As to whether pulling a gun is always a bad idea... I've had to use threat of deadly force to run off scum four times myself... twice saving someone's life (one being my own). IMO, getting beat up or robbed or killed because you won't defend yourself is a worse idea.:)
Maybe you should try moving to a better part of town? I have never once been in a situation that would have been improved by the presence of firearms (including being robbed). I've certainly been around gun-carrying thugs before but I generally find you're left alone if you treat others with respect and without fear. I love shooting guns and I don't dispute the right to own them, but I've never felt the need or urge to run around armed myself. YMMV, I suppose.
That's a lot of work; why not buy a cheap flash drive, copy the file to it, and then go to your starbucks or library or hotel or anywhere with a computer, and use *that* computer to upload to wikileaks? I fail to see why you need to use a specific laptop just to transfer a file.
Anyway one day the cop who'd done most of the harrassing came on my neighbour's property without a warrant, just to give him shit, and my neighbour came out with a shotgun and ran off the cop. And that was the end of the problem -- no more harrassment.
Don't try this at home, kids. Seriously. Pulling guns on anyone is a bad idea, but pulling guns on cops is truly idiotic, I don't care how in the right you are.
I wasn't trying to quibble about semantics -- my point is just that the great-great-grandparent post (or whichever - the last one from peter wanger in this thread) is wrong in stating that the only reasons for writing are either monetary or to give for the sake of giving. There are multiple layers of reward that one gets for producing writing and money is only one.
But that's my point. You take pleasure in teaching. It's not altruism; you truly enjoy the influence you have on your students' intellectual development. It may be a noble thing but there is still a reward -- my point is just that rewards need not be monetary.
You weren't talking about "piracy," you were talking about "the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms." My point is that the creator has no such rights.
As a writer yourself I'm surprised you would show such a lack of appreciation for the reasons people write. I doubt many people write because they are "truly generous souls." In fact, one could argue that writing is one of the more selfish things you can do. Particularly in the market you're talking about though, this is a red herring. Nobody writes textbooks for altruistic purposes; they bring the writer plenty of other rewards apart from money, including tenure, respect, appreciation, and influence. And it has very little to do with an interest in pontificating -- you might write a monograph for that reason (and good luck making any money off of one of those, even without any piracy), but not a textbook.
I've got a bag of rice that's ten years old I'll happily give him for free if he agrees to shut up about this nonsense. Actually I think there's a fridge in San Jose with some ten-year-old food in it as well, I don't think he'd have to pay for that either.
The more I read through this discussion the more this seems like a scam and the less respect I have for this guy. He may be sincere but it looks like he's trying to generate phony hype in order to get a few more orders for an obsolete book.
Perhaps but in the summary his other suggestions are condescending and sarcastic -- "(1) get another job, (2) sue people, or (3) invent some magic spell". Anyway, how about (4) Write another book? This one's ten years old; maybe it's out of date and nobody wants to read it anymore? Pointing to a few torrents and claiming loss of income is a little absurd when there's no real evidence that anyone is even downloading this.
It's a book about data compression. It's TEN years old. If all he does is change a few words in the new edition, I hope it gets pirated by everyone who needs to read it, and I hope the ones who don't pirate it buy a used copy of the old edition. But if he truly adds value to it in an update he will solve this so-called "problem." I agree with the GP poster, this is exactly the reason copyright laws need to be reformed. What other job can you have where you can still get paid for some crap you did ten years ago? Methinks he doth protest too much.
You want to kill someone because they disagree with you about copyright? And you make the false claim that he is harming your ability to make a living? Sorry, but if your ability to make a living depends on the government stepping in to enforce a business model that you find convenient, you should find a new way to make a living. And if you're planning to enforce this yourself with your "lead injection," your business model is the last thing you'll need to be worried about, as the government will have far more justification in stepping in at that point.
It has nothing to do with depriving the creator of anything. It has to do with the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms.
The creator has no natural right to any such thing. Copyright law in the US at least is about promoting the progress of the arts, not about giving the artist some kind of control over what the public does with his/her art. You don't want us to make fun of your song or paint moustaches on your photos and make T-shirts out of sentences cribbed from your novels? Fine, then don't fucking release the crap in the first place. Keep your cassette tape in a locked drawer and put your photo on your nightstand and burn the negative, and take your manuscript and line birdcages with it. If we restrict distribution rights through copyright law, it's because we've determined that the public benefits more from that restriction. I'm in favor of such restrictions insofar as they promote the public good, but not when they become an unlimited license for the government to step in and protect a creator's chosen distribution model.
My car is garaged at home and garaged at work. Assuming I never drive anywhere else, the police would have to break into one of those private properties to put any device on my car... or do it while I am driving between home and work.
Just because a car is always parked in a garage on private property, does not mean it is always the same garage on the same property.
Heh, true, but my point stands... the cops aren't going to be able to do much with the information that you really don't go anywhere interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
As to whether pulling a gun is always a bad idea... I've had to use threat of deadly force to run off scum four times myself... twice saving someone's life (one being my own). IMO, getting beat up or robbed or killed because you won't defend yourself is a worse idea. :)
Maybe you should try moving to a better part of town? I have never once been in a situation that would have been improved by the presence of firearms (including being robbed). I've certainly been around gun-carrying thugs before but I generally find you're left alone if you treat others with respect and without fear. I love shooting guns and I don't dispute the right to own them, but I've never felt the need or urge to run around armed myself. YMMV, I suppose.
Was your friend's mother shot in the head while riding a bicycle?
How'd you know? Shot by a gerbil, she was.
That's a lot of work; why not buy a cheap flash drive, copy the file to it, and then go to your starbucks or library or hotel or anywhere with a computer, and use *that* computer to upload to wikileaks? I fail to see why you need to use a specific laptop just to transfer a file.
Anyway one day the cop who'd done most of the harrassing came on my neighbour's property without a warrant, just to give him shit, and my neighbour came out with a shotgun and ran off the cop. And that was the end of the problem -- no more harrassment.
Don't try this at home, kids. Seriously. Pulling guns on anyone is a bad idea, but pulling guns on cops is truly idiotic, I don't care how in the right you are.
I wasn't trying to quibble about semantics -- my point is just that the great-great-grandparent post (or whichever - the last one from peter wanger in this thread) is wrong in stating that the only reasons for writing are either monetary or to give for the sake of giving. There are multiple layers of reward that one gets for producing writing and money is only one.
Here ya go.
But that's my point. You take pleasure in teaching. It's not altruism; you truly enjoy the influence you have on your students' intellectual development. It may be a noble thing but there is still a reward -- my point is just that rewards need not be monetary.
You weren't talking about "piracy," you were talking about "the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms." My point is that the creator has no such rights.
As a writer yourself I'm surprised you would show such a lack of appreciation for the reasons people write. I doubt many people write because they are "truly generous souls." In fact, one could argue that writing is one of the more selfish things you can do. Particularly in the market you're talking about though, this is a red herring. Nobody writes textbooks for altruistic purposes; they bring the writer plenty of other rewards apart from money, including tenure, respect, appreciation, and influence. And it has very little to do with an interest in pontificating -- you might write a monograph for that reason (and good luck making any money off of one of those, even without any piracy), but not a textbook.
I've got a bag of rice that's ten years old I'll happily give him for free if he agrees to shut up about this nonsense. Actually I think there's a fridge in San Jose with some ten-year-old food in it as well, I don't think he'd have to pay for that either.
The more I read through this discussion the more this seems like a scam and the less respect I have for this guy. He may be sincere but it looks like he's trying to generate phony hype in order to get a few more orders for an obsolete book.
Perhaps but in the summary his other suggestions are condescending and sarcastic -- "(1) get another job, (2) sue people, or (3) invent some magic spell". Anyway, how about (4) Write another book? This one's ten years old; maybe it's out of date and nobody wants to read it anymore? Pointing to a few torrents and claiming loss of income is a little absurd when there's no real evidence that anyone is even downloading this.
Have you actually tried to read pages copied this way? There's a reason they invented the flatbed scanner rather than using cameras.
It's a book about data compression. It's TEN years old. If all he does is change a few words in the new edition, I hope it gets pirated by everyone who needs to read it, and I hope the ones who don't pirate it buy a used copy of the old edition. But if he truly adds value to it in an update he will solve this so-called "problem." I agree with the GP poster, this is exactly the reason copyright laws need to be reformed. What other job can you have where you can still get paid for some crap you did ten years ago? Methinks he doth protest too much.
No I didn't. Civilization has nothing to do with a particular choice of a business model. Nice try though.
Good think your think pad and its operating system were not made by greedy corporations.
I thought the Kindle would not read PDFs without some kind of conversion done by Amazon?
You want to kill someone because they disagree with you about copyright? And you make the false claim that he is harming your ability to make a living? Sorry, but if your ability to make a living depends on the government stepping in to enforce a business model that you find convenient, you should find a new way to make a living. And if you're planning to enforce this yourself with your "lead injection," your business model is the last thing you'll need to be worried about, as the government will have far more justification in stepping in at that point.
It has nothing to do with depriving the creator of anything. It has to do with the creator's rights to have his creations distributed on his terms.
The creator has no natural right to any such thing. Copyright law in the US at least is about promoting the progress of the arts, not about giving the artist some kind of control over what the public does with his/her art. You don't want us to make fun of your song or paint moustaches on your photos and make T-shirts out of sentences cribbed from your novels? Fine, then don't fucking release the crap in the first place. Keep your cassette tape in a locked drawer and put your photo on your nightstand and burn the negative, and take your manuscript and line birdcages with it. If we restrict distribution rights through copyright law, it's because we've determined that the public benefits more from that restriction. I'm in favor of such restrictions insofar as they promote the public good, but not when they become an unlimited license for the government to step in and protect a creator's chosen distribution model.
Drug dealers - already paid
If the material is pirated, it's not your own by definition; ideally it should be on a computer that's not your own either!
Can you tell me where to find this dirty-talking-schoolgirl-uniform-wearing advertiser? She's no longer on Craigslist for some reason...
The important question is, where's the afterparty? I'll bring the coke!
My car is garaged at home and garaged at work. Assuming I never drive anywhere else, the police would have to break into one of those private properties to put any device on my car... or do it while I am driving between home and work.
Just because a car is always parked in a garage on private property, does not mean it is always the same garage on the same property.
Heh, true, but my point stands ... the cops aren't going to be able to do much with the information that you really don't go anywhere interesting.
Everyone in congress simultaneously projectile vomiting? Nothing in the history of humanity would ever be funnier.
I see this every day on CSPAN; the amusement wears off fast.