Slashdot Mirror


Latvian Police Raid Teacher's Home for Uploading $4.00 Textbook

richlv writes "Latvian police recently raided the home of a history teacher and confiscated his computer. The crime? Scanning a history book and making it available on his website covering various topics on history. The raid was based on a complaint from the publisher (Google Translate to English), which has a near-monopoly on educational materials in Latvia, often linked with shady connections in the Ministry of Education."

289 comments

  1. and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 upda by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 updated 1-2 times a year.

  2. textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep th by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep there monopoly on educational materials in place.

  3. Don't copy that floppy! by bhlowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't seem like fair use.. seems like blatant copyright infringement. As I learned in Boy Scouts, if you don't like the law, try to have it changed in an orderly manner, rather than disobey it. Failing that, if you're going to break the law, don't get caught.

    1. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree ... this is flat-out illegal. This person should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You would think a teacher would know better than to do this.

    2. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. On the other hand the response should be proportional. Uploading a textbook should have involved an officer serving a warrant. A raid and seizing equipment is more in line with a massive copyright ring. This over the top shit is really ridiculous and unwarranted. It's like someone caught jaywalking getting clubbed down, handcuffed, dragged away and thrown in the pokey. Enough with the over reactions already.

    3. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "educational use" is one of the fair use reasons, but applying US fair use to a Latvian action would be silly. Do they even have fair use in Latvia?

    4. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It does seem to be copyright infringement, but saying it's deserving of criminal charges is crazy. And unjust law should be ignored if not actively defied.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend was tazed, tackled, handcuffed, arrested and locked up for jay walking.

    6. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they want to be cops if they couldn't do shit like that? Also, reminds me of an episode of Cops where there was some uppity drunk guy on a roof and the cops called fucking everyone out and made this huge deal about it. Really, just send one cop with a lawn chair and a book and the problem will work itself out eventually.

    7. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by multiben · · Score: 1

      No he wasn't. You just want to play the internet.

    8. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

      This can be used as an example for the kids. A lot of lessons here, if someone was into teaching and stuff.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    9. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by devloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a wonderful compliant, obedient little boy the Scouts helped you become!

      I'd prefer my kid to be more defiant and incredulous of authority and status quo,
      and to consider that sometimes great corruption demands extreme measures to
      correct it and sometimes one must disobey and rebel in a disorderly manner.

      Washington, Revere and Franklin would probably make awful little scouts.

    10. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, Mr. Bricklayer! Did you know you can hire somebody else to build a wall, and then get a government-protected monopoly on the usage of said wall? You only have to pay the actual builder once for his service. But you can "license" the right to look at that "wallbuild" or to use it to people for the rest of your life plus 90 years! And when anybody takes a picture of it, or invites guests in, without paying you, you can sue him for ONE BILLION DOLLARS for every time anybody used or could hypothetically have used "your" "wallbuild". No, not the wall. No not the service. The result of the act of building that wall. Its structural properties!"

      Copyright is what is the blatant crime here!

      It's a law granting distributors imaginary* artificial scarcity . Something that for all other industries is a crime.
      It means they can sit on their fat asses, and rake in real actual money that took real actual work to make, in return for a worthless copy of a service somebody else did once. Work once, take money for life+90 years. Paying that somebody else (the authors) also once for that service.

      Ask your wall painter and car mechanic and brick layer what they think about that! Please do.

      It is a crime against artists, authors, customers, and in fact the whole damn world! It rapes freedom and destroys culture! It is the pest of the 21st century.

      (* Imaginary because in actual reality, there is no such thing as control over copying, nor will there ever be, since it contradicts the laws of physics. [Yes, I studied that one. It actually truly does.])

    11. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I learned in Boy Scouts, if you don't like the law, try to have it changed in an orderly manner, rather than disobey it. Failing that, if you're going to break the law, don't get caught.

      Rosa Parks would disagree with you. If you don't like the law, you should disobey it publicly, with thousands of others. When you're arrested, you should fight it in the courts every step of the way. Either the judges will change their mind, or the people will see the case and elect politicians who will change the law.

    12. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I agree. On the other hand the response should be proportional. Uploading a textbook should have involved an officer serving a warrant. A raid and seizing equipment is more in line with a massive copyright ring. This over the top shit is really ridiculous and unwarranted. It's like someone caught jaywalking getting clubbed down, handcuffed, dragged away and thrown in the pokey. Enough with the over reactions already.

      This thousand times. Technically uploading the history book was a copyright violation and I yes think it could have been handled in some way, like sending a letter describing "Hello, we noticed that you have some material online that we believe should not be distributed freely". But a police raid, gimme a fucking break! Those idiots should be ridiculed for that. It's not that there was some headquarters of armed criminals.

    13. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      Nope.

      If those things happened, it wasn't because of jay walking.

      There was actually a situation a few years back around here where a girl wound up getting tased after jay walking.

      Except what happened wasn't a cop jumping on her for jaywalking. The cop stopped her after she crossed the road to tell her to NOT DO THAT SHIT.

      She argued with the cop, and eventually got *physically confrontational* with the cop. Like, she shoved the cop. Ya follow?
      Yes, we do have a problem around here with our, er, urban culture enjoying annoying others by walking through traffic whenever they feel like, and where ever as well. Make someone slam on their brakes and swerve into a different lane? LOLZ THAT SO FUNNY, LOOK AT THAT SHITHEAD TRYNA NOT KILL ME!

      So yeah, she got tased "for jaywalking". What did your friend do after jaywalking that brought the law down on him? We're all curious.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    14. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the boy scouts taught you that if you are gonna break laws, just 'dont get caught'? what part of that is staying "morally straight"?

    15. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe his friend was black.

    16. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the contrary, it may be perfectly legal, even in the US. Lists of phone numbers and addresses, voting records of public servants, and other facts or assemblies of facts cannot be copyrighted. Even interpretations of historic events could be quotes of material that is no longer under copyright. A purely factual history book could quite possibly contain no copyrightable information. If on the other hand mere recountings of history are copyrightable, one wonders whether the authors stepped on others' copyrights. The historic information came from somewhere.

      But all that is a minor point. Likely the history book has recent thinking of scholars about the deeper meanings of the historic events covered. If not, and there wasn't any copyrightable material in the draft, we can be pretty sure that the publisher added some no matter how inaccurate or irrelevant, to cover this exact situation.

      The important part of this matter is that knowledge of history should be freely available to all citizens. If they don't have a copyleft history book, they should make one.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    17. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

      As I learned in Boy Scouts ... if you're going to break the law, don't get caught

      My nightmares will be filled with visions of boyscout gangs wearing ponchos wielding 20 year old axes tieing up old ladies with second hand climbing rope and mugging them for their pension money.

    18. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they don't have a copyleft history book, they should make one.

      It is called Wikipedia. The encyclopaedia of everything.

      INB4 an encyclopaedia is not a history book. It is better, it contain the events, the date and the references. Propaganda and opinion can be left out. We don't need them.

      INB4 wikipedia is full of propaganda. Then correct them. Controversial articles are easy to spot. Dig deeper, make your own mind.

    19. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by pantaril · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree. On the other hand the response should be proportional. Uploading a textbook should have involved an officer serving a warrant.

      According to later comment from AC from Latvia, the police/publisher warned him several times before raiding his computer.
      Personaly i think this is horrible but the issue is with the copyright law and not with the police course of action.

    20. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      If you don't get caught, then surely you haven't technically broken any law (until you get caught and found guilty).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    21. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is precisely what Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did! Oh wait a second.....

    22. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    23. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Urban culture...

      I live in Maine. Is the a code word for black people?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Does that mean you should violate the GPL?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      As I learned in Boy Scouts, if you don't like the law, try to have it changed in an orderly manner, rather than disobey it

      Rosa Parks would tell you the Boy Scouts are wrong. There are two basic ways to fight a law. One is the orderly manner you hint at, the other is to disobey it, and fight it in the courts.

    26. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like fair use.. seems like blatant copyright infringement.

      Copyright infringement! The horror! We need to raid her house!

      As I learned in Boy Scouts, if you don't like the law, try to have it changed in an orderly manner, rather than disobey it.

      Why? There's no point that I see in obeying such laws, and doing so may be harmful in some cases.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    27. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Personaly i think this is horrible but the issue is with the copyright law and not with the police course of action.

      It's with both.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    28. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      Onre thing that Wikipedia really sucks at, is history of anything after 18th century.
      Of course, this is one of the three microscopic ex-USSR Baltic countries. Their politicians' idea of history is worse than Wikipedia.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    29. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Informative

      INB4 wikipedia is full of propaganda. Then correct them. Controversial articles are easy to spot.

      If it's 19th to 21th century, it's someone regurgitating modern propaganda.

      Dig deeper, make your own mind.

      You can't "dig deeper" when all you have is a collection of propaganda workers and their parrots, all trying to out-shout each other while trying to keep the impression of legitimacy.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    30. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      According to later comment from AC from Latvia, the police/publisher warned him several times before raiding his computer. Personaly i think this is horrible but the issue is with the copyright law and not with the police course of action.

      It seems that what happened is exactly what should have happened according to copyright laws in all western countries as well. If I get the story right, he copied a book and put it on his website, with the intent that others should download it. If he also was warned about it several times, then it is just inexcusable stupidity to leave the book on his website.

      We have seen lots of cases in the USA where the RIAA got or tried to get huge penalties because of some "making available" theory. This is a case where the guy _did_ _intentionally_ make the book available. This is as if Jammie Thomas had created a website, uploaded 24 songs, and posted "here are 24 songs that I found and like, please download them for free! ". Nobody would have any sympathy for her.

    31. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there is no copyright in simple facts, collections of facts can be copyrighted in the US (17 USC 103). Not that US law has much bearing on Latvian law anyway.

      The important part of this matter is that knowledge of history should be freely available to all citizens

      Says you. The important part of this matter is that people should not pirate stuff other people worked on. To turn this into a debate about accessibility to historical information is to ignore the actual issue of why this person was raided/arrested. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if it is somehow deplorable that there is no societal system that provides us free historical information.

    32. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

      She argued with the cop, and eventually got *physically confrontational* with the cop. Like, she shoved the cop. Ya follow?

      Taser is supposed to be used as a better alternative to deadly force. So if the police officer can say "if I hadn't had my taser with me then I would have shot her", then using a taser is acceptable. If not, then it is totally unacceptable. Assuming he had both a gun and a taser, he could have 1. shot her. 2. used the taser. 3. walked away. With the possibility of walking away without harming anyone, using a taser means he should go to jail for that. Obviously my opinion is not law where you live. And obviously in the freest of all countries saying that opinion might get you tasered as well.

    33. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's with neither. The issue is the entitlement culture that makes you think piracy is OK. Everything else - the police action, the reinforcement of copyright law to criminal law - stems from that basic problem.

    34. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I interpreted that as meaning "Homeless/Drug Addicts" when I read it. We have our Urban Culture here in my town too. Often seen screaming at the top of their lungs, walking haphazardly across the street in front of traffic and most popularly crouched by the side of the street sorting out endless reams of shit in whatever bag or backpack they are carrying.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    35. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      I interpreted that as meaning "Homeless/Drug Addicts" when I read it. We have our Urban Culture here in my town too. Often seen screaming at the top of their lungs, walking haphazardly across the street in front of traffic and most popularly crouched by the side of the street sorting out endless reams of shit in whatever bag or backpack they stole from some student, then riding the train all day

      Fixed for the ATL

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    36. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A raid and seizing equipment is more in line with a massive copyright ring.

      The hell it is. Copyright is almost exclusively limited to the act of distributing, not having in your home.
      If the work wasn't available outside the home of the perpetrator then finding it in his home won't prove anything.
      The only reason to have a raid in a a copyright case is to inconvenience/intimidate the accused and to make it look closer to theft or a drug crime than a white collar crime and it has nothing to do with a serious investigation.
      The moment you start to unplug equipment you are destroying evidence.
      Even in the Pirate Bay case the raid was completely pointless and mostly hurt people who didn't have anything with the case to do.

    37. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. GPL is not holy in any way but just one of many ways to try to deal with retarded copyright laws.
      With sane copyright laws GPL is obsolete so if you have already decided to not follow current copyright laws there is no reason in particular to follow GPL.

    38. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it was illegal, and it was not simply just illegal, people are loosing money. and that's important. i am sure that the company will prove that 600 trillion people downloaded t his book and read it, meaning this guy is legally responsible to repay the 16 trillion dollars to the company for its lost income.

    39. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Had the Montgomery city fathers made it into an economic issue, e.g. by providing seat reservation for the white passengers and then covering the cost of the reservation through subsidies, making a "white ticket" theoretically more expensive and practically unavailable to black passengers, Rosa Parks would be simply accused of "stealing the seat she didn't pay for", labeled as a thief and that would be it.
      Cause who's gonna boycott and walk instead of riding a bus to support a "thief"?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    40. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like copyright itself, fair use has limits too. It isn't so broad that you can justify anything as long as it is for "educational use". It's meant as an exception to a situation that would otherwise be infringing, but it's focused on things like being able to quote someone's work for the purpose of critiquing it in class, for showing examples, that kind of thing. Generally speaking (I'm a prof, but not a lawyer) the guidelines I've gotten for textbooks is that a single chapter or an excerpt constituting <10% is *probably* okay, but the whole thing? Not a chance. There's almost no situation where that would be justified unless you had received permission from the copyright holder, the copyright had expired to the public domain, or the license stipulated by the copyright holder already permitted it. Better to write it yourself and make that free.

    41. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      It's like someone caught jaywalking getting clubbed down, handcuffed, dragged away and thrown in the pokey. Enough with the over reactions already.

      Well If my only reference as a foreigner is "To Catch a Predator", US Police absolutely need to used a squad of police officers with bullet proof vests, pepper spray, and firearms just to arrest some obese would be perverts whose names and addresses are well known.

    42. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      Lists of phone numbers and addresses, voting records of public servants, and other facts or assemblies of facts cannot be copyrighted

      This can easily worked around. Insert some bs data about fictitious facts, and these are copyrightable, as well as an easy beacon for infrigement detection

    43. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by waspleg · · Score: 1

      I was a Boy Scout. I don't remember anything prohibiting civil disobedience.

      Martin Luther King Jr. - "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

    44. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      But this is exactly what the copyright lobby wants from law enforcement. Draconian response to the odd incident, which will scare the sheep and keep them in line. How many teachers in that country are going to put textbooks online now?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    45. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's 19th to 21th century, it's someone regurgitating modern propaganda.

      The same is true for history book. It is impossible to get non-propaganda modern history.

    46. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      This can be used as an example for the kids. A lot of lessons here, if someone was into teaching and stuff.

      The teacher in question was into teaching and stuff. Now he's facing two years in jail and forced labor.

      Curious what example you're looking to "teach" here...that trying to help others who cannot afford education in a poor country only ends up with the long dick of the law rammed up your ass? Sound lesson there...where do I sign up to help...

    47. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Except, copyright laws all over the world usually have an exemption for education. As for people losing money - "Website created by the teacher, because many children do not have the funds to purchase teaching materials." from TFA. How are you losing money when they can't afford to buy your product in the first place? That's the age old MAFIAA argument and it's utter BS. I'm sure the teacher wasn't paying massive bandwidth charges because everyone on Latvia was accessing his page. And finally, copyright is CIVIL law not CRIMINAL law. How would you like to be thrown in jail because your neighbor thinks you built your fence 1" on his property?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    48. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The GPL is not a law, but if you are ignoring copyright law, then there probably isn't a reason to just honor the GPL. The biggest concern with the GPL would be not allowing someone to freely share their derivative works with the community by enforcing your copyright. You obviously can't do that if you ignore copyright.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    49. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An officer of the law can not walk away from assault and battery on an officer of the law. I agree that tasering was overkill. Nightstick to the head/neck seems closer to proper procedure.

    50. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There are all sorts of ways to violate it. I could keep Ubuntu the same, call it anything I wanted, and sell it under that name. Should I do that?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    51. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Urban culture... I live in Maine. Is the a code word for black people?

      Well done: Yes, it is.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    52. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Well, tell us the "whole" story about that before you summarize it into something too brief with bias.

      To answer to GP, sometimes the law should be harsh if one violates it. Different people view each situation differently. This situation may look too harsh to Americans (and I agree), but it may not be enough or is good enough to Latvian. We are living in different cultures, so we should not expect others to be the same. If this issue happens in the U.S., then I would completely agree with the opinion.

    53. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

      Had the Montgomery city fathers made it into an economic issue, e.g. by providing seat reservation for the white passengers and then covering the cost of the reservation through subsidies, making a "white ticket" theoretically more expensive and practically unavailable to black passengers, Rosa Parks would be simply accused of "stealing the seat she didn't pay for", labeled as a thief and that would be it. Cause who's gonna boycott and walk instead of riding a bus to support a "thief"?

      Mind you, that ticket doesn't provide ownership of that seat, merely a one-time use license.

    54. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      Latvian citizen here with basic legal knowledge.

      There's no EU-wide "fair use" clause for copyright and nothing quite like it in Latvian law. By the way, the law is officially published on www.likumi.lv in HTML form, a sibling post here links to a doc file at another governmental websites, but while other websites may re-post laws for convenience, it's www.likumi.lv that is official.

      Section 19(1)(2) of the Copyright Law states that there's no copyright violation if copyrighted material is used for educational purposes in accordance with Section 21. That's where it gets hairy as it mentions publishing works or their fragments in educational textbooks, and so on yadda yadda, if they are specifically created and directly used at educational or research institutions for educational or research purposes. The problem here is that "directly used" almost certainly excludes anything like uploading a textbook on a web server.

      The situation is interested. Jurs (the teacher) made a web site that he says is intended to let children freely study if they do not have money. It has some texts and it has audio lectures recorded by Jurs himself, as TFA says. The 4$ tag on the particular book surprises me - while indeed the salary levels are much lower in Latvia, it's actually cheaper than some textbooks were when I went to school, and that was a while ago. Checking online a bit, I see the average price could be in the 8-10$ range. But generally it's a known problem in Latvia with textbooks, poorer families are often unable to buy all the books and materials, while school libraries have very few copies, even though they are actually supposed to have enough.

    55. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10,000 downloads x $BookCost = $BigBucks

    56. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by fnj · · Score: 1

      As long as you comply with the terms of the GPL, you can call it chopped liver and charge as much as you want for it. But you have to comply with the terms of the GPL, and one of those terms is that you include the original copyright notice, and that you offer all the source code at no cost beyond reasonable copying charges.

      After all, what do you think Ubuntu does? They take Debian, make some changes, call it something else, and make it available. The "making some changes" part is not magic. You can imagine that the changes are reduced progressively until the only change is the name, and the same principle applies.

      IANAL. If I was actually going to do something like this, I would of course make a formal evaluation of the terms of the license. It would be interesting to hear exactly how this is wrong, if somebody can back it up.

    57. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by fnj · · Score: 1

      OK, you've got my attention. "Breaking the law" and "being found guilty" are not the same thing. If the law says "don't murder anyone" and you murder someone, you are violating (breaking) the law whether or not you are ever caught and convicted.

    58. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      >> A purely factual history book could quite possibly contain no copyrightable information.

      Sure, you may be able to copy the facts out of the book. You can't just photocopy it though. Maybe if the book was just a raw dump of facts you could but that doesn't happen. There is a lot of design that goes into the presentation of information. There is the phrasing used to explain it. For example, I could copy a formula from any algebra book but I had better write my own paragraphs explaining how to use it. There is also the order that information is presented in, this almost becomes the basis of a course syllabus. And of course there may be photos or other images which are copyrightable.

    59. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, I figured (not that I'd do this) that I'd slap a new copyright on it and just call it something different with making no changes to it at all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    60. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Amen! That Rosa Parks chick should just have written strongly worded letter to the editor or something, right?

    61. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Is that like if a tree falls in a forest and there's no-one to hear it?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    62. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by fnj · · Score: 1

      OK, the part where you "slap a new copyright on it" would be a GPL violation. GPL relies on intellectual property rights; it just claims with some justification to use them to non-selfish ends.

    63. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Down here in Boston, walking against the crosswalk signal and right in to a lot of traffic seems to bridge all racial divides.

    64. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right. Because there aren't any free materials already out there.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't like the current copyright system then go for the open content that already exists. Breaking the law isn't a valid form of protest especially when there is a creative commons solution. If the content you want doesn't exist then create it. It's that simple.

      For all the talk that goes on around here about open source software it seems that most people who wave the flag of OSS miss at least one of the major points by trying to justify the infringement of copyright.

    65. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Post some examples of Wikipedia "getting it wrong" or GTFO.

      Link the article and explain how it's wrong. Since you claim it's for ANY event after 1899, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Go ahead, we'll wait.

    66. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Honoring copyright restrictions is one lesson. The sooner the kids learn not to fuck with property owners, the better. A search for freely available content that teaches the kids that the property owning class has gone to great lengths to prevent access by the poor is another useful lesson.
      The entire concept of property ownership and such artificial constructs could be examined, though my experience has been that most people's brains hurt too much when faced with abstractions of that magnitude, and their parents are likely to complain to the authorities.
      We could all look at this and decide that laws should be created to serve and protect the People from greedy monopolistic overlords, but that is the punchline to this joke.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    67. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Nightstick is really more lethal than a taser. Hell a few weeks ago a man was killed, due to a punch to the head. And there was that soccer ref that was just killed by the same.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    68. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Cop can't walk away, and frankly.. I did forget to mention that the lady had 2 friends standing with her who took up beside the cop. Opposite sides. As in "we gonna role dis bitch". As in, yeah, the cities here are fucking full of awful and shitty people who think it is their right to physically intimidate a cop who wasn't even fucking going to write a citation, who simply had the audacity to point out that they were breaking the law and shouldn't do that.

      it was a bad situation, there was a video but hell if i can even remember how i'd go about finding it any more. the cop didn't get in one bit of trouble, nor was there any public outrage over the whole thing once people actually saw what went down.

      next time, on "when keeping it real goes wrong"..

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    69. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by amaurea · · Score: 0

      Why is everybody so eager to point out what the law says, but so reluctant to discuss how it should be? Every case like this is a clear example that something is wrong with the law. It is likely that his actions had a net positive effect on society, and even if you only look at the tiny negative effects on the publisher and disregard the positive effects for the students, the punishment is far out of line compared to what he did.

      Publicly refusing to comply with the law while accepting any punishment is called civil disobedience, and is a brave thing to do, not stupid. In his case, though, it seems like he was surprised about the reaction he got, so it might not qualify.

    70. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Almost, but not entirely. It's mostly the black folk in the city, but also the brown tan and white ones too.
      Not that the whole of our cities are shitty, there's plenty of decent people (most my family lives there), but basically.. just stay out of Pennsylvania's cities. You will never, ever, ever regret not seeing them.
      Harrisburg is up to 8 or 9 murders, offically, this year. City proper only has about 50k people. That's a pretty fun murder rate. It's been dropping nationwide and statewide since the mid-90s, i believe even in philly and pittsburgh, but harrisburg york and lancaster? they've been the top murder destinations for a few years running now.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    71. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      nah, these people have homes. they're not crazies, they're just assholes.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    72. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      from what i've heard boston's roads are pretty much mad max all around, though

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    73. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood what I meant by ignoring or defying a law, or you don't grasp that the GPL is not a law. The law is copyright, so to ignore or defy copyright would be to make and distribute copies regardless of whether or not you have permission.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    74. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It's with neither. The issue is the entitlement culture that makes you think piracy is OK.

      Personally, I'd say the issue is the entitlement culture that makes people think they should have government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures.

      Everything else - the police action, the reinforcement of copyright law to criminal law - stems from that basic problem.

      So police raiding a house because someone uploaded something without permission is the appropriate response? I disagree that it is.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    75. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by houghi · · Score: 1

      How many teachers in that country are going to put textbooks online now?

      The most ideal answer would be "All of them." Next all the students. All their parents. All their neighbors.
      It will be the only way to change the law.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    76. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Coming from someone who has lived in Latvia. The police response of "warning him several times" is the same as "we warned him not to bleed on us every time we hit him with our night sticks".

    77. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      INB4 wikipedia is full of propaganda. Then correct them. Controversial articles are easy to spot.

      If it's 19th to 21th century, it's someone regurgitating modern propaganda.

      Dig deeper, make your own mind.

      You can't "dig deeper" when all you have is a collection of propaganda workers and their parrots, all trying to out-shout each other while trying to keep the impression of legitimacy.

      Then enlighten us about your preferred consumption method of modern history.

      For intelligent people with good reading comprehension wikipedia works for cementing knowledge that is not debatable, and much is bland facts (eva braun and hitler killed themselves where and when, who was the last Plantagenet King, and various lists).

    78. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      If you don't get caught, then surely you haven't technically broken any law (until you get caught and found guilty).

      I'm sorry, what? If I shoot you in the face I have broken a law, even if no one knows.The fact that I'm arrested just means everyone knows I've broken the law against shooting people in the face.

    79. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by fnj · · Score: 1

      I think I understand pretty well. The copyright gives the authors the standing to apply the GPL to the work. The GPL is the mechanism granting and limiting rights to the user. And copyright law is not "defied" if you make and distributes copies; only unauthorized copies. The GPL spells out how authorized copies may be made and distributed.

      "GPL v 3.0. ...
      4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
      You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice..."

    80. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by fnj · · Score: 1

      No, it's not anything whatsoever like that.

    81. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      So you will just accuse me of bias because you happen to believe the propaganda version?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    82. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      Then enlighten us about your preferred consumption method of modern history.

      Anything attributed to unknown or un-verifiable sources is likely to be a lie.
      Anything that is accompanied with ideological editorializing is likely to be a lie.
      Anything said by "historian" about anything hapening across some major ideological conflict is likely to be a lie.
      Anything said by "historian" about his own government is likely to be a lie.
      Anything said by American "historian" is likely to be a lie.
      Anything said by a pissed off writer is likely to be a lie.

      Whatever left... Yeah, that's really not much, but you usually can trust your own memory and published documents when those documents were a part of some process where validity mattered.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    83. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's a code word for POOR people, and there are a hell of a lot more white ones than black ones, and they almost all act alike. OTOH, middle class blacks and whites pretty much act alike, as well. Same with the upper class.

      Racism is is a tool in class warfare. Don't fall for the shenanigans of the rich, you tool.

    84. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    85. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Your username would indicate that you are familiar with the GPL. It would appear not. At least you're against something... It would be better, though, if you understood what it was you were against.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    86. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I do like Kutztown. Other than that I'm not too familiar with anything larger in PA. LOL I always end up in the small towns there.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    87. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even cross the road with the lights in Boston.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    88. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It a matter of thought anyhow. My entire point is that abolishing copyright, at this point in time, isn't a valid solution. Even the GPL relies on it, calling it copyleft doesn't actually change that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    89. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, fair use is limited. But everywhere has it, even those claiming the EU doesn't, they note the limitations on what defines "infringing" (which is, by definition, fair use, even if not stated that way).

    90. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      No, I'm going to accuse you of bias because you can't actually find anything wrong with, say, the entry on the great depression. If you could show how the Wikipedia entry is simply wrong, leans towards a bias viewpoint, and provide supporting evidence showing that you're not just talking out of your ass, then you would have shown me. You would make me believe what you say, and I would do what I could to try and fix the entry, and push the Wikipedia crowd to get their shit in order. And I'd stop claiming that Wikipedia is the best thing that our generation has done. IF.

      I mean, what about theKeynesian section? People bitch and moan about how the idea is completely messed up, while others think they have solid proof that it works. It's controversial. It has been peppered with propaganda from both sides that really hate each other and desperately want the history books to show their views on the subject. And yet, the article simply states what the man believed, and doesn't state whether or not it turned out to be true.

      It's not because I believe the "propaganda" version, it's that you are giving no reason to believe anything else. If you can't cite some sources, you're a god-damned troll for spewing FUD.

    91. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      INB4 correcting articles on Wikipedia is a waste of time because of territorial wonks.

      Oh, wait, that's actually true.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    92. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Kutztown's pretty nice. Tiny lil rural/suburban type of place, not too overrun by development sprawl with their shitty never-straight, never-connect roads.. got a pretty nice college which usually makes it a more.. accepting sort of place (I'm near Annville, which actively hates its college, which confuses the shit outta me..). Stick to the smaller towns, they're not half bad. In the future, Harrisburg will become the new term for urban decay.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    93. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I am opposed to copyright and patents overall. However, I do think that copyleft is a relatively appropriate way of reversing the damage that copyright does. It's not perfect, but it's a legal hack. It's taking poison and turning it in to an antidote, and in that regard, it's an incredible piece of work. My views are not identical to Stallman's, and while I agree with him on a number of subjects, I disagree with him on others.

      If you are, like me, a copyright abolitionist, then, at least from our perspective, it would be just to ignore all copyright law, which would include violating the GPL. If you are doing much of anything other than asserting a new copyright on a GPL'd work (thus, selectively ignoring copyright law without a consistent basis) and aren't a billion dollar company, it probably isn't even worth it for the SFLC to bother you about your non-compliance. And if you are ideologically self-consistent, you would be ignoring lots of non-free licenses as well.

      You seem to be interpreting my stance from the perspective that copyleft is unjust while the remainder of copyright is just. I've yet to see an even slightly cohesive consistent argument to back that viewpoint. There are many that hold that position, but none of them present decent points.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    94. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Well, I can congratulate you on being consistent, or at least appearing to be. I'm not a fan of copyright or patents but until someone comes up with a viable alternative the protections offered are what we have. We currently need some protections, the degree of which is debatable surely but the reality is that people need to profit and have control.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    95. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I really enjoy PA, I get around pretty well actually, though a few things of note... The western smell of paper mills and the smell of the mushroom as you move south and central area. LOL It's okay but my biggest complaint is why don't you guys cut out the sidewalk for driveways and businesses? That's INSANE. I shouldn't have to drive over a 6" curb to get into the store and it was like that all over the place - not just in one area. Sidewalk cutouts are a thing. ;) Use them.

      Wow, we're quite off topic. Hitting Gettysburg outside of tourist season is awesome! Chilly but awesome!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    96. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      A viable alternative is doing nothing. The free market generally does as good or better.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    97. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Doubtles there is plenty of lying, but I think you're too cynical.

      I've been looking into the losing sides of conflicts, and disasters, trying to see what is typical of human behavior in such stressful situations. And here we see a lot of second guessing, attempts at self justifications and at shifting the blame, and coverups. Most people just aren't honest when honesty requires admitting that maybe they screwed up, or expected too much. Not surprising, I suppose.

      Some examples. In the US Civil War, Lee took full responsibility for the loss at Gettysburg, saying that he asked more of his men than they could deliver, and offering to resign. In contrast, Jefferson Davis and General Joseph Johnston constantly bickered over each other's decisions and expectations. Davis was very disappointed that Johnston did not attack to try to lift the siege of Vicksburg, accusing Johnston of not being aggressive enough. Later, Johnston defended Georgia against Sherman, slowly retreating until they had reached Atlanta, whereupon Davis relieved Johnston. The new commander, Hood, could not save Atlanta either, and lost a great number of men in reckless assaults trying to do so. One thing that struck me about this was that Davis seemed near delusional about the Confederacy's capabilities and chances. But both talked as if the war wasn't all but hopeless, as if a change of strategy, style or character in the other could have lead to a Confederate victory, and blame for the eventual Confederate loss could therefore be laid squarely at the feet of some or all of the leaders, instead of the enormous imbalance in power between the 2 sides. But such an acknowledgement would only mean that the blame could be pushed back further, to the people who started the whole war, who should have realized it wasn't winnable. Sherman made this point, trying to tell the southerners that given the strengths of the 2 sides, they were crazy for trying to rebel, and it would only lead to the devastation of the South, as indeed happened. Hitler's attitude as revealed in his final message in which he blamed the German people for not trying hard enough and for not being worthy of him, was similar.

      More recently, the Northeast blackout of 2003 has been fairly well documented, but there are some features of it that remain, well, dark. I recall a report that noted that during the blackout, allergies everywhere cleared up. Some years later when I tried to hunt this report down, I couldn't find it. Only thing I was able to turn up was a report about asthma, not allergies. Maybe I misremembered? But that's just the sort of information industries are so notorious for trying to suppress. They've done it over and over, with asbestos, bisphenol A, nicotine, radium, and lead. "Doubt is our product". Fukushima also featured a lot of lying and covering of asses. The propaganda is so pervasive, I suspect toxic chemicals and pollution have a lot more to do with our current obesity epidemic and other health problems than the public realizes. The public has been fooled into buying our laziness, bad dietary choices, and bad genes as the major and perhaps sole reasons for the obesity. All the easier, as there is a lot of evidence pointing that way. And now a new culprit has come to light, the bacteria in our guts. But when this is all over, I imagine future histories of the late 20th and early 21st centuries will finger the explosion in indiscriminate use of novel chemicals as the reason behind a lot of our current troubles, just as we now know that lead poisoning played a large part in the fall of the Roman Empire.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    98. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Nobody would have any sympathy for her.

      What? Are you sure about that?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    99. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Breaking the law isn't a valid form of protest especially when there is a creative commons solution.

      Why would the existence of a creative commons solution mean that breaking the law (Is breaking the law supposed to automatically be a bad thing?) isn't a valid form of protest? That seems like an irrelevancy.

      If the content you want doesn't exist then create it. It's that simple.

      Or you could just ignore the silly monopolies and end up like this guy, or not receive any punishment at all (as is probably the case with most people who do such things).

      it seems that most people who wave the flag of OSS miss at least one of the major points by trying to justify the infringement of copyright.

      How do you know they're the same people? Why would anyone try to justify the infringement of copyright, anyway? If you don't believe it's wrong, then as far as I know, no one can tell you that you're objectively wrong for thinking so and prove it, so it seems rather pointless. The only thing you can do is discuss why you feel the way you do, but I do not believe that will objectively "justify" anything.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    100. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right

      Saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" suggests that the person believes there were two wrongs to begin with, and that may very well not be the case.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    101. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      If those things happened, it wasn't because of jay walking.

      Because we all know that the police are perfect beings. I'm not saying it happened, but it seems rather ridiculous to me to say that it couldn't.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    102. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      My entire point is that abolishing copyright, at this point in time, isn't a valid solution.

      How so?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    103. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I do not believe that people will create without the capacity to control and/or be rewarded for their effort. Being restricted to the kindness of viewers or needing a patriarch isn't going to cut it in modern society.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    104. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Doing nothing maintains the status quo. I'm in favor of that though I do believe we should shorten the length of copyright. Fuck Disney.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    105. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      No, I mean having no legal protections at all produces better results than copyright.or patents. Tear the whole thing down and don't bother to put anything else in its place.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    106. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Being restricted to the kindness of viewers or needing a patriarch isn't going to cut it in modern society.

      Either you find a viable business model, or you fail; trying to limit the freedom of others is not, to me, a valid solution. Since I err on the side of freedom, I oppose copyrights and patents even if that means that people will create fewer things (and there's no evidence that that would be the case, as far as I know).

      And anyway, I don't see how any of this means that abolishing copyright isn't a valid solution; it is to me.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    107. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think you're out to lunch.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    108. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      By taking away copyright (and patents) you're taking away someone's freedom to protect their intellectual property.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    109. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Well, sorry, but I don't consider being able to have a government-enforced monopoly over an idea or method of doing something to be a fundamental right, so nice try.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    110. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You don't believe you have the right to profit off your labor?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    111. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you have a right to government-enforced monopolies that promote censorship and loss of real property rights. How could you take that to mean that I don't believe that people have the right to profit off of their labor? I believe they have a right to try, but I do not believe they should have a right to have the government enforce a business model for them, and I do not believe that they should be guaranteed a profit.

      So, while they can certainly try to profit off of their labor like any other business, I do not believe we should be giving them special little monopolies.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    112. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If you make something and I make a copy of it and sell it as my work then you've lost that freedom, that right, to profit off your labor and to control your property. I'm a fan of taking as little freedom as possible from people. An example would be you writing a novel and I, due to my being more wealthy than you, am able to get your work to press faster than you so I can claim I wrote it, sell it, and keep the profit without rewarding you for your labor. That doesn't foster growth or encourage creation. That deprives the worker of their due profit. That takes away their freedom, that takes away their rights, and it is wrong and serves only to benefit the wealthy or those with means.

      Having said that, I'd agree that the duration of protection that copyright affords should be lessened but there's no reasonable alternative and the government is the only facility that can reasonably assure those protections. It is difficult to discuss reform with the slow people insisting that they be heard.

      So, yes, you're saying that you don't believe people have the right to profit from their work. It's an interesting way to justify copyright infringement I suppose but you've not really given me any compelling arguments as to why we should abolish them. If you make it then it is yours to decide how it can be used to some extent. If you make it then you have every right to tell me that I can't copy it. If you spent the time, effort, and money to create a new and unique work then you own it - you have control over it, it is your property.

      I'm not a fan of taking your property nor am I a fan of taking away your freedom. You may be but, fortunately, you're in the minority. The rest of us are varied but I think you'll find that most would agree that some changes would be beneficial but abolishing would be asinine. I can think of no justification to limit your freedom in these regards. It seems your primary motivation is to be able to take another person's idea and capitalize on it without their permission and without regards to their initial work and that's simply a reduction of freedom that nobody is going to accept. If you want to profit then get off your ass and learn something useful so that you can then create something useful. The idea that you should be able to coast along without doing your own work is absurd.

      It is called ownership and yes it does apply to intangibles. It is YOUR idea, your work, your code, your art, and you have a right to control it and profit from its use for a reasonable amount of time (I'd argue that it is an unreasonable amount of time currently, fuck Disney and their mouse). You have that right because you made it. I'm not at liberty to copy your work and profit from it without your permission. If you want to work for free then be my guest but your morality isn't justification for stripping the rights of other people away. We tend to value our freedom, you're not at liberty to deprive us of our freedom.

      It is the internet, I don't expect random anonymous pixels to change your mind. But, no. No, I'm not at liberty to take your rights away. I'm not at liberty to take your work and call it my own. Your arguments have been examined, measured, and found lacking. Nobody is going to abolish copyright and your bleating interrupts discussion that may lead to productive copyright and/or patent reforms that could be actually be beneficial. I've wasted enough time on you, you're dismissed.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    113. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If you make something and I make a copy of it and sell it as my work then you've lost that freedom, that right, to profit off your labor and to control your property.

      I do not think of it as property. In fact, I see it as taking away real property rights from other people. If I buy a game and then make it available to others with my own equipment, that has nothing to do with you, but copyright says otherwise.

      I do not believe anyone should be entitled to a government-enforced monopoly, and once I buy something or it's stored on my equipment, I believe it is mine. This has nothing to do with that straw man (that people shouldn't profit, or some such nonsense) you keep bringing up.

      That deprives the worker of their due profit.

      No, it does nothing. They never had the money to begin with, so they cannot claim a tangible loss. I do not recognize anyone's right to a working business model, and one that thrives on censorship and controlling other people's use of their real property.

      So, yes, you're saying that you don't believe people have the right to profit from their work.

      They do not have a right to profit, but they do have a right to try to profit. See the difference? They can certainly try to profit, but it is up to them to succeed, and I do not think it is right for the government to grant monopolies to them. The fact that it would allegedly (this has not been proven) be difficult for them to profit without copyrights or patents does not at all mean they can't try to find a viable business model. This thing you keep bringing up is irrelevant.

      If you want to work for free then be my guest but your morality isn't justification for stripping the rights of other people away.

      What, like copyrights and patents already do? I value certain freedoms, but the right to government-enforced monopolies is not one of them. The same applies to you, but you value different freedoms. So, do not act as if I am the one stripping rights from others, or rather, do not act as if that only applies to me.

      We tend to value our freedom, you're not at liberty to deprive us of our freedom.

      Right back at you.

      Your arguments have been examined, measured, and found lacking.

      Again, right back at you; you haven't said anything that I haven't heard before.

      I find it rather unsettling that you compare copyrights and patents to real property, to be honest, because there would be no need for such laws if they were truly the same. If you see copyright and its ilk as property, as you seem to, why would you ever seek to limit it (the duration, specifically)? Would you be happy only owning, say, your computer, for a limited amount of time, and then someone came along to take it from you? I only say this because you act as if copyrights and patents are the same as real property; I hold no such delusions. And since when are real rights temporary, anyway? When a 'right' is temporary, it seems more like a privilege to me.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    114. Re:Don't copy that floppy! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It is called ownership and yes it does apply to intangibles.

      Currently, yes. I want to get rid of copyright and such, remember? What a strange thing to say...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  4. and some teachers get kicks back / $X for each sal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and some teachers get kicks back / $X for each sale some even rip off pages and if you have a used book you fail.

  5. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    their monopoly

  6. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Funny

    He didn't get no edumacation.

  7. please stop calling it piracy by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's file sharing. Piracy is the kind of stuff the next Tom Hanks movie is all about. Killing people. Brutality. That's piracy. Some educator uploading educational materials or some 12 year old in his mommy's basement downloading Katy Perry's bilge is NOT piracy. By letting the proprietarians label it as piracy, and then taking the LGBT tack of "owning the epithet" has been a complete failure. We need to call it what it is: file sharing, and demand that others call it that as well. Abandon notions of piracy and enter the next phase of human information distribution, and the access to knowledge it provides. Because It's The Right Thing To Do.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:please stop calling it piracy by kwerle · · Score: 3, Informative

      File sharing is what you do with something you own.

      Piracy is sharing files that you do not own.

      Civil disobedience is peacefully breaking the law for reasons you feel are just.

      Movies are about fiction (virtually always).

      Some educator uploading material they do not own is piracy. It may also be civil disobedience.

      Some 12 year old downloading Katy Perry is piracy. It probably is not civil disobedience.

    2. Re:please stop calling it piracy by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      Avast, lubber! How dare ye question me alternative lifestyle??

    3. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people can handle words that have multiple definitions without confusing their various meanings. Please accept the fact that most people aren't as stupid as you think they are.

    4. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piracy involves making a profit, not simply personal use of media copyrighted by another individual/organization. The true pirate of copyright infringment is the guy who downloads the latest blockbusters, burns them onto DVDs, and sells them for a hefty markup that still makes them a tenth of the price of offerings by vendors who have followed legal channels. If the professor had offered his students copies of the textbook on floppies or CD-ROMs for $2, he would be a pirate. It doesn't look like he's done that.

    5. Re:please stop calling it piracy by mark-t · · Score: 0

      Copying of creative works that were not recognized as legitimate by its creator or those who had financed their creation has been called "piracy" since even before copyright itself had been invented.

      Words can have more than one definition, you know.

    6. Re:please stop calling it piracy by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Words mean things. From Merriam-Webster.com
      3 a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

      Just don't pirate. The best thing you can do is use free open sourced knowledge. Don't feed the machine if you don't want too. But also don't take from it either or else you're playing by their rules.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:please stop calling it piracy by multiben · · Score: 2

      If that is what you *really* think then you need to update your dictionary.
      If you know perfectly well that piracy has more than one meaning, then stop trying to combat FUD with FUD. It does not serve your purpose well.

    8. Re: please stop calling it piracy by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Really? Could you give us an example of such a use of the word "piracy" from before the copyright was invented? Were you conscious when you wrote that?

    9. Re:please stop calling it piracy by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Citing a dictionary is not proof positive, especially when the sub entry is only there because the copyright holders wanted it.

      Piracy is the act of brigandage on the high seas. Allowing for lingual shifting, the location can be different; a highwayman could be considered a pirate. However the act remains constant and is stealing by force, which is where the discrepancy starts: copyright infringement is not stealing (and certainly no force is used), yet calling that act "piracy" imparts that meaning. A meaning the MPAA are promoting as they want the two acts to be conflated.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    10. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His dictionary is perfectly fine. Yours, on the other hand, is enslaved.

    11. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how does the guy who created the book/information pay his mortgage, his loans, buy food and essentials ? Unless we move into the next phase of society where we abandon money your utopian ideal where all information is shared for free just won't work....

    12. Re:please stop calling it piracy by multiben · · Score: 0

      Yeah man. It's a total conspiracy man. Those dictionary guys are totally in the pocket of those copyright holders. I'd keep going, but I'm worried that the aliens will hear my thoughts.

    13. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's "piracy". Not sure how high seas abduction got co-opted from admiralty law to its current copyright usage.

    14. Re: please stop calling it piracy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It happened before modern copyright. It was still copyright, but not as we know it. Back in the the olden days, you couldn't produce copies of anything unless the king granted you a 'copy right.' The only game in town was the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers, because they were a group that had agreed to print only works that make the king look good. They were undeniably a wicked and evil organization whose primary purpose was state sanctioned censorship and proliferation of propaganda. There were people who printed and distributed books outside of the Stationer's Company, and they were called pirates because the Stationer's Company didn't like that. In many cases, they probably were actual pirates involved, as Scotland was pretty keen on doing this, and one of the best methods of getting illegal books widely proliferated is by ships. Ships operating outside of the law would probably be doing most of this, so the label of pirate wasn't entirely inaccurate (although the perception of pirates was. Most of the time, pirates were people who were forced into working on a ship in a basically slavery sense and got tired of the bullshit.).

      So, to recap, the term 'piracy' was used as propaganda in the past to describe a clearly corrupt legislative ancestor to copyright when it was partially accurate by a group of evil bastards whose purpose as an organization was contrary to the fundamental principles of modern democracies. Therefore, using it as propaganda today even though no ships are involved anymore is justified somehow.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of the dictionary guys are in their pockets.

      Only the pocket dictionary guys. And maybe the concise dictionary guys, because as we know the copyright lobby has deep pockets.

    16. Re:please stop calling it piracy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It has more than one meaning because of centuries of propaganda dating back to the downright evil Stationer's Company, who made no semblance of copyright being for the purposes of advancement of learning or promoting the progress. Usage of the term 'piracy' in regards to copyright came from state sanctioned censors.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    17. Re:please stop calling it piracy by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the old "Mirriam-Webster-Illuminati conspiracy" defense, almost as effective as the chewbacca defense.

    18. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Yo+Grark · · Score: 1

      Avast is starting to suck donkey balls with all their advertising and tricks into upgrading unsuspecting non-computer literate people. :(

      - Yo Grark

      --
      Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    19. Re:please stop calling it piracy by progician · · Score: 1, Troll

      File sharing is what you do with something you own.

      No. File sharing is when you make files publicly available. Of course, you need to have permission to read in order to do that. Ownership however is not required.

      Piracy is sharing files that you do not own.

      No. Piracy is when you force the crew of a ship to hand over the control of a ship. For doing so, the pirate must possess the tools of coercion, arms. According to the United Nation, the piracy is a very serious, violent crime. I don't see any reference to file sharing in the text, do you? In any case, making the connection between the two is an act of exaggeration, association with one of the most violent behaviour, just like calling people who disagree with you, nazis or mass murderers.

      Movies are about fiction (virtually always).

      That may be true. However the mentioned fictional film is about the actual meaning of the word, piracy, not the fictional content that you just made up above.

      Some educator uploading material they do not own is piracy. It may also be civil disobedience.

      Again, no. I'm not aware from the story that the said teacher invaded private ships on the seas and forced the crew to hand over the load.

      Some 12 year old downloading Katy Perry is piracy. It probably is not civil disobedience.

      No, not even by your own definition. As long as the 12 year old takes the publicly available copy and only downloads it, there's no file sharing involved. It is only the case if she or he starts to make her own copy publicly available, being a leach or a seed in a torrent network, or the analogue in some other way. If someone leaves a Kate Perry CD on a bench in a box labelled free to take, and bring the CD for listening, would you still accuse her with hijacking ships, threaten ship crews with murder, and so on?

      If the law says that file sharing you do not own is illegal, that is one thing. Using a label "pirate" for those who do so is an other, an act of magnifying of the act what they did. File sharing is not theft, not pirating. It is what it is: sharing files, sharing information. It may be debatable that the information sharing is a not a basic right, yet, it is not by default. One must sign non-disclosure agreements if one is expected to keep some information secret. This always happens before revealing the information. Consumers of digital media aren't restricted by two-side non-disclosure agreements before purchase. If the law is not consistent it can't be applied, and enforcement of laws which aren't consistent with the nature of acts it supposed to regulate can't be, by nature consistent either. Non-consistent law enforcement is the tell tale sign of an oppressive political system. In this case, the source of oppression is the political lobby of different publisher cartels. Civil disobedience is the right of the citizens in such a case, not an option.

      You can apply the same idea here as for homosexual acts. For hundreds of years homosexual acts were illegal and inconsistent of the nature of sexual life. The justification was that homosexuality is a crime against nature. Of course, Nature as such, isn't a person, and is and was mostly linked to the idea of God, again, a non-person. But by citing God/Nature in the justification it exceeded the entire framework of the issue, and brought it in to a stage where it doesn't belong. Ditto with piracy and file sharing. This is a question about the way we handle information, and has nothing to do with piracy.

    20. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, especially if he's been dead for 69 years, tell me HOW HIS HE GOING TO PAY HIS MORTGAge Hmm !!?!1!one!!l11!

    21. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You absolute fucking hypocrite.

      It's not "file sharing" either. Giving a friend a sweet when it leaves you with one less sweet. That's sharing. To call copyright violation such is to play exactly the same trick of "owning the epithet", and to play this trick while complaining about the other side playing the same trick is pure unadulterated hypocrisy on your part.

      It's actually called copyright violation. And it's not The Right Thing To Do. The right thing to do is to abandon your entitlement culture and recognize that undermining someone's legitimate income stream is wrong.

         

    22. Re: please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Could you give us an example of such a use of the word "piracy" from before the copyright was invented? Were you conscious when you wrote that?

      From 1603:

      Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.

    23. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      most people aren't as stupid as you think they are

      You're quite right. Most people actually turn out to be quite a bit dumber.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re:please stop calling it piracy by fnj · · Score: 1

      You have proved it is possible for some people to read a reasoned argument why the term you are using is utter nonsense, and completely ignore the point.

    25. Re:please stop calling it piracy by fnj · · Score: 1

      I am afraid it's just another example of stupid people or people with an agenda corrupting the language. If enough stupid people, or people with an agenda, misuse a word, the stupid usage becomes just another definition. The dictionary isn't defining the language; it's just describing de facto usage. It's sad, but I don't know how we can fix that.

    26. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Then try to prove its existence to us, without losing all and every control forever.

      I am not the original poster, but your argument interests me.

      With very little thought on the matter, I quickly came up with conclusion that reality is a combination of chemical reactions and electric impulses in the brain. As reality is perceived through these reactions, all existence can be considered just 'thoughts' on another level. I think it's very possible to control your thoughts and therefore entirely possible that someone could view they have control over a sentence they create in reality.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    27. Re: please stop calling it piracy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, the term even predates the printing press, and was used to refer to the activities of people other than those who were initially contracted to create the work to reproduce the work, typically attempting to discredit the original creator. People who would participate in such endeavors were called "pirates", and looked upon with similar contempt by society. when and where they were identifiable, even though there was no real laws prohibiting this kind of reproduction. The activity originally called piracy as it applies to creative works bears more resemblance to what we call plagiarism today than mere copyright infringement, but given the difficulty, expense, and effort that was required to make duplicates of works ta the time (everything having to be done entirely manually), the notion of copying something without also trying to take any of the credit probably hadn't even been given any serious thought of at the time. It probably still would have been discouraged, however, because such unauthorized copies may have been made at lesser expense, and may have been perceived to be more likely to contain errors, which could harm the public perception of the original creator.

    28. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Kjella · · Score: 1

      File sharing is a technology to share files, piracy is shorthand for copyright infringement that may or may not involve file sharing and file sharing may or may not involve copyright infringement. Calling them one and the same is certainly running the "proprietarians" errand in their quest to kill file sharing. It's not like they care about the collateral damage of shutting down non-infringing file sharing, in fact it's a competing distribution channel. Besides, why do you think they're increasingly using the words "thieves" and "stealing"? Because "pirates" and "piracy" no longer have the desired effect, more people associate pirates with the Jack Sparrow variety who is something more of a bad boy-hero / Robin Hood than Somalian cutthroats. Not to mention the ample opportunities to use pirate symbols, co-opting a brand is easier than building one.

      First of all you're complaining about a "brand problem" of a movement that probably wouldn't even exist if they hadn't put up the pirate flag as the rallying point, getting off the ground is more important than how gracefully you do it. Secondly if they'd gotten lost in the finer semantics of language nobody would care, wasting precious media time arguing that it's not piracy but copyright infringement. Except it's not short, catchy, made for headlines and they'd probably lose. Media loves the pirate branding too you see, without it they wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the attention. Near as I can tell, neither the Swedish or German Pirate Party - who have come the furthest - have a problem with their pirate branding, but more with what the rest of their politics should contain.

      The wider "mainstreaming" effect you're talking about is more seen in the other youth parties and possibly a few more concession in other political parties (I'm talking about here in Europe now, US is a lost cause). None of the other parties really cared much about their environmental policy before the Greens put it on the agenda, likewise none of the other parties cared much about IP before the Pirate Party put it on the agenda. Some of the left wing parties have framed it in terms of digital public property, some of the right wing parties in forms of market liberalization - less government regulation. Piracy is perfectly free of left-right connotations, while "sharing is caring" I'm pretty sure would become socialist politics and so inedible to the right. For all its flaws, it still has more potential than the alternatives.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    29. Re: please stop calling it piracy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm going to need a source on that, because I believe you are confusing pirates with scribes. Scribes were about as valuable as authors since it took close to the same amount of labor to make a copy. As I understand it, originality wasn't seen as all that valuable in most of the world before the printing press. Excessive originality was often discouraged. It makes sense, given that at that time, perfect duplication was harder to come by. By today's standards, many of the masterpieces before copyright would be considered plagiarism today. That's not to say the notion of plagiarism didn't exist, as the earliest reference I can find is in the first century (although the earliest English reference I know of is in the 17th century, putting it after the the Stationer's company charter)

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    30. Re:please stop calling it piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great thing is they corrupted it almost 100 years ago, since that is around the time Piracy came to include that meaning.

    31. Re:please stop calling it piracy by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Piracy is shorter than "sharing files you don't have the right to share." People understand what it is. When you mention piracy, very few people think of high seas shenanigans.

      What is important is that it is illegal. What is important is that maybe it should not be illegal.

      Calling it piracy is fine. People should probably also call it civil disobedience.

    32. Re:please stop calling it piracy by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Let's *really* call it what it is: culture sharing

    33. Re: please stop calling it piracy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      More specifically, the pirates were the people who hired the scribes, particularly when they were doing so with some intent to discredit the original author.

    34. Re: please stop calling it piracy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Generally, the people who hired the scribes were nobles or those affiliated with the church. They were more concerned in having lots of books than in trying to take credit away from authors. There's not a real point to that when authors have no real credit to begin with. Now, maybe there were hiring scribes to make writing that would undermine other writings or writings supposedly by the author, but I've seen no evidence this practice was widespread or that it called piracy.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    35. Re: please stop calling it piracy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If they were hired through official channels, sure.

    36. Re: please stop calling it piracy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You're going to need provide some further background to support your theory here. The only people that could afford books on any regular basis were nobles and the church. Both of those would be 'official channels.' Scribes and authors were held in roughly similar regard and were probably often one and the same. Nobody really cared about being original, so your theory of bandit scribes trying to take away the non-existent glory associated with typical authorship makes no sense.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    37. Re:please stop calling it piracy by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've seen it used in sources older than I am, although then it was "pirate publishers" and presumably for profit. I'm conservative about new meanings for old words, but at my age I'm happy if it's older than I am.

      At the very least, it beats "downloading without paying". This year, I downloaded gigabytes without paying anybody (except my monthly flat rate for Internet access), trying to decide on the Linux distro for my new computer, and this was perfectly legal and moral.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Well what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the country that Dr. Doom is dictator of?

  9. knock knock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knock knock
    Who’s there?
    Latvian.
    Latvian who?
    Please open door. Is cold.

  10. Free protip by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Informative

    The raid was based on a complaint from the publisher (Google Translate to English), which has a near-monopoly on educational materials in Latvia, often linked with shady connections in the Ministry of Education

    Here's a free protip. Live in a former soviet bloc?

    Are you lacking the skills to be anonymous?

    Is there a monopoly on something?

    Don't challenge it.

    Finis.

  11. Getting an education today is hard by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All my life I've learned with "pirated" material: throughout school, my teachers copied all kinds of materials regardless of whether or not it was copyrighted - including my primary school teachers hand-copying entire pages of grammar or math books and giving away dittoed copies, photocopies of of all kinds... whatever was necessary to learn. Learning was considered "fair use" when I was young. Nobody in their right mind thought twice before copying something for education purposes.

    Then when I started dabbling in computers, I started "pirating" software all by myself. I knew what I was doing was illegal, yet it didn't feel wrong. I learned C with an illegal copy of Turbo C. I learned CAD with an illegal copy of AutoCAD. I learned everything I know with an illegal copy of something.

    Sure I shafted Borland, AutoDesk and all the others, but then I bet they made a whole lot of money afterwards, when I and all the others like me hit the job market and started using their products professionally - on seats paid by the companies I worked for to the tune of many thousands more than a single user seat.

    I don't know how I would have gotten an education without pirated material. I don't know how kids today get an education if their teachers should fear jail when they use pirated material. What a sorry state society is in...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Getting an education today is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was copyright infringement even a criminal act back then?

    2. Re:Getting an education today is hard by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yup - same here. As a student, very few of my books were store bought. Most were blatant copies. Since then, as a professional, I have spent enormous amounts on books and software licences. To top it off - my father wrote geography text books and I also wrote a book or two. Over reacting on copyright infringement is crazy and does everybody, the writers included, a disservice.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Getting an education today is hard by Nivag064 · · Score: 2

      If you use Linux, and other open source software, you can do a lot of learning and paid work in the software industry without having to pay expensive licences - while still being strictly legal!

      word processor & other office software:
      http://www.libreoffice.org/

      database:
      http://www.postgresql.org/

      compilers:
      http://gcc.gnu.org/

      operating system & sufficient software to do useful things (2 of over 100 offerings, pick one that suites you best!):
      https://fedoraproject.org/
      http://www.debian.org/

      network diagnostic:
      http://www.wireshark.org/ ... and many others ...

    4. Re:Getting an education today is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's why I started using linux for my development! As a kid I used qbasic and wanted to try VB (hey, I was a kid and just learning...), so I saved up $150 dollars at $10/week and made my way down to CompUSA! (or whatever it was called back then). I surprised to find that VB was $500!! That seemed like an insurmountable amount of money back then...but I really wanted to try and "program" something! So I purchased what I could afford - a copy of the Borland C++ Compiler.

      And as I found out, C is a helluva lot more complicated for a kid with no real experience to learn...so I pirated VB5. From IRC fserves at 15MB per RAR file, waiting in queue forever, took about two weeks to get the 400+MB package. Then I discovered it came with no help files...UGH. But nevertheless I hacked my way through as much as a could, all the while cursing MS for not including *some kind* of free development tools. I mean Win 3.1 at least came with qbasic and 95 had NOTHING.

      Few years later I got into FreeBSD, as recommended by a friend. Man I still remember being amazed the first time I used PERL and looking at the "man perl" pages. Finally, a nice language that was totally free, and powerful enough to actually do something useful. Oh happy day!!

      MS finally got their shit together and started offering free copies of VC++ & the other .NET stuff I guess. But by then I didn't care, I already had the free tools I needed.

      So, in retrospect...I guess I should thank Microsoft for my home-schooled *nix experience. If they had free development tools 20 years ago, I might never have left windows...

    5. Re:Getting an education today is hard by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I noticed that when I was in school. In the mimiograph days, they had free-to-copy texts. When Xerox copiers came out, teachers started making pirate copies in clear violation of the stated terms in the textbooks they were stealing from.
      By this time, I had learned not to always correct the glaring errors that our teachers committed, so I just let it slide.
      If they have onerous restrictions, find a book that doesn't, and teach the publisher to provide useful texts. You can't cheat an honest man.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    6. Re:Getting an education today is hard by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

      Over reacting on copyright infringement is crazy

      So is thinking youre entitled to a single thing on this earth. Sadly, we have a far bigger problem with the latter than the former.

    7. Re:Getting an education today is hard by stenvar · · Score: 1

      All my life I've learned with "pirated" material: throughout school, my teachers copied all kinds of materials regardless of whether or not it was copyrighted

      In the US, copying excerpts is generally fine, so your teachers probably didn't violate copyright law. In Europe, there are various other mechanisms.

      Sure I shafted Borland, AutoDesk and all the others, but then I bet they made a whole lot of money afterwards, when I and all the others like me hit the job market and started using their products professionally

      And in the process, you established software empires that sucked the industry dry. If you don't like someone's software license terms, don't use their product. "Respecting" their copyright is not about being nice to them, it's about telling them that their product isn't worth what they are asking you. In different words, you have been a jerk to everybody else.

    8. Re:Getting an education today is hard by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      So is thinking youre entitled to a single thing on this earth.

      What, like a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    9. Re:Getting an education today is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like we all know how many records Bob Dylan stole.

    10. Re:Getting an education today is hard by robsku · · Score: 1

      I mean Win 3.1 at least came with qbasic

      Don't want to be nitpicky, but it was MS-DOS (>=5.0) that came with qbasic, not Win 3.1.

      Although I might not know if win 3.1 really did come with qbasic too (but I doubt it) since we had only Win 3.0 (and MS-DOS 5.0).

      Again, don't want to come off like an ass - your post was excellent.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    11. Re:Getting an education today is hard by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Sure I shafted Borland, AutoDesk and all the others, but then I bet they made a whole lot of money afterwards, when I and all the others like me hit the job market and started using their products professionally - on seats paid by the companies I worked for to the tune of many thousands more than a single user seat.

      In the case of software, I think many software companies don't pursue individual or educational piracy for this reason. I had an Architectural Drawing instructor in college say that Autodesk willingly allowed and encourage piracy in developing countries to get their foot more in the door there, becoming the standard for CAD over competing products. If they weren't going to get paid for a license, might as well at least not let them go to the competition. Once they became the defacto standard for CAD in the area, then they swept in with licensing enforcement.

    12. Re:Getting an education today is hard by chromas · · Score: 1

      Win 95 & 98 also had it, buried in the install discs.

    13. Re:Getting an education today is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All my life I've learned with "pirated" material: throughout school, my teachers copied ...

      My kid is currently taking 'Rock History'. There's a list of links to videos on YouTube that you have to watch, and about a quarter of them have been taken down...so you just have to find a version that hasn't been taken down yet.

    14. Re:Getting an education today is hard by robsku · · Score: 1

      By buried in the install discs do you mean like they are still left uninstalled by default? Because I can't be sure if I'm right but I remember wondering other way to get it on Win95 than copying from MS-DOS 5.0 on our old 286 :) I don't think I found it from the disc, although I did browse it sometimes and bumped in to surprise music video, but if it was installed then I truly have erroneous memories.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    15. Re:Getting an education today is hard by chromas · · Score: 1

      Ah, the 286. We had MS-DOS 3.3 with GW-Basic. But I think QB was in a directory on the Win95 CD called other\oldmsdos. The Internet says the floppy edition didn't have it.

  12. price tag is irrelavant by superwiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership. And it's not a bad thing as many will knee jerk to scream. Ownership is a right to treat that which we earn as extensions of our body. If we have a right to deny the use of our bodies, then, by extension, we have a right to deny use of that which we own.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      price tag is irrelavant

      So you're saying the police should come bust down my door and shoot my dog in the face if I walk off with your pencil?

      Don't forget: 'intellectual property' is not real property; otherwise it would be covered under property laws and wouldn't need it's own.

    2. Re:price tag is irrelavant by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I believe the argument against that, however, is that if you are going to ever allow anyone else to see or use what you own, then one should forever forfeit the right to claim any control over it, since one cannot reasonably control what others do with it.

    3. Re:price tag is irrelavant by superwiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The counter argument does not hold water. Just because a woman let you touch her boob, doesn't mean she forfeited the right to say "no" to sex. And if she says stops after half an hour of sex, and you refuse to stop, then it is still rape. The right to deny use can be invoked even after expressly allowing use.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The counter argument holds a lot of water.

      Lets see. I am exposed by a patent about something. The idea of this patent is written in my mind.

      Now i cant "delete" the idea from my mind, because i cant actively forget something, nor can i use that idea because it is owned by someone else.

      IE.: Patent and copyright holders become owners of something quite different from your car, toothbrush or house. They become owners of ideas that are inside other people minds, effectively becoming owners of part of the mind of someone else besides their own...

      Thats why copyright and patent are kinds of ownership from the natural ownership of tangible things...

      Another counter, especially in the patent area is that nature refuses to agree with the idea of ownership of ideas, for example :

      Newton and Liebniz developed calculus at the same time without knowing about each other works.

      If the same idea was born in two different minds, separated by time or distance, this means that there is some other kind of power behind human creativity that is beyond human control, meaning that creativity is not something that someone does, but something that does itself by using the mind of someone...

    5. Re:price tag is irrelavant by haakoflo · · Score: 2

      Ownership is a lot more than the right to deny use (and not always the right to deny use), and the "extensions of our body" argument is also flawed. The basis of "ownership" is our territorial instinct. If you move into my land (or speak to my woman), I will knock you in the head with my club. If I didn't do that, I would starve and have no offspring, so all people today descend from more or less territorial forefathers. "Property" is societies attempt at formalizing and rationalizing this instinct. Sometimes the rules we devise to formalize this are a bit flawed, and need adjustment. In particular, if we define something as property that means a lot more to the one that gets denied its use than the owner (such as slavery), it tends to meet opposition. Other things that are problematic to grant ownership for, include mathematical theorems, natural laws, DNA, "square objects with rounded corners", and (some will say) electronic texts. The limits of ownership will always be an ongoing discussion, and will sometimes need adjustment.

    6. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy doesn't hold water. During the event with the woman, she's participating the entire time. With copying, once it's out there, you no longer have to be involved. Your work is done.

      It's more like if the woman was in a movie. No matter how many sales or infringing copies are made, she's already finished contributing and it didn't suddenly become rape just because some kid torrented the video.

      The topic is duplication, not removal of someone else's items. We have copyright/trademark/patent laws specifically because ideas aren't physical goods covered by property laws.

    7. Re: price tag is irrelavant by shitzu · · Score: 1

      I'd say touching a boob falls under the first sale doctrine.

    8. Re:price tag is irrelavant by pantaril · · Score: 1

      Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership

      I agree with you on this, but if you try to deny me the use of copies of your ownership which i made myself, i'm going to ignore you.

    9. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership. And it's not a bad thing as many will knee jerk to scream. Ownership is a right to treat that which we earn as extensions of our body. If we have a right to deny the use of our bodies, then, by extension, we have a right to deny use of that which we own.

      Our bodies become worm food or ash. Ownership of physical items denies use in order to afford the owner use of that item. Copyright is different. It is about restricting use solely in order to sell the right to use it. There is nothing here that prevents the owner from using the item. It does not deteriorate when a copy is made. What's being bought and sold is the right to make money from the work. THAT is VERY different. It does not conserve an item for a rightful owner - it restricts full use of the item by a society.

    10. Re:price tag is irrelavant by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the police should come bust down my door and shoot my dog in the face if I walk off with your pencil?

      Im pretty sure he did not, in fact, say that. I might suggest you re-read his post.

    11. Re:price tag is irrelavant by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Or it means it was coincidental.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:price tag is irrelavant by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Ownership (all ownership) is the right to deny use. This is as true of intellectual property ownership as it is of tangible item ownership. And it's not a bad thing as many will knee jerk to scream. Ownership is a right to treat that which we earn as extensions of our body. If we have a right to deny the use of our bodies, then, by extension, we have a right to deny use of that which we own.

      It'd be GREAT if intellectual property would be treated as real property!

      Then I could use a patent troll's patent, and if they didn't stop me within some relatively short period of time, I could claim Adverse Possession, at which point I could choose to put it in the public domain. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession for how this applies to real property. The point is, if the true owner of the property isn't using it (because trolls do not produce any useful goods or services), and if my use is exclusionary of the true owner (try entering an established market and competing with "free" without being excluded), it's mine.

    13. Re:price tag is irrelavant by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Notions of property and a "right to deny use" assume a free market. The problem here is that in public education systems, the use of specific textbooks is mandated, and school attendance is mandatory as well. So, these publishers get handed a monopoly courtesy of the government and you are effectively forced by law to hand over your money to them. Perhaps you can cook up some reason to justify this, but don't justify it with property rights, because those are clearly being violated hered: by the publishers.

    14. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it means it was coincidental.

      And this reply means you did not understand.

      If intelectual work is totally under the person control, why the same idea happens twice ?

      And if its pure chance, how can this be justice ?

    15. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      Ownership is a lot more than the right to deny use (and not always the right to deny use), and the "extensions of our body" argument is also flawed. The basis of "ownership" is our territorial instinct. If you move into my land (or speak to my woman), I will knock you in the head with my club. If I didn't do that, I would starve and have no offspring, so all people today descend from more or less territorial forefathers.

      At no point in history, starting before apes that humans eventually evolved from, this was the case -- they were all social animals and controlled territory, food, etc. only as a group with complex hierarchy within the group that had absolutely nothing to do with ownership. Those loners in caves never existed, and could not possibly exist because humans never had physical traits necessary for surviving and defending an individual without a group. A hunter living alone in the woods, as much "close to nature" it seems, is something much more recent, brought by the development of technology. Personal property is also a recent cultural development, and even now it usually acts as a proxy for social status and power.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    16. Re:price tag is irrelavant by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, no. I understood. Your conclusion that there must be some other kind of power behind human creativity is flawed. Nice try though.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:price tag is irrelavant by haakoflo · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to say that "ownership" and terriotorial behaviour by individuals are a very recent development in humans, or even a social construct? (Ie that all "natural" ownership would by by a group?) I would think that studying how fast a 1-year-old learns to say "mine" compared to "ours" would refute such a claim.... Sure, social status/power and ownership are linked in both humans and animals, but I would be quite surprised if we would go back 1 million years, and all stone tools in a group would be shared equally between the members of equal status in the group (for all such groups). I believe some level of ownership instinct would give a survival benefit even for quite primitive toolmakers, both on the individual and group level, as it would reduce waste. (If I owned the hand axe, it was also my responsibility to spend the energy to take care of and maintain it, as well as make sure to bring it whenever my group moved to another location.) Anyway, ownership behaviour seem to me to be quite related, whether they are claimed by an individual, a family, a company or a state. "Theft" from such an "owner" seem to be met with similar emotional responses across all such owner classes.

    18. Re:price tag is irrelavant by fnj · · Score: 1

      It was a question. A valid one. You're probably right that OP didn't mean that, but it's valid to ask him what he thinks permissable enforcement would consist of.

      I notice you completely ignored the real point. "Don't forget: 'intellectual property' is not real property; otherwise it would be covered under property laws and wouldn't need it's own." - thanks, AC.

      OP has a very, very unique definition of ownership: "the right to deny use". I disagree strongly. To me, ownership is the right not to be deprived of something rightfully possessed. And let me clarify. By something, I mean some object with a physical existence; something which can be stolen and then you don't have it any more. Not ideas; not expressions. You can generate those, but you can't own them. If you could own them, you could lose them, but there is no power on earth that can deprive you of your ideas and expressions. Other people can USE or SHARE your ideas and expressions, but the idea they can deprive you of them is nonsense.

      Making a livelihood from ideas and expressions that you generated yourself is a completely different matter from ownership, and needs to be addressed differently.

    19. Re:price tag is irrelavant by haakoflo · · Score: 1

      The first part makes a very good point. If you consider the human brain a computer, simply seeing something that is copyrighted would infringe upon the copyright, which makes the copyright absurd in the first place. This will become a much more real problem if/when the human brain merge with technological hardware. They will deny you from filming with a camera in a cinema, and they may take off your google glasses (at some protest from you). But will they deny entrance to someone who has lost their eyes and had cybernetic replacements? And what if their cybernetic enhancements also involved memery enhancements? If such a development continues, it may become technically impossible to enforce copyright laws and software patents.

    20. Re:price tag is irrelavant by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but he bought the textbook. He owned it. Those rights belong to him now. And he didn't want to "deny use" to anyone of what he owned.

      Unless you throw in some crazy system of "leasing" or believe that when you buy a book, you can't read it aloud to anyone else. Say, over the radio. To people transcribing it. And systems like that HAVE been made "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". They've worked out well in some cases, and horribly bad in other cases.

    21. Re:price tag is irrelavant by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You are effectively challenging the whole concept of ownership as an extension of a body. If I lent my neighbor a car for a joy ride, I don't have control of it while he is riding, but if I call him on the phone and ask to bring the car back, he doesn't have the right to refuse because I lent him the car but did not transfer ownership. Your argument is tantamount to saying that possession is equivalent to ownership. But it's not. A car thief also comes into possession of a car. But that doesn't make him the owner. Much like a rapist is in a temporary possession of a woman's body, but that doesn't give him the right to that use. Ability and right are not the same concepts. A right is an ability which can be enjoyed without violating the law.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    22. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a copy. You made a car, then let your neighbor copy it (possibly for a fee). If he lets others copy his copy, then he's not depriving you of anything. You could argue that he deprived you of the chance to charge a fee, but only because you get a monopoly on the design for a bit to encourage you to make more designs. You don't get to own the design, but we do want you to make more, so we agreed to make a rule that you can have a chance to recoup your costs.

    23. Re:price tag is irrelavant by superwiz · · Score: 1

      But now you are arguing intellectual property vs tangible property. And that is not an argument I care to get into. Not right now anyway. And in case you think otherwise, that was not the point of the Slashdot post. Copyright is a law. The right to copy is protected by laws. As long as that is the case, the holder of the copyright has a right to not only to profit from further copies, but also to deny the right to making further copies to others. The length of reasonable copyright terms, the terms of other IP regimes, etc. are all not the subject of the debate here. You may wish to make them the subject of the debate, but I do not. I was making a point on a very narrow aspect of the larger debate. Namely a point on what make ownership an ownership vs a right to profit. In the context in which my point was made, my analogies stand.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    24. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is not an argument I care to get into.

      But that is the argument. Yes, copyright law allows a monopoly on IP, but the analogy with the woman doesn't fit because she has only the one body, so using it against her will would actually be denying her something.

    25. Re:price tag is irrelavant by superwiz · · Score: 1

      But that is the argument.

      No, it is part of the argument. There are other parts to it. For instance, the one I brought up. You want to argue you part. But I don't want to sidestep the point I am arguing. The argument that property can only be used to profit from( and not to deny others access to it) is an argument that is so often made, that I wanted to explore opposition to it. Again, that is a very narrow aspect of the larger argument. As almost every other argument, the argument about property rights and intellectual property rights has multiple components to it. You want to explore one component and pretend that others don't exist. I want to explore another component, but I am willing to acknowledge that others exist.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    26. Re:price tag is irrelavant by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      I would think that studying how fast a 1-year-old learns to say "mine" compared to "ours" would refute such a claim...

      One year old babies neither talk, nor have a concept of other people being their peers.

      Anyway, ownership behaviour seem to me to be quite related, whether they are claimed by an individual, a family, a company or a state. "Theft" from such an "owner" seem to be met with similar emotional responses across all such owner classes.

      No, that's a much more fundamental concept of causing harm. Taking away something a person needs, harms him regardless of any "ownership" involved.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  13. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia?

    That's a very good point. Someone in Latvia or with knowledge of Latvian law would have to clue us in. I'm sure there's quite a few someones on /. who could tell us. Calling all Latvian programmers (or lawyers, or college students who might know...) !!!

  14. well yeah? by goffster · · Score: 2

    this is practically the definition of willful copyright infringement.
    I wont say the punishment was just, but it should have been expected.

  15. For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pure copyright breach, damaging the publisher. Of course here on slashdot it is often minimalised.
    $4 is a reasonable price for a book. I can imagine that the salary level in Latvia is lower than in Western Europe or the USA, even so, it could compare to say a $15 book in the west. It is not a rip-off price.
    If yu don't want to pay for something, then don't use it.

    1. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I don't understand this either, it seems like the book publishers are screwed either way. "$100 for a textbook?! That's way too expensive, people should just copy it!" "$4 for a textbook!? That's really cheap, no one should care if we just copy it!"

    2. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Nowhere does it say he did not buy the book.
      Most likely he did buy it.

      The infringement happened, when he tried to publish text on his website. I don't see how buying the book, or buying any number of books for that matter, would have helped.

    3. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Yeah, I don't understand this either, it seems like the book publishers are screwed either way. "$100 for a textbook?! That's way too expensive, people should just copy it!" "$4 for a textbook!? That's really cheap, no one should care if we just copy it!"

      Your logic does not follow. Given that textbook prices >= $100 induce piracy by being too high, and that textbook prices = $4 induce piracy, we can only say that zero or more prices within this range are magical-piracy-prevention prices.

      I hypothesize that the mpp price for textbooks is 13.22.

    4. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is the act implies (to some) that his students were not buying it / he was trying to avoid having his students have to buy it or similar. This is the buying being referred to. The abstracted argument (here and indeed in most of the comments) is natural if you accept/agree with the validity of this assumption.

    5. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe 4$ is a lot for Latvians ...

    6. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in a country where $10 is a normal monthly food budget for a complete household?

    7. Re:For $4 there is no reason not to buy it by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Do you know *anything* about Latvia? This isn't a starving 3rd world county, it has one of the higher average wages of Eastern Europe at about $900/mo (and that's per worker, not per household) - about the same as Russia. The average family of 4 spends about $300 on food.

      There's this new thing called Google that lets you find all of this information trivially, you should try it!

  16. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

    He didn't get no edumacation.

    He don't needed no foursed corntroll.

  17. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi - not Latvian, but a professor (with some little IP education). Generally speaking, "educational use" is not held to mean "so long as it's for education, do whatever you want". Educational use typically means discussion and criticism - using excerpts and passages to demonstrate a particular point, or using an example from a text. If the teacher had used fractions of the book as part of his lessons, he would likely have been covered under fair use provisions in many nations (including the US and Australia, where I teach). Conversely, wholesale duplication of a text is rarely considered fair use in an educational context.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  18. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by darkshadow88 · · Score: 4, Funny

    He didn't get no edumacation.

    What do you expect? He couldn't afford the textbooks!

  19. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Funny

    in latvia, history teaches you!

  20. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by flayzernax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And most likely full of spin, error, omission, or propaganda... lol

  21. That's expensive by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    It's more than four times the price of a $0.99 song. Throw the ebook at him!

  22. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why limit it to one? At premium prices, customers demand premium quality. US history books will have all four.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  23. someone from Latvia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This story was covered in local TVs. Although I also hate all those copyright guys. But this time its more or less Ok. They warned that guy many times. When he didnt react they went to police.

    1. Re:someone from Latvia by fnj · · Score: 1

      1. If you don't stop looking at me, I will hurt you bad.
      2. If you don't stop looking at me, I will hurt you bad.
      3. If you don't stop looking at me, I will hurt you bad.
      [A keeps looking at him]
      [B clubs A]
      4. Hey, I warned you repeatedly.

      Guess it's OK then.

  24. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep there monopoly on educational materials in place.

    I'm not sure. When in Finland these teachers had the over-the-weekend marathon to create a math textbook and put it into Github, they commented that they might as well release it for free, as the profit they get from books is always so small anyway. And, in increasing amounts you can read high-quality material for free from the intertubez, further shaking the position of commercially published books.

  25. Valuable information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to see police chase book copyers that eagerly. There was news recently where they could not bother to go and get back someones stolen laptop

    Wonder if that programmer should have claimed copyright infrigment.

  26. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep there monopoly on educational materials in place.

    I'm not sure. When in Finland these teachers had the over-the-weekend marathon to create a math textbook and put it into Github, they commented that they might as well release it for free, as the profit they get from books is always so small anyway

    Do note that author != publisher... [in the very most cases]

  27. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 updated 1-2 times a year.

    Good thing it was a history text, right, Joe? It's not as though you could actually afford an updated English text, under the terms you exaggerate.

  28. Can't fault the publisher. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The publisher was not at all being unreasonable. They were offering the textbook at an extremely reasonable price. It was *still* copied in (presumably) violation of Latvian law (most countries fair use laws don't apply to public distribution of large sections of material).

    This isn't RIAA tactics, this is an absolutely fair complaint. Of course the police may not have needed to 'raid', but perhaps they were worried/lazy about proving the act if the suspect was able to wipe.

  29. Was this book available at the bookstores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone can read Latvian, and knows their textbook market:

    Was this book available at the bookstores?

    A can easily imagine a teacher making available book excerpts from different history books describing the same period.
    One book written in 1950s USSR, one from 1980s USSR, one from 1990s Latvia and a current one.
    Just to show different spin, errors, omissions and propaganda.

    Of course 1990s textbook, despite not being available in bookstores for many years, would be still encumbered by copyright law and its publisher would still be in business and not very fond of using its products as an example of propaganda.

  30. People forget it isn't a criminal issue by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The publisher should just be suing them without an expensive police raid paid for by the taxpayer.

    1. Re:People forget it isn't a criminal issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People forget Latvia is a different country, with a different culture and with different rules.

    2. Re:People forget it isn't a criminal issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The publisher should just be suing them without an expensive police raid paid for by the taxpayer.

      No, the timeline doesn't work like that, but it's all playing out as Stallman warned in The Right to Read (February 1997, Communications of the ACM).

  31. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Some universities were getting in hot water (Univ. of Washington, late 80's-early 90's), as some profs were getting the copy centers to make significant xerox copies of text books for their courses (mostly lib arts classes, it seemed. I guess for math, physics & engineering, one sort of expected to keep the books as references in the future...). Which as a student was nice, not having to spend $200 on an obscure text book, but $20 on a photocopied "excerpt". But then the publishers started catching on and wagging their dicks around, and the copy centers had to push back more on the profs... So, in a sense, this is nothing new, really, just different media or technology.

  32. No man pirates from Doctor Doom! by ferret4 · · Score: 1

    Latvarians should realise by now Doom decides what History is allowed to be taught to his citizens.

  33. he should have known.... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    I agree raiding his house was too much, but he shouldn't have published the book without permission.. What the publisher should have done is ask the teacher to remove the book (even though it's propably too late anyway, but raiding his house doesn't help there either).. But we don't know if the publisher did indeed first ask the teacher to remove it, and maybe he might have just refused to do it, and therefore the house was raided (in that case the raid was IMHO ok (if no violence was used))..

  34. Life Lesson #768 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    US gov't is fucked up to the N'th degree.

    3rd-world gov'ts are fucked up to the N+1 degree.

    1. Re:Life Lesson #768 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say 3rd world gov'ts are fucked up to the N + K degree where K is any positive integer.

    2. Re:Life Lesson #768 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Latvia was a 2nd world gov't... what does that make it?

  35. I'm puzzled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is copyright infringement a criminal act? Why are the police involved in protection the interests of companies? Should it be a civil action that does not require law enforcement, they have better and more meaningful things to do.

  36. Good for them. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

    You guys have it all backwards the fact that it's a $4 textbook should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the issue was not "gouging" by textbook manufacturers as some are insinuating. The price of the book was well within the purchase ability of anybody who wanted one.

    If the book was $400, you guys would complain that piracy is justified because it's gouging. If it's $4 you complain it's justified because it's trifling.

    In all seriousness, Back when I first went into science and engineering about 20 years ago, I thought it was because it was an ethical pursuit with basically honest and noble people.. unlike, say, finance or lawyering. I am not exaggerating nor trolling when I say that more than a decade of reading the lamest possible pseudophilosophical justification of copyright infringement in slashdot fora have well beaten that naivete out of me.

  37. Depressing to see that by LostMonk · · Score: 1

    It's somewhat depressing to see that educational material publishers work the same methods world-wide...
    Take the same book every 1-2 years, hash the chapter numbers, change numerical values in math problems, perhaps tweak color pallets and you have a new edition... Which is incompatible to the last year's one effectively killing the second-hands market.

  38. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And those same people got a tremendous amount of shit and legal threats from such publishers for doing that.

  39. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

    shit and legal threats

    Ah the American dream :)

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  40. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by stenvar · · Score: 2

    They can write all they want, it probably won't help. Good and cheap materials have been available for long time, but they can't be used in school.

    Public school curricula are chosen by committees and government bodies who make sure that people are taught "properly", in conformance with government-approved ideology and content. This choice includes awarding textbook to a small cadre of publishers who produce government-conforming materials and are guaranteed monopolies. It works that way in the US and much of Western Europe.

  41. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Yes, unfortunately, primary and secondary education in the US are also dominated by government-imposed monopolies and government-mandated curricula.

  42. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by stenvar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The publishers didn't get their monopolies by nefarious business practices, they were handed their monopoly by school boards and voters.

    So please point the finger where it needs to be pointed: at school boards and the voters who keep opposing school choice.

  43. yh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was probabibly another attack onn thier Russian majority who are denied all basic Human rights and criminially persecuted too.

  44. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, he barely exaggerated at all.

  45. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, that's a good one. I wish this was the case everywhere.

  46. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by tacet · · Score: 1

    actually the whole law in english is availible here. http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Likumi/Copyright_law.doc
    but we have rather heavy corruption in that matter.

  47. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Do note that in most contracts, if (author != publisher) author= publisher; That is, authorship is assignod to the publisher, as author-at-law, without various risks that still remain with the person who did the work.

    You have to remember that these books have far more authors than the headline authors, and although the headline authors might have a pretty good contract, the others won't.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  48. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by tacet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the textbook actually costs about 6 lats each part (11 dolalrs) there are 4 parts and 4 practical parts (5 dollars each)
    for comarison average monthly salary in latvia is about 350 lats give or take.

  49. The same publisher insists on free (as beer) texts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Last year the very same publisher (Zvaigzne ABC) that just sent a mail to an author - "We decided to publish your story in our book - don`t worry, you will receive nothing for that, because the book will be for `educational use`. Just reply whether you agree with the changes we did to your text".
    Publisher points to the Authorship law ("Autortiesbu likums") in Latvia, chapter 19 that says that works can be published without permission of author if it happens for educational use and studies and if the result is published in books suitable for education.

    Link: http://www.diena.lv/kd/eksperti-blogeri/kilblokas-nebija-majas-13951642 , reaction to it: http://www.diena.lv/kd/literatura/rakstnieki-aizliedz-publicet-savus-darbus-zvaigznes-abc-gatavotaja-isprozas-antologija-13951925

    So there is a very thin line between definitions of piracy and legal use. Seems that publishing just the contents of book in a "wrapper" book would be enough to avoid such hassle.

  50. Latvian laws: "fair use" not addressed in text by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 2
    Thanks for the reply and the link to the law. Strange that laws are promulgated in Microsoft Word (' .doc ') document format, rather than an open format such as plain ASCII text files or HTML markup files. The relevant section appears to be "Section 35" Section 35. Remuneration for Reprographic Reproduction of Works (1) Natural persons shall be permitted to reprographically reproduce published works, except for sheet music, for personal use without direct or indirect commercial purpose without the permission of the author. Persons who have in their ownership or possession the equipment intended for reprographic reproduction and who ensure the availability of such reproduction to natural persons for a fee or free of charge shall be allowed to reprographically reproduce works for the benefit of and for the personal use of a natural person. Authors and publishers are entitled to receive a fair compensation for reprographic reproduction. [emphasis mine at this last sentence]

    So it would appear that if the teacher had provided access to the students to make their own copies, everything would have been kosher (or the latvian equivalent of kosher) except for the payment of a fee. It only says that personal copies may be made without permission. It does not state that those personal copies can be made "free of cost". Also, the preamble to the document says that the translation is provided merely as a courtesy and only the original Latvian text constitutes the actual law. I also did a text search for the word "fair", and found that it only exists in conjunction with two words:

    "fair compensation" occurs 4 times
    ..."remunerations are fair" occurs once
    "unfair earnings" occurs once
    and "fair use" never occurs at all.

    so it would appear that the concept of "fair use" is not at all addressed by the Latvian law in the format you pointed out to me, at least in the English translation of it.

    1. Re: Latvian laws: "fair use" not addressed in text by tacet · · Score: 1

      to clarify your concern about open format: the official mean of publication of law is in paper format (comes tree times a week, costs about a beer) and on internet (html markup and pdf. free of charge and on searchable web page)
      the english translation is posted on that page along with the official, latvian text, and is translated rather well.

      actually the more or less "fair use" is built in section 19. but i haven't studied what it means exactly in other countries, that use the exact phrase, so i can't offer more insightful comment.

    2. Re: Latvian laws: "fair use" not addressed in text by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Fair compensation was why AllofMP3 was 100% legal. They did gather "fair" compensation, as per Russian law, and offered it to the authors/publishers. However, the authors/publishers turned down "fair compensation" and demanded the US government threaten Russia with violence to get a 100% legal web site shut down.

      We have the same thing in the US for compulsory licensing, but the publishers are doing all they can to restrict/eliminate it to generate more than fair compensation, and punish those who only compensate them fairly.

      Also, "fair use" is a legal term. Unless the English translation was written by a US lawyer, I'd expect it to never use that phrase. That doesn't mean it isn't in there, but that it isn't referenced by US legal terms. Nearly all laws contain some constraints. Otherwise, once you've copyrighted mary has a little lamb, nobody else can make a song that uses any of the notes contained within it.

  51. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who actually holds the copyright? When my structural engineering prof wanted to make copies of a textbook for us (which the publisher hadn't reprinted in a decade because they said it wasn't worth it for them), he just called up the author who was a colleague of his. The publisher didn't have exclusive rights, so he got permission from the author to copy it, and had the copy center run off a few dozen copies for us.

  52. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    He didn't get no edumacation.

    What do you expect? He couldn't afford the textbooks!

    Perhaps not, but you know who CAN afford it?

    Google.

    "Do no evil" my fucking ass...

  53. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0

    "I've got some advice for you, little buddy. Before you point your finger, you should know that I'm the man. If I'm the man, then you're the man, and he's the man aswell, so you can point your fucking finger up your ass."

    "Hooker With a Penis" - Tool

    I was going to do "... the government it deserves." quote, but I don't know who it was.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  54. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    I also haven't learned to preview my posts for closing tags. God damn it.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  55. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2

    and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 updated 1-2 times a year.

    To me educational publishing is a sham, and you hit the nail on the head as to why: The insanely high prices breed a huge secondary market, so the publishers simply call each new printing a "new edition" and labels the old ones obsolete, which allows the book stores to pay next to nothing for the books used because "they're out of date!"

    --
    Who did what now?
  56. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    He didn't get no edumacation.

    He don't needed no foursed corntroll.

    No ferced sercusm, im de clessrem. . . .

  57. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    Actually, this is BEGINNING to change, but it will be QUITE some time before it shows up in academic publishing.

    In Fiction, there are quite a few authors who primarily e-publish fiction and sell through Amazon and Barnes&Noble. and are making, if not megabucks, at least decent earnings (one author I'm personally familiar with has made in excess of US$ 100K this way. . . )

    Kristine Kathryn Rusch often blogs on the topic. . . .

  58. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was in college I took an Analysis of Algorithms course as part of my CS degree. The textbook was $100-something and it was on it's 16th edition or so. Several weeks into the semester, my copy of the book was accidentally destroyed. Searching for a used copy online, I found one of the first several editions for about $10. I took a chance that no that much changed. Aside from the pages yellowing with age, I never found any differences to the current edition. The current edition actually had a few minor typos that the earlier edition that I had didn't have.

  59. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

    You found a way to quote a Tool song in discussion of a Latvian history textbook. Well played, player.

  60. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Dr. Doom decides what's fair use.

  61. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And naturally the department heads as well as the professors never actually read the text books in the first place and remained unaware that there was no reason for the newer editions.
                          It is a shocker that professors tend to parrot what they were taught and never actually go to source documents . They can have an entire career lasting many decades without a clue that they are in great error over substantial facts. It is like people play a role. The professor plays the role as he was taught it. And if the putz happens to find out that a traditional fact is greatly in error and admits it there may be hell to pay. It puts a chick in the armor of other professors who have ranted nonsense that they were drilled on back in their day at old ivy.
                        These days how would one even attempt to teach young kids history. Old school would go on and on about Columbus discovering America. Simple stuff does prevent confusion. Now imagine a teacher telling the kids that it looks like just about everybody discovered America. For example it would be no shock at all to hear that an ancient vessel from Minoa landed in the US. And they just might have made it all the way back home and announced it in their nation. But we can't know that other than the fact that we have an ancient Minoan tablet found in the center of our nation that has to be valid as it was found before Minoa was unearthed or their language was known to exist.

  62. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by DrXym · · Score: 1
    It's not the shortage of teaching material but the fact that it must follow the curriculum. i.e. the state says what students should learn at certain ages and subjects and the course, books and teacher's guide is shaped around it. So typically school books are monopolized by a few publishers which go to the effort to produce suitable books and get them endorsed.

    Anyway I have no problem with that. More insidious however are the constant revisions which render them worthless after a year or two, or even worse "work books". Work books are the kind where the child writes answer into the page in thereby making it impossible to reuse.

    Here in Ireland almost all the primary school books are like this and the cost of books could be 100 per annum per child. The state could ban the practice in an instant and save parents a lot of money but for some reason they won't.

  63. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    When I was in college I took an Analysis of Algorithms course as part of my CS degree. The textbook was $100-something and it was on it's 16th edition or so. Several weeks into the semester, my copy of the book was accidentally destroyed. Searching for a used copy online, I found one of the first several editions for about $10. I took a chance that no that much changed. Aside from the pages yellowing with age, I never found any differences to the current edition. The current edition actually had a few minor typos that the earlier edition that I had didn't have.

    Not to be cynical or anything but the typos were probably the changes that 'justified' the new editions...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  64. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by meustrus · · Score: 1

    The worst part isn't that publishers produce "updated" editions that really haven't changed. The worst part is that professors are not allowed to use old editions of textbooks because of the accreditation bodies, no matter what the subject is. How many times has calculus or physics changed in the last 50 years anyway? Doesn't matter, everybody has to pretend that 12th edition physics is more up-to-date than 11th edition physics.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  65. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's so funny I thought the exact same thing before I opened the comments :) God bless you Yakov Smirnov! Did you know Yakov has a PHD in positive psychology?

  66. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Oh! You poor fool! Those weren't typos at all. THOSE ARE THE NEW FORMULA!! Oh, poor, poor fool - you'll NEVER be able to analyze algorithms properly now, because you're using the old formulas! [/sarcasm]

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  67. DRM by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I did the same. However I found that new "editions" usually would just intentionally mess up the chapter and page numbers making it difficult to follow along.

    Had nothing to do with content, and everything to do with primitive DRM.

  68. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Techerz, leef dem keeds awoon.

  69. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by chihowa · · Score: 1

    I worked with someone who contributed to a chemistry textbook and they showed me how the editors (or someone at the publishing house) had deliberately introduced errors into the text and figures so that they could be corrected in future editions. One example he showed me was a figure that had been present since the first edition that mysteriously had different errors in different editions, despite being otherwise identical (the graphic was the same but different parts were mislabeled in different editions -- the first edition was the only one that was entirely correct).

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  70. "shady connections in the Ministry of Education" by SlowMeDown · · Score: 1

    Education has not changed much. I suspected most of my professors to be shady.

  71. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    What?
    How does Google have ANYTHING to do with this story, parent post, or subject matter?
    Yes, Google is indeed rich enough to purchase some textbooks. How insightful, thank you for contributing to the conversation. And OH LOOK, someone with mod points agrees with you.

    Now... the point of contention I have with this statement is that somehow, by having money, Google is evil. ... Could you explain that a bit for me? Are we supposed to feel bad about the paychecks we bring home? Should be look at our nest eggs and savings and cackle like some evil mastermind knowing that we screwed someone over to acquire it?

    It's posts like this, and they've been going on for a FUCKING DECADE, that make me feel like the majority of the hate, suspicion, and fear of Google is only so much jealousy. Now, don't get me wrong, if Google decided to turn Sith and... I dunno, blackmailing everyone with secrets gleamed from their free email service, then yeah that would be horrible. And they certainly have the potential to be evil. A lot of it. Almost (but not quite) the potential that Microsoft has, to pull out a comparable example. Quicker strike capabilities I guess. But by and far Google hasn't been even remotely as evil as Microsoft.

    So really, if you hate "the Google" so much, you need to start coming up with more rational rants because otherwise you just kind of look like a fool and make the rational people trust Google even more.

    (Also, it's "don't be evil", you're getting confused with the Japanese three-monkey thing).

  72. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in latvia, history teaches you!

    That's actually a compliment to Latvians. It's too bad we didn't all learn from history, it wouldn't repeat itself so much if we did.

  73. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Latvia is a country! omg, I thought it was a place made up in the Simpsons tv show

  74. Tas ir iemesls, kpc... by HBBisenieks · · Score: 1

    Tas ir iemesls, kpc ms nevaram bt jaukas lietas.

  75. Are they not suffering enough already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having Doctor Doom as their head of state? Now they are reading teacher. Depressing times.

  76. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since we are all biological organisms with the same biologically driven behavior, whenever similar environments arise, similar solutions to deal with those environments will be used. In a certain respect history will always repeat itself simply due to our nature.

  77. Re: Do they even have fair use in Latvia? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    Generally speaking, "educational use" is not held to mean "so long as it's for education, do whatever you want". Educational use typically means discussion and criticism - using excerpts and passages to demonstrate a particular point, or using an example from a text.

    It's important to note that the "fair use" guidelines in the U.S. are effectively the same for educational situations as they are for non-profit activities in general. It's a widely held misconception that there's some sort of "educator exception" for fair use, but there really isn't. Courts have generally recognized that fair use should be given a little more leeway in educational circumstances, but any (non-educator) person with a similar justification has effectively the same guidelines for fair use. Essentially, "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes" is a factor to be considered in potential copyright violation claims, but that's all the legal guidance there is -- no specific education exception.

    The ONLY significant copyright exception for educators isn't for copying at all. It's for "performance" or "display," and it used to only apply to face-to-face meetings in classrooms. That is, unlike some performance hall or something, an educator doesn't have to pay for rights to play a musical excerpt or film excerpt in class. A professor/teacher is free to put up images on a projection screen for educational purposes, without worrying about copyright protections. With the "Teach Act," this exception was expanded beyond face-to-face teaching to include "display" or "performance" through distance learning sites, as long as the sites are restricted to enrolled students (and conform to a number of other specific regulations).

    Again, that exception for performance or display is the only official educational legal exception in the U.S., and it explicitly excludes textbooks, coursepacks, and other written materials that could otherwise be purchased for a class.

    In general, there's really no such legal category as "educational use" in terms of actually making copies of something.

    If the teacher had used fractions of the book as part of his lessons, he would likely have been covered under fair use provisions in many nations

    Exactly -- under general "fair use," not necessarily specific to education. (Though again, fair use for educators is often easier to justify legally.)

    (By the way, my interpretation of copyright law here is directly from the counsel's office at one of the top universities in the U.S.)

  78. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    When I was in college I took an Analysis of Algorithms course as part of my CS degree. The textbook was $100-something and it was on it's 16th edition or so. Several weeks into the semester, my copy of the book was accidentally destroyed. Searching for a used copy online, I found one of the first several editions for about $10. I took a chance that no that much changed. Aside from the pages yellowing with age, I never found any differences to the current edition. The current edition actually had a few minor typos that the earlier edition that I had didn't have.

    New editions in cutting edge fields make sense, but in such things "basic" botany or biology , not much has changed in the last long while. Some professors understand this and let you buy older editions, sometimes they tell you that you could fail the class without the newest edition.

    Well for many textbooks the cost difference can be 95% between 1-2 editions, I'd recommend buying the half.com copy for $10, and compare it to the new one, sometimes every sentence and page#s match. First time you save $100+ dollars.

  79. Re:and in the us the same book will be $200-$400 u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And American college students will have to buy each updated version for their classes.

  80. Re:textbook publishers use all kinds of BS to keep by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    Thanks for reminding us that english sucks. Why do we bother to spell these words differently when context clearly allows you to differentiate their/there/they're meaning? I guess the only benefit is that people like you can correct others, because if the intended word was not obvious from the context, you wouldnt have anything to say here.

    And please dont bother to correct my grammar or spelling. Nobody cares about your desire to appear superior