feanturi: this other torrent called "Library" came up along with the other results. Looked in and saw every single fantasy and sci-fi author I'd ever heard of and many more.

One can find this on pirate bay, called "sci-fi and fantasy library." 5.8GB
Not that I would recommend anyone download that.

Fano: If Emily Dickenson wasn't dead, I suppose we could ask her.

Jesus Christ, as least spell her name right.

KajakPro: Knucklepopper: KajakPro: Really? the one guy who has at least a half dozen people explaining things to him calls me dumb high ironic and or foreign?
Let me explain this.
You ask "How will the artist make art without getting paid?" meaning "By what method will he do so?", and my answer is, the exact same way.
Now, if you asked "Why should he?", meaning "what motivation is there for him to make a work of art, because he cannot profit from it?" that would support your point much better.
/English motherfarker, do you speak it?

Nobody has explained anything except that they think artists shouldn't worry about making money. If you can't follow the logical conclusion that an artist needs to make money in order to produce sustenance and shelter in order to produce more art, then yeah, you're either dumb, high, ironic or foreign.

My next post explains this. I'm not saying "ABOLISH COPYRIGHT" but I am saying, current media is overpriced. Maybe we should, you know, lower the price to reduce the incentive to pirate?
Oh plus wikipedia has this wonderful little list of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Albums_free_for_download_by_copyright_own e r

Think about the fact that a great deal of the work of the best writers of all time is public domain, and you can buy it for pennies, and that the newest Laurel Hamilton hardcover is $25+

the_chief: I want to download a lobster.

Albinoman: And yes, it is theft.

Wikipedia
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

Let's flip it around. Imagine that I somehow come into possession of a device which allows me to make a perfect duplicate of any physical object. I then sneak into your yard at night and duplicate your lawnmower.

You still have your lawnmower. You do not have a claim of theft against me.

Now, if you had somehow modified this lawnmower or gave it a custom paint job, you may or may not have a claim of copyright infringement.

"People don't like paying for things they can otherwise easily acquire for free. Film at 11."

Weaver95: SCOTUS said it wasn't stealing. why do you hate SCOTUS?

I love SCOTUS. They still let companies sue for the theft. Hell, they've even let companies sue software makers for making the theft possible.

TsukasaK: Albinoman: If you did some research and I came in and copied all of it and wrote a paper or invented something, you'd say I stole it even though your copy is still intact.

And I would sue you for infringing my copyright, not for stealing my paper. If I tried to bring a case against you for stealing, the case would be dismissed faster than you can say "SCOTUS SMASH!"

You're just mincing words. Copyright infringement is just a specific type of stealing. It's like saying burglary isn't stealing cause it's burglary. No I'm not equating burglary to infringement. But the person who gains and the person who loses, no matter how little value or how easy it was, is still the same.

Albinoman: You're just mincing words. Copyright infringement is just a specific type of stealing. It's like saying burglary isn't stealing cause it's burglary. No I'm not equating burglary to infringement. But the person who gains and the person who loses, no matter how little value or how easy it was, is still the same.

Nu-uh, man! The world wants to be free and people like you aren't letting it!

Albinoman: You're just mincing words. Copyright infringement is just a specific type of stealing. It's like saying burglary isn't stealing cause it's burglary.

Welcome to the legal system, where the definitions of words, however minor, mean a lot.

Also, you're wrong again.

Wikipedia:
Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimes housebreaking)[2] is a crime, the essence of which is entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence.

You can burglarize a home with the intent to commit theft, or burglarize a home with intent to do something else.

Next flawed analogy, please.

Albinoman: You're just mincing words. Copyright infringement is just a specific type of stealing.

nope, and your burglary example proves your point. If someone came into my house, copied everything I owned and left I would charge them with breaking and entering, not burglary.

KajakPro: My next post explains

My Last (2nd last) post explained that.
FTFM

Knucklepopper: KajakPro: Because most people aren't advocating a perfectly free model. Instead, a cheaper model is being advocated.

No, no I understand that. The fact remains, people do advocate for a free model. if they were arguing for a cheaper model, I would have agreed from the start. Instead, they're telling me that piracy isn't really stealing, there's nothing with taking books and music for free and I'm old fashioned for thinking it so. Then they produce cheaper model examples to "prove" their point.

A cheaper model is being advocated. How do we support this model in a capitalist society? With our wallets. Or lack thereof. If something is overpriced, torrent it in mass quantities. Sooner or later, more people will notice: Hey! The other method of distribution works! and lower their prices. Then you buy those items, after it reaches a reasonable price point.

Now, you're going to claim that we will never reach that "reasonable point" that will make us buy everything. That is true. Even if things cost 1¢, someone would still pirate it. There is, for each person, a price for which having the cash and having the album are exactly identical in terms of worth/enjoyment.

(For me, Metric's Fantasies is worth $14. Lady GaGa is worth $1. As soon as those albums are less than that price, I will buy them (given the opportunity). The Dreadnoughts' "Victory Square" cost $9.99 on iTunes, I would have paid $14 for it, so I bought it.)

Once you go just below this point, people will buy your work. Especially with a model like Radiohead's, which allows you to "overpay", you still profit.

But in order to get people to adapt a business model with realistic prices, we need to put pressure on the distribution system (which is, incidentally, responsible for so much of the shiatty pop music out there today) by not buying their products (a boycott, in effect.) However, thanks to piracy, we have the most PAINLESS method of a boycott ever.

lockers: Give it time, we will be having this conversation about manufacturing before the end of this century.

We already have this discussion concerning crop seeds. Good old Monsanto doesn't sell seed, they apparently sell the rights to use their seed. So if insects cross-pollinate a Monsanto crop with yours, they come after you for royalties.
Yay 21st century IP!

KajakPro: However, thanks to piracy, we have the most PAINLESS method of a boycott ever.

Let's not legitimize it too much... I'd wager that most people just want shiat without paying for it.

Weaver95: KajakPro: However, thanks to piracy, we have the most PAINLESS method of a boycott ever.

well...painless for us anyway.

Well, if it was painless for them it'd be a shiatty boycott, now wouldn't it :D

Fano: KajakPro: Knucklepopper: KajakPro: Really? the one guy who has at least a half dozen people explaining things to him calls me dumb high ironic and or foreign?
Let me explain this.
You ask "How will the artist make art without getting paid?" meaning "By what method will he do so?", and my answer is, the exact same way.
Now, if you asked "Why should he?", meaning "what motivation is there for him to make a work of art, because he cannot profit from it?" that would support your point much better.
/English motherfarker, do you speak it?

Nobody has explained anything except that they think artists shouldn't worry about making money. If you can't follow the logical conclusion that an artist needs to make money in order to produce sustenance and shelter in order to produce more art, then yeah, you're either dumb, high, ironic or foreign.

My next post explains this. I'm not saying "ABOLISH COPYRIGHT" but I am saying, current media is overpriced. Maybe we should, you know, lower the price to reduce the incentive to pirate?
Oh plus wikipedia has this wonderful little list of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Albums_free_for_download_by_copyright_own e r

Think about the fact that a great deal of the work of the best writers of all time is public domain, and you can buy it for pennies, and that the newest Laurel Hamilton hardcover is $25+

A different topic, but it's scary to think that with the current trend of extending copyright for longer and longer periods of time, or assigning copyrights to corporations and allowing the corporations to extend copyright essentially forever, it's entirely possible that if a work is not already in the public domain, it may never be. If that's the case, then book piracy may be the only hope future generations have to experience the authors' works. Once the rights holder decides it's no longer profitable to publish the work, and the extent copies degrade, what will be left?

Copyright exists to prevent people from making money off others' ideas, not to protect anyone's ability to make money. It is purely a protection against exploitation, designed to spur innovation.

I wouldn't care if someone downloaded my book for free, chances are they weren't going to pay for it anyway. However, if someone took my work and stuck their name on it, I would be mad as hell. If they sold illegal copies of it, I would be mad as hell. If they stuck their name on it and sold illegal copies, I would go after them with a vengeance appropriate to a Tarantino movie.

TsukasaK: KajakPro: However, thanks to piracy, we have the most PAINLESS method of a boycott ever.

Let's not legitimize it too much... I'd wager that most people just want shiat without paying for it.

Same effect. Did the Founding Fathers want freedom, or less taxes? Do you really care?

/I know that's a little over the top.

KajakPro: But in order to get people to adapt a business model with realistic prices, we need to put pressure on the distribution system (which is, incidentally, responsible for so much of the shiatty pop music out there today) by not buying their products (a boycott, in effect.) However, thanks to piracy, we have the most PAINLESS method of a boycott ever.

Meh. I've heard the piracy-as-protest before (sually also applied to music quality because the record industry is too controlling, man!).
We live in a digital age of mp3s and people still don't want to pay .99 cents for a farking song on iTunes; they'd rather steal it. Don't tell me it's a boycott, or voting with their wallets, or any other bullshiat. It's available for the stealing, so they steal it. There is no market control justification that works here.

I think the 'mitter was trying to make a lame joke about the companies getting peeved about people getting the books for free online....kinda similar to how people can obtain the information for free from a public library....

KajakPro: Because most people aren't advocating a perfectly free model. Instead, a cheaper model is being advocated.

Extremely agreed here too.

There's a price at which people are more than happy to pay, and that price is greater than zero. The same thing is happening with music and movies and TV - people will pay a smallish amount for the certainty of getting a perfect copy of whatever the thing is from a legal, easy to find source.

Meaning, 99 cents a song is great and saves you from surfing around skeevy illegal websites trying to find what might be corrupted files. $20 for a CD to get that same song? Nah, at that point slogging through all the crap and taking the risk of skips is worth it.

Add to that, the other reason people like Indian editions (and GOOD electronic editions) - portability. I have the electric (yes, pirated!) scans of some books I own on paper just so that I can search them and/or access them when I'm not at home. If I'm at my desk, the paper is wonderful on my eyes, and I like being able to make notations in the book. If I need to answer some reference question away from home, it's handy to call up the scan on my thumb drive.

Copyrights and patents are probably the most fair of the government grants of monopoly in terms of getting them. Practically anyone can get them. The problem is that defense of them is through the government courts which pretty much limits them being (most) effective for the wealthy and large corporations. Little people who cannot afford the court system are just out of luck.

As to artists and authors, copyrights were something they were forced to give up to corporations when distribution was very costly and difficult. It was the method through which record companies, sheet music companies, publishing companies, and others would screw the creative people out of their work and the profit stream from it.

Time and technology has rendered the system obsolete. It's like how records ended the need for sheet music printing for a song writer's work to be heard. Technology, the product of competition, is driving the profits of corporations to zero. The corporations can't make the kind of margins they used to so they are screaming for protection. Too bad. They need a better business model.

People will argue that if the corporations that exist today we'll no longer have books, recorded music, whatever. We will, it will just be supplied by companies or the artists themselves that can come up with a better business model, one that works in the 21st century. I'm not sure what those models are but it seems like it's getting sorted out slowly but surely.

ScottRiqui: Once the rights holder decides it's no longer profitable to publish the work, and the extent copies degrade, what will be left?

Interesting question, and makes me wonder if maybe there needs to be a rule that says once something goes out of for-pay print, it needs to go into the public domain.

Because you're right - there are plenty of niche books that aren't in print anymore but aren't public domain, either.

Personally I've felt no guilt checking the things out of the library and copying them cover to cover (to PAPER!) at Kinko's. They're reference books, can't be constantly checked out.

Knucklepopper: It's available for the stealing, so they steal it. There is no market control justification that works here.

I never said that just because it was cheap it meant that no-one would steal it, just less, enough less that it'd be more profitable to have lower prices.

TsukasaK: Albinoman: And yes, it is theft.

Wikipedia
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

Let's flip it around. Imagine that I somehow come into possession of a device which allows me to make a perfect duplicate of any physical object. I then sneak into your yard at night and duplicate your lawnmower.

You still have your lawnmower. You do not have a claim of theft against me.

Now, if you had somehow modified this lawnmower or gave it a custom paint job, you may or may not have a claim of copyright infringement.

As the creator or a work you have the right to decide who is allowed to enjoy it. You own that right, you possess it. Let's just call it a copyright and make it easy. If I copy your work, there's no reason I can't copy it again and give it away. I've stolen your right to control it's use. If I cloned your newfangled invention called a lawnmower, then I'd be stealing. It's not really a great example since lawnmowers aren't unique and I'd let you have a copy if you just asked.

Weaver95: yup. more willful blindness and stupidity. Nobody could possibly be this stupid and not drool on their keyboards. c'mon - admit it. you're just trolling the thread.

I've asked you seven times now, and you still won't answer, you just keep shaking your head pitifully at some higher knowledge you claim to have:
How is the artist going to create more art if nobody pays them for it?

So far, the only thing you could say is: smaller companies will sell it. Which, of course, ignores that their material is also free for the taking.
I gotta say, I'm disappointed; I didn't think you were so weak about difficult questions. At the very least, I thought you'd take a shot at answering it.

Weaver95: Knucklepopper: It's available for the stealing, so they steal it. There is no market control justification that works here.

yup. more willful blindness and stupidity. Nobody could possibly be this stupid and not drool on their keyboards. c'mon - admit it. you're just trolling the thread.

Hint:read his profile

KajakPro: TsukasaK: KajakPro: However, thanks to piracy, we have the most PAINLESS method of a boycott ever.

Let's not legitimize it too much... I'd wager that most people just want shiat without paying for it.

Same effect. Did the Founding Fathers want freedom, or less taxes? Do you really care?

/I know that's a little over the top.

Seriously though: I almost agree, people just want shiat for cheap. If the choice is between $20 (of which about 18-19 goes to shareholders) and free, they'll take free, but when they know something is $10 and of that, $8 goes to the band, they're much more likely to pay.

TsukasaK: Albinoman: And yes, it is theft.

Wikipedia
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

Let's flip it around. Imagine that I somehow come into possession of a device which allows me to make a perfect duplicate of any physical object. I then sneak into your yard at night and duplicate your lawnmower.

You still have your lawnmower. You do not have a claim of theft against me.

Now, if you had somehow modified this lawnmower or gave it a custom paint job, you may or may not have a claim of copyright infringement.

Toro might have a case against you, since that is one less lawnmower for them to sell.

Fano: Toro might have a case against you, since that is one less lawnmower for them to sell.

By that logic, Toro would also have a case against everyone who bought a Honda.

KajakPro: I never said that just because it was cheap it meant that no-one would steal it, just less, enough less that it'd be more profitable to have lower prices.

And it may be true. It's speculative at this point and so far the only ones who seem to think this may be the case are the hippies.

Knucklepopper: Weaver95: yup. more willful blindness and stupidity. Nobody could possibly be this stupid and not drool on their keyboards. c'mon - admit it. you're just trolling the thread.

I've asked you seven times now, and you still won't answer, you just keep shaking your head pitifully at some higher knowledge you claim to have:
How is the artist going to create more art if nobody pays them for it?

Make less copies of the art and make better art. Painters sell originals, bands put on shows. Just because you did a good job once doesn't mean you get to quit working.

KajakPro: By that logic, Toro would also have a case against everyone who bought a Honda.

In all honesty, I think when when star-trek-esque "replication" technology becomes standard, the human race will be forced into star-trek-esque economics, as in, economics becomes a thing of the past.

Why buy anything when you can simply press a button and have a perfect copy of it?

The best professor I had at University was both the teacher of the class and the author of the required textbook. But he made loose-leaf three hole punched copies of the thing, which he gave to every student in the first week. Came with a CD copy, too.

TsukasaK: KajakPro: By that logic, Toro would also have a case against everyone who bought a Honda.

In all honesty, I think when when star-trek-esque "replication" technology becomes standard, the human race will be forced into star-trek-esque economics, as in, economics becomes a thing of the past.

Why buy anything when you can simply press a button and have a perfect copy of it?

B-b-but that would be un-Amurrican!

Albinoman: Make less copies of the art and make better art. Painters sell originals, bands put on shows. Just because you did a good job once doesn't mean you get to quit working.

So you download music for free as a form of protest against artists' quality? Is that it? Shiat, and here I thought you were just bein' cheap.

Knucklepopper: How is the artist going to create more art if nobody pays them for it?

I can get all sorts of music free from the internet. I pay amazon for the music to get some vanishingly small amount of money into the artists hands. Copyright has almost nothing to do with this _other_ than the fact that I have no other way of achieving my goals. They get paid because I want them to get paid, not because I can't get their creative effort. This is why your question has been answered so often and you don't get it. They only get paid this way because it is often the only way they allow us to pay them. The people who get reputation for producing virus free quality works with easy distribution and no limitations will succeed the most, and there isn't a flipping thing you can do to change that.

Knucklepopper: Albinoman: You're just mincing words. Copyright infringement is just a specific type of stealing. It's like saying burglary isn't stealing cause it's burglary. No I'm not equating burglary to infringement. But the person who gains and the person who loses, no matter how little value or how easy it was, is still the same.

Nu-uh, man! The world wants to be free and people like you aren't letting it!

DUDE you're killing my buzz,
/and the free Boston albums

TsukasaK: Why buy anything when you can simply press a button and have a perfect copy of it?

Hell, long before we get to that point, I think we'll hit the question "when 5% of the people can easily do 100% of the needed work, how will we distribute resources?"

TsukasaK: In all honesty, I think when when star-trek-esque "replication" technology becomes standard, the human race will be forced into star-trek-esque economics, as in, economics becomes a thing of the past.

It HAS happened. Soon enough copying physical goods will be almost as cheap and easy as copying magnetically encoded goods. Knucklepopper is arguing that we should feel bad about the fact. He just doesn't get that people don't and won't and that it doesn't matter what the hell he thinks about it.

TsukasaK: KajakPro: By that logic, Toro would also have a case against everyone who bought a Honda.

In all honesty, I think when when star-trek-esque "replication" technology becomes standard, the human race will be forced into star-trek-esque economics, as in, economics becomes a thing of the past.

Why buy anything when you can simply press a button and have a perfect copy of it?


Well, the "replicator" will have to come with free energy and free raw materials to form the object, or you're still dealing with a non-zero (and probably large) production cost, so there likely won't ever be a time where you can obtain a physical physical just by pressing a button and wishing for it.

lockers: I can get all sorts of music free from the internet. I pay amazon for the music to get some vanishingly small amount of money into the artists hands. Copyright has almost nothing to do with this _other_ than the fact that I have no other way of achieving my goals. They get paid because I want them to get paid, not because I can't get their creative effort. This is why your question has been answered so often and you don't get it. They only get paid this way because it is often the only way they allow us to pay them. The people who get reputation for producing virus free quality works with easy distribution and no limitations will succeed the most, and there isn't a flipping thing you can do to change that.

"Vanishingly small amount of money."
So you justify it because artists don't make enough money from the cd.
Hm. How much do they make off an album? Do you know? How much did they used to make? Do you know that?
No, no, don't go Googling it. You're using this as a justification for lifting music for free so you should know the answer.

No kidding, I was just asking my coworkers if they knew whether or not newzbin had textbooks. Thanks for giving me those links!

/seriously