Updating new e-books!!

[Lew]

There is some enlightenment to be had at questioncopyright.org and
againstmonopoly.org -- the issue of plagiarism being confused with
copyright infringement just came up at both recently.

Which is it when one publishes an entire article under one's own name that was
written by someone else, as was done in this case?

 

[nebulous99]

Which is it when one publishes an entire article under one's own name that was
written by someone else, as was done in this case?

In that case, it is plagiarism for sure, and quite possibly copyright
infringement as well. They can and frequently do occur at the same
time, but they are nonetheless separate things. One is about
attribution. The other is about copying without permission.

 

[Lew]

In that case, it is plagiarism for sure, and quite possibly copyright
infringement as well. They can and frequently do occur at the same
time, but they are nonetheless separate things. One is about
attribution. The other is about copying without permission.

OK, thanks.

The author sure seemed to think it was a copyright violation. He and his
publisher are getting ready to take care of it.

 

[xen]

Yo Lasse,

just wanted to say, I agree with you on everything. The muddling
together of two so obviously distinct concepts has always appalled me.

As a sidenote, I would love to see the possibility emerge for me to
pay/give/donate to a copyright owner the amount of money that _I_ am
willing to pay for a work that I will pirate anyway. But this probably
will never happen (well, never say never) because that would be for
the owner to admit that pirating has some legitimate existance (and by
that I don't mean lawful, but that it serves some purpose).

If I had never pirated Borland Pascal, I would never have become a
pascal programmer, and would also not have bought a copy of Borland
Delphi (which I did, even though I already had a pirated copy).

 

[nebulous99]

Yo Lasse,

just wanted to say, I agree with you on everything. The muddling
together of two so obviously distinct concepts has always appalled me.

As a sidenote, I would love to see the possibility emerge for me to
pay/give/donate to a copyright owner the amount of money that _I_ am
willing to pay for a work that I will pirate anyway.

*cough*Radiohead*cough*

 

[nebulous99]

OK, thanks.

The author sure seemed to think it was a copyright violation.

In this case, it apparently is both. This is rather how someone might
be speeding in a stolen car, but car theft and speeding not have
anything to do with one another more generally other than that both
tend to involve a car.

 

[Roedy Green]

Hello!! once again i'm updating my e-books!!
Check this out!!
http://freebooks2007.blogspot.com

Instead of offering a pirated ebook, you now sometimes try to sell me
unrelated software.

As promised, I have reported another of your pirated texts. This time
Sun One Studio 4, Mobile Edition Getting Started Guide sold on Amazon
for $20.

 

[xen]

*cough*Radiohead*cough*

What's with Radiohead? Are these Radiohead fantasies or did Radiohead
offer this possibility or what?

There reason for this desire is really that... information to me just
doesn't feel like something I can own.... or that when I have free
access to it, I would be morally obliged to pay someone who has
nothing to do with the access to this information, for using this
information! It is completely alien to me. It would be like paying
AOpen for every use of my computer, that is already in my possession.
I can relate to supporting someone. I can relate to paying someone for
material goods. I can relate to paying someone for doing something for
me. But I cannot relate to paying someone for once upon a time having
formed thought into formation that by a causal chain of events caused
some carrier that I have access to (such as a magnetic disk) to take a
formation identical to this original formation. It's just information.
It's in the air, or on a disk, or in a mind. Once transmitted, it is
no longer connected to you. It lives on its own. I do not feel I owe
the creator anything when I use 'his' work. His creating it and my
using it are not part of any contract. Hell, I could be an
extraterrestial living in another universe, that tapped the universal
mind and is now enjoying the music available through it. I wouldn't
even know who the creator was; how could I ever stand in relation to
him? If I buy a record, I do not stand in social/economic relation to
the artist. My only partner is the shop that sells me the record. To
him I owe money according to the terms of our contract, and to no one
else.

(Yes I know the law disagrees with me, but I'm just stating
'fundamental truth' as I see it).

So I will much sooner donate something than pay for use of
information...that I already have access to. In fact, I have never
ever payed anything for such use, although I have donated to support
the person that created the information (such as Wikipedia).