Comments (17) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

   I think this is going to be a bigger problem as time goes on. Somehow, a lot of people think once it’s electrons it’s free. In pretty much all of Asia there is absolutely no concept of copyright. The cost of a book, it what the copy center charges you to copy it (seen it first hand). Movies are to be downloaded free as are all music. Funny it never occurs to them that this is someone’s living, and that it needs to be bought and paid for. I actually don’t have any pirated software, or movies, or music on my PC. I’m not trying to be holier than thou or anything, but if I wouldn’t steal something from a store, why should IU steal it from the net?

   I don’t get it.

2. 

   ynnek58 said, 3 months ago

   not about the money, it’s about theft, well, OK, thieving money.. you got me…

3. 

   GNWachs said, 3 months ago

   ynnek58

   You apparently do not understand the anti-capitalist mindset of many of our posters. If you try and make a profit off the back of the poor downtrodden you are evil. All goods just appear magically and there should be no profit for the expenditure of your time, labor and capital. Seriously, follow the comments. Capitalism is wrong and evil.

4. 

   omQ R said, 3 months ago

   I’m a capitalist. I believe in free markets yet well regulated to ensure unfettered and unscrupulous capitalists don’t screw the consumers nor the market. I don’t believe there is an invisible hand. Capitalism works if given a moral framework to work in and does good.

   I’m a mixed economy fella. The government has its place in the economy and generally to ensure rules are adhered to. I don’t think a pure form of one system (socialism) or the other (capitalism) works. In combination they can and do.

   GNWachs sneers:
   If you try and make a profit off the back of the poor downtrodden you are evil

   Yes, if you’re making a profit off the backs of the poor & downtrodden, you are indeed evil.
   If, however, you’re making a fair profit where your use of the labour resource and the environment isn’t raped nor screwed over, then you’re doing good.

5. 

   omQ R said, 3 months ago

   I understand it’s then called fascism. We overthrow them.

   Edit: No, fascism is more an authoritarian government controling capitalism which is the exact opposite of what you’ve asked (and suspiciously close to what I said before ;-) )

   Still, my reply stands but slightly altered: throw them out.

6. 

   dtroutma said, 3 months ago

   Agree with omQR– food and societies work better with “salt AND pepper”. I also hate electronic “books”, we can use hemp and other products to still have books on paper, and many other products, yet save forests.

7. 

   senorbullwinkle said, 3 months ago

   IT’S AN OBAMA SCHEME !!!!
   I haven’t bought a book sense the College started handing out Library cards.

   Come on REPUBLICANS get your Guns and lets BURN DOWN the Libraries ! Them little school kids are stealing Grimm’s Fairy Tales !
   kids, students, and professionals are all doing research without buying each book ! How long has this been going on ? How bout Cave Paintings, who has the Copyrights on them ? OMG the trepidation of it all.

   LIBRARIANS are the tools of OBAMA and the Biggest thieves in the Country

8. 

   Donah said, 3 months ago

   what´s there to post ?? you all know it all so perfect… I´m a dumber…. I stay out of being too clever !! Donah….//

9. 

   Donah said, 3 months ago

   Ah yes… I´m back on track… I´m with the Asians…. If someone tries to make money off me by telling me I should behave, be a good boy and pay my dues for copying someone´s hot air … blasphemy !!.. I´d say:- it´s you who posted it.. not me.. so don´t give me orders….. Move !! buddy…. it´s me .. I have my own rules…. Donah////

10. 

    Donah said, 3 months ago

    And this is the stinger…. us Amis should stop telling the world we´re telling them….. That´s the whole bloody reason why they, the world is at odds with us….. Donah////

11. 

    senorbullwinkle said, 3 months ago

    Sorry Donah, I must be dumber, cause me dont know what U says. ??? you R a Bloody Clever Amis Asian with a Brit accent ?

12. 

    motivemagus said, 3 months ago

    Folks, I’m a published writer and so is my wife. I have serious reservations about the Google scheme, and they cut a deal with the Author’s Guild without consulting most of its actual members (who are now rather ticked off). Microsoft and Yahoo have teamed up to sue Google on this, amazingly.

13. 

    senorbullwinkle said, 3 months ago

    MOTIVEMAGUS, I’m going right now, to try and see what all the concern is all about. You have not given us any reasons for your reservations. Now I’ll have to look for my self, and God knows I’m lazy !
    Tell us, what have you written lately ? I’m writing about what I did over my summer vacation !

14. 

    NoFearPup said, 3 months ago

    Eventually, Google must go…bust! So get your priorities straight. What good is having everything printed on the web if no one wants it? It becomes a negative expenditure to maintain it. Then comes competition and negotiation; eventually nausea and a turning to more down to earth pursuits, etc. The Chinese juggernaut peters out under the great need for more and more rice…eventually we are left to contemplate our navels. Such is the way of the world.

15. 

    motivemagus said, 3 months ago

    Okay, senor, Here are a few of my concerns:

    
    
    1. When your book is out of print for enough time (determined by contract) the rights “revert” to the author, who can then re-sell them as they please. Very helpful for a writer who suddenly booms again and then can sell a back catalog for a higher price. But if you publish online, you are technically never out of print. How do you know? Most contracts (especially older ones) don’t clarify how to handle that.
    
    
    2. Google wants to get into the e-books business. For a fee, they’ll be able to download your book. But they control the fee, the access, and everything else – and how many authors will be able to negotiate with Google?
    
    
    3. They’ll control way, way, way too much intellectual property with no oversight and no restrictions, because right now we have no idea what is possible. That means they can force out Amazon, Microsoft, and anyone else who has tools for downloading books for a fee.
    
    
    4. When books get into the public domain, they benefit the whole community in a variety of ways. (Disney’s shameless lobbying to change those laws for their benefit is another issue.) To what extent will Google’s control of books mean they will not go into the public domain? Or that Google can charge a fee for what was once free? No way to know.
    
    
    5. And how will this affect the printed book industry, which is still rather important to me and a lot of other people? No way to know.
    
    

16. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    MM

    Just for curiosity do you ever buy and use generic drugs? I read your very impressive CV. Mine is in the medical world. The government by law takes all property rights away from the company that developed the drug after 7-10 years and gives it to anyone and everyone for free. We would exchange rights with you in a heartbeat.

17. 

    motivemagus said, 3 months ago

    Whoops - missed a question from GNW.
    Last I looked, drug companies have a 17 year exclusive patent, not seven.
    And don’t get me wrong - I approve of putting books in the public domain.
    The thing I may not have made clear is that the original publisher controls the payout, not the writer. A new writer who gets a 4-6%-of-cover-price royalty on a paperback (thus about 42 cents per book if you are lucky) and then becomes a bestseller continues to get a 4-6% royalty on that original book forever unless it goes out of print and the rights revert and the writer re-sells it. If the publisher decides to keep publishing in paperback under the original contract, the writer has no say in the matter.
    I know whereof I speak - my wife has been trying to get her first few books back from her old publisher for a while, because a large-print press was willing to republish them. The publisher sat on the rights, but DIDN’T bring them back into print, thus screwing everybody, apparently just because they could. It finally happened, after about a year and an appeal to the president of the publisher, who had some sense.