people paying him for the books anyway. > He has the luxury of having already been an established writer, and > having income streams not dependent on selling his fiction. The fiction > works are sold as traditional books, the digital versions are > distributed under a restrictive 'creative commons' licence - not as > restrictive as, and a lot more realistic than, the licences imposed by > most large publishing houses. Other pioneers have taken the 'pay as > much as you want' or 'send me a dollar if you can' approach with some > success. > These are all praiseworthy experiments. I don't think it's possible to > say that any of them have a long-term future. Doctorow's approach has > the merit of providing a means for existing publishing houses and > systems to continue profitably whilst at the same time making his work > accessible to people who can't afford to buy books or are beyond the > reach of the traditional book trade (but who do have access to a > computer of some sort, and the internet - how large a constituency is > that?). Well, Doctorow is not exactly a well-known author. He's known int he geek community, but beyond that? Where was he an "established" author? Here's another author publishing online <http://www.scifi-az.com> Here's another: <http://terribleminds.com> (Blackbirds is very good, BTW) -- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 21:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86r45o7k5r.fsf@nine.des.no> |
| In reply to | #1999 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > Well, Doctorow is not exactly a well-known author. He's known int he > geek community, but beyond that? Where was he an "established" author? Nor a particularly good one, IMHO. Good ideas, poor execution. But his blogging / journalism / activism earned him a large and devoted fan base which buys his books because they're his, and not necessarily because they're good. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-28 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnljb00p.g57.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #2039 |
In message <86r45o7k5r.fsf@nine.des.no> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: >> Well, Doctorow is not exactly a well-known author. He's known int he >> geek community, but beyond that? Where was he an "established" author? > Nor a particularly good one, IMHO. Good ideas, poor execution. But his > blogging / journalism / activism earned him a large and devoted fan base > which buys his books because they're his, and not necessarily because > they're good. So, by "established writer" you really meant a niche author with a small (in terms of writers) fan base? I wouldn't call him an established writer, that to means someone who at least has the potential to hit the NYT best seller list. -- Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying "End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH," the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-28 15:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86a9camlg7.fsf@nine.des.no> |
| In reply to | #2107 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > > > Well, Doctorow is not exactly a well-known author. [...] Where > > > was he an "established" author? > > Nor a particularly good one [...] But his blogging / journalism / > > activism earned him a large and devoted fan base [...] > So, by "established writer" you really meant a niche author with a small > (in terms of writers) fan base? Those were Whiskers's words, not mine. I was agreeing that he's not particularly well-known and adding that (in my opinion) he's not particularly good either. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 11:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpelnkF7u4lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1976 |
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote >> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote >>> Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> wrote >>>> Lewis wrote >>>>> And yet, many books are available without DRM, even current books. >>>> One very good example being O'Reilly and all their nice books. >>> Reference works that need frequent or continuous amendment are going >>> to generate income for the producers as the consumers need the latest >>> version. Novels and poems tend not to change, so generating income >>> from them is trickier particularly in digital form. >> There are people making 5 or 6 figures a year selling $1 books on Amazon. > Really? Yep, particularly the Mills and Boone type stuff. > Their own work, Yep. > or out-of-copyright works which others provide free? Haven't seen much of that at all compared with the own work stuff. >> There are writers making a living selling >> books themselves via their own websites. > I don't know how many (or what proportion) 'make a living' that way. >> Cory Doctorow *gives* *away* all his books for free, but still seems >> to be making good money from people paying him for the books anyway. > He has the luxury of having already been an established writer, > and having income streams not dependent on selling his fiction. > The fiction works are sold as traditional books, the digital versions > are distributed under a restrictive 'creative commons' licence - not as > restrictive as, and a lot more realistic than, the licences imposed by > most large publishing houses. Other pioneers have taken the 'pay as > much as you want' or 'send me a dollar if you can' approach with some > success. > These are all praiseworthy experiments. I don't think it's > possible to say that any of them have a long-term future. Bet they do, if only because once significant numbers start doing it, particularly with the limited time for free, the others have no real option but to do that themselves. Its been happening with music for a long time now. > Doctorow's approach has the merit of providing a means > for existing publishing houses and systems to continue > profitably whilst at the same time making his work > accessible to people who can't afford to buy books > or are beyond the reach of the traditional book trade > (but who do have access to a computer of some sort, > and the internet - how large a constituency is that?). Hell of a lot of people now, particularly when you consider those who choose not to bother with physical books anymore. The only time I bother with physical books anymore is when they are not available in ebook format and are not available scanned by someone else, and what I get at garage/yard sales. And if I could find a reasonably priced device that could scan them into ebook format without actually destroying the physical book, I would do that regardless of what the law has to say about that, because I find ebooks much more convenient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 07:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bpbit8Fi9odU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1933 |
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote >> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote >>> The biggest problem with ebooks is navigation; you can't slide a >>> finger-nail between pages at roughly the right distance between >>> front and back and then flick pages to find what you want, >> I can. Not PHYSICAL pages, but yes, I slide my finger along the bottom >> until I'm say, half way in, then tap right/left to flip pages to the >> right page. >>> If I'm going to pay for a book, I want a hard copy; a proper >>> paperback at least. I am repelled by the idea of paying money for a >>> licence to possess one digital copy which is not transferable to >>> anyone else, and possibly not even to another device owned by me, and >>> which can be withdrawn at any time the provider sees fit. Books are >>> for sharing and passing on and going back to; that's perfectly >>> possible with ebooks, but not while the publishers try to impose >>> 'digital rights management' and 'licenses' and other nonsense making >>> such activities 'shady' or 'illegal'. >> Fortunately, stripping the DRM from ebooks is trivial. > But doing so contravenes the 'licence' or 'end user licensing agreement' > to which you have to agree before you can access the original file. I don’t care. I believe that I have the same rights with an ebook as I have with a physical book and that there is no licence at all involved legally or morally. And I have never agreed to anything whatever they claim. > The publishers will compare this with a thief getting > into a money-box by picking a simple lock; I don’t care what they compare it with. > what matters is that it was done, not how easy it might have been. > If the licence to read an ebook is found to be enforceable in law It won't be in my country. > then the publishers will start going after people > who they believe have breached that licence But they will have no way of working out if I have done that. > - just as the recorded music industry have been chasing people > who make unencrypted copies of CDs and MPEGs available. So I won't make the ebooks available, I will just remove the DRM so I can do what I believe I have the legal and moral right to do, put it on anything I choose to put it on, give it to anyone I choose to give it to when I have no further use for it myself etc, sell it at a garage/yard sale if I choose to do that too. > With printed books and pressed gramophone records, it's > easy for the industry to enforce the idea that if you want > another copy, you have to get it from them and pay for it. It isnt actually, its trivially easy to copy a book or gramophone records. > They can't control what you do with that copy, > but they can be reasonably certain that any copies > in circulation have been made by them and paid for. > Digital media have fundamentally changed those facts. That's their problem, not mine. > If I want to share a book that I'm reading on my tablet, without > sharing the device and all its other content, I can transmit it to my > friend's device by cable or wifi or bluetooth or infrared or some > other means - but that creates a duplicate of the original. Even > if publishers try to include a program that will erase the original > if it detects a copy being made, any code that can be invented > can be countered by other code so such attempts at 'protection' > are ultimately futile. Again, that's their problem, not mine. > This is fine for end users, at least in the short term, > but is very bad news for the content providers whose > income depends on getting paid per copy created. Again, that's their problem, not mine. > It's bad enough for it to make some businesses unsustainable; > as already noted in this thread, actual bricks and mortar > book shops (and record shops too) are becoming rarer. And ebook distribution much better. We have even seen some choose to hand out free legal copys to anyone who wants them for a while. That isnt as practical with dead tree books. > Publishers too face a real threat to their long term survival, I doubt it with ebooks. The detail with change, just like it did when we started to be able to record music if we wanted to, but that did not see the demise of music. > and that in turn means that writers will > lose that avenue of support and payment. But we will still see some who are prepared to pay for what they decide they want to have. > Creative types are adaptable and will eventually > find new ways of earning from their work, And some have in fact found that offering free copys of at least some of their work for a limited time does see some decide that they like the work and are prepared to pay for more of their work. Something that is much more practical with ebooks than with dead tree books. > but the intermediaries who depend on both the creators > and the consumers co-operating with them, will have to > work out some new way to survive, otherwise they will vanish. Yes, quite a few newspapers have vanished. > We can expect them to fight very hard, and > possibly 'dirty', to preserve themselves. And we are able to strip the DRM when we choose to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj1cif.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1954 |
On 2014-03-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote >> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote >>> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote > >>>> The biggest problem with ebooks is navigation; you can't slide a >>>> finger-nail between pages at roughly the right distance between >>>> front and back and then flick pages to find what you want, > >>> I can. Not PHYSICAL pages, but yes, I slide my finger along the >>> bottom until I'm say, half way in, then tap right/left to flip pages >>> to the right page. > >>>> If I'm going to pay for a book, I want a hard copy; a proper >>>> paperback at least. I am repelled by the idea of paying money for >>>> a licence to possess one digital copy which is not transferable to >>>> anyone else, and possibly not even to another device owned by me, >>>> and which can be withdrawn at any time the provider sees fit. >>>> Books are for sharing and passing on and going back to; that's >>>> perfectly possible with ebooks, but not while the publishers try to >>>> impose 'digital rights management' and 'licenses' and other >>>> nonsense making such activities 'shady' or 'illegal'. > >>> Fortunately, stripping the DRM from ebooks is trivial. > >> But doing so contravenes the 'licence' or 'end user licensing >> agreement' to which you have to agree before you can access the >> original file. > > I don’t care. I believe that I have the same rights with an ebook as I > have with a physical book and that there is no licence at all involved > legally or morally. And I have never agreed to anything whatever they > claim. What you believe and what you care about are your own opinions. They carry no weight in law. I'd be very surprised if you've ever bought an ebook without at some point having to click on something to say 'I accept the terms and conditions'; it doesn't matter whether or not you've read them all, if you say you accept them then you do accept them. That's a contract. Any recent (since WWII?) printed book is likely to have a notice on the cover or flyleaf or somewhere at least easy to find, saying that it is sold subject to the condition that it is not copied in any way without the publisher's specific agreement. If you accept the book, you accept that condition. That's a contract. You have agreed not to copy the book, in each case. The paper one is a lot harder to copy than the digital one, but that isn't the point. >> The publishers will compare this with a thief getting into a >> money-box by picking a simple lock; > > I don’t care what they compare it with. > >> what matters is that it was done, not how easy it might have been. >> If the licence to read an ebook is found to be enforceable in law > > It won't be in my country. You have a country all your own? >> then the publishers will start going after people who they believe >> have breached that licence > > But they will have no way of working out if I have done that. Good luck with that. >> - just as the recorded music industry have been chasing people who >> make unencrypted copies of CDs and MPEGs available. > > So I won't make the ebooks available, I will just remove the DRM so I > can do what I believe I have the legal and moral right to do, put it > on anything I choose to put it on, give it to anyone I choose to give > it to when I have no further use for it myself etc, sell it at a > garage/yard sale if I choose to do that too. > >> With printed books and pressed gramophone records, it's easy for the >> industry to enforce the idea that if you want another copy, you have >> to get it from them and pay for it. > > It isnt actually, its trivially easy to copy a book or gramophone > records. Not preserving the identical user experience in isn't. >> They can't control what you do with that copy, but they can be >> reasonably certain that any copies in circulation have been made by >> them and paid for. > >> Digital media have fundamentally changed those facts. > > That's their problem, not mine. > >> If I want to share a book that I'm reading on my tablet, without >> sharing the device and all its other content, I can transmit it to my >> friend's device by cable or wifi or bluetooth or infrared or some >> other means - but that creates a duplicate of the original. Even if >> publishers try to include a program that will erase the original if >> it detects a copy being made, any code that can be invented can be >> countered by other code so such attempts at 'protection' are >> ultimately futile. > > Again, that's their problem, not mine. > >> This is fine for end users, at least in the short term, but is very >> bad news for the content providers whose income depends on getting >> paid per copy created. > > Again, that's their problem, not mine. Unless you want content after the content producers have been forced to stop making it because they need to put their effort into earning a living somehow. >> It's bad enough for it to make some businesses unsustainable; as >> already noted in this thread, actual bricks and mortar book shops >> (and record shops too) are becoming rarer. > > And ebook distribution much better. We have even seen some choose to > hand out free legal copys to anyone who wants them for a while. That > isnt as practical with dead tree books. > >> Publishers too face a real threat to their long term survival, > > I doubt it with ebooks. The detail with change, just like it did when > we started to be able to record music if we wanted to, but that did > not see the demise of music. Certainly not. It has made the record companies suffer though, forcing them to retrench, merge, or close completely. Musicians can still create and perform, there are still live concerts etc, but without an HMV or a Sony or some such 'music house' to provide publicity and recording facilities and advice and advances and so on, how many musicians find fame or fortune? >> and that in turn means that writers will lose that avenue of support >> and payment. > > But we will still see some who are prepared to pay for what they > decide they want to have. If they happen to find out that it's there. >> Creative types are adaptable and will eventually find new ways of >> earning from their work, > > And some have in fact found that offering free copys of at least some > of their work for a limited time does see some decide that they like > the work and are prepared to pay for more of their work. Something > that is much more practical with ebooks than with dead tree books. It's a way of generating 'word of mouth' publicity; the only sort there is without a Penguin or a Hamlyn or some such pushing your wares. >> but the intermediaries who depend on both the creators and the >> consumers co-operating with them, will have to work out some new way >> to survive, otherwise they will vanish. > > Yes, quite a few newspapers have vanished. > >> We can expect them to fight very hard, and possibly 'dirty', to >> preserve themselves. > > And we are able to strip the DRM when we choose to do that. Imposing DRM merely indicates their intention that the contract with you that you will not make any copies, will be enforced by them in any way they can. Breaking the DRM is your indication that you intend to breach your contract with them - and evidence that you have done so. Imposing DRM on a file isn't the 'dirty' part of the fight, it's just the notice that the fight will be on if you choose to start it. This is not something readers will tolerate for long, but it is what the publishers are doing for now. Until they find a better less combative way of making a living - or stop living at all - this is the situation we all have to be aware of for now. There were "luddites" in the early stages of the industrial revolution when producers found themselves being replaced by machines. We are now in the early stages of a digital revolution, and again some people are finding their livelihoods threatened or vanishing so they try to resist; this time, the most threatened are corporations and their employees and investors rather than individual craftsmen and they can't just smash the new machines - but they are finding other ways to be neo-luddites. Sometimes it feels as though the neo-luddites are fighting their own customers, when they should really be trying to adapt to the new realities. There will be casualties; try not to be one. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlj1i4p.o7c.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #1960 |
In message <slrnlj1cif.hfu.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote: > Imposing DRM on a file isn't the 'dirty' part of the fight, it's just > the notice that the fight will be on if you choose to start it. What utter horseshit. DRM is far more than that, and gives a reseller (rarely a publisher) unfettered perpetual access to the book you bought, even allowing them to alter the contents or destroy the book. If the reseller goes out of business or changes their DRM model (like Microsoft did for Play4Sure), the file stops working. -- "My parents were unwilling to secure the necessary eagle's eggs and lion semen"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web