Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Source for e-books

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:55:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

What are favored sources for Palm E-books.

On
http://palmsource.palmgear.com/,
I find a dead link on the category 'eBooks'

Advanced Search,
http://palmsource.palmgear.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sof...
is dead, too.

I hope PalmSource isn't Dead, too!

-- GeneM

More about : source books

Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:20:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

In article <CMSdncrjLMJE7kzcRVn-gw@adelphia.com>,
GeneM <NoSpam@NoYahooSpam.bom> wrote:

> What are favored sources for Palm E-books.
>
> On
> http://palmsource.palmgear.com/,
> I find a dead link on the category 'eBooks'
>
> Advanced Search,
>
> http://palmsource.palmgear.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sof...
> erREF=&siteid=7
> is dead, too.
>
> I hope PalmSource isn't Dead, too!
>
> -- GeneM

www.memoware.com or www.freewarepalm.com are good sources for
e-books. Of the two, memoware has far more books advailable, while
freeware palm has some books, but a lot more in the way of applications.
Both are execellent sites to bookmark, IMHO.

Ron Bardo<rmbardo@chartermi.net>
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 12:17:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Thanks, Ron & Bob

-- GeneM
Related resources
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 4:10:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

In article <CMSdncrjLMJE7kzcRVn-gw@adelphia.com>,
GeneM <NoSpam@NoYahooSpam.bom> wrote:

> What are favored sources for Palm E-books.
>
> On
> http://palmsource.palmgear.com/,
> I find a dead link on the category 'eBooks'
>
> Advanced Search,
>
> http://palmsource.palmgear.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sof...
> erREF=&siteid=7
> is dead, too.
>
> I hope PalmSource isn't Dead, too!
>
> -- GeneM

http://baen.com/library
http://fictionwise.com

Bob Harris
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 10:40:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

I like www.fictionwise.com. It is not a free site but the prices are
cheaper than www.e-reader.com. I buy books from both sites and
download books from a number of other free sites (memoware, Blackmask,
Free ebooks, ect.).
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"GeneM" <NoSpam@NoYahooSpam.bom> wrote in message
news:CMSdncrjLMJE7kzcRVn-gw@adelphia.com...
> What are favored sources for Palm E-books

Besides the ones mentioned, I like http://www.blackmask.com and
http://www.ereader.com a lot. Plus besides the Bane Free Library, you can
buy more of their books at www.webscription.net

Here are some others as well:
http://www.ebookad.com -- allows you to buy from multiple vendors and sort
by format

http://www.horrormasters.com/pda_classics.htm -- while most of the books
are available only in PDF, many are available in a Palm format

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books -- University of Pennsylvania
On-line Books Page

------
Forward Motion Writing Site - http://fmwriters.com/community
My Blog: http://gorokandwulf.blogspot.com
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:56:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

GeneM <NoSpam@NoYahooSpam.bom> wrote in
news:CMSdncrjLMJE7kzcRVn-gw@adelphia.com:

> What are favored sources for Palm E-books.

Don't forget Usenet:

alt.binaries.e-book and alt.binaries.e-book.flood

Of course, it's up to the reader to determine which are authorized e-books,
and which are not. I've really enjoyed finding e-book versions of many of
the SF books I have in my library.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:56:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"Albert Nurick" <albert@nurick.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CEA219E7520albertnurickcom@24.93.44.119...
> GeneM <NoSpam@NoYahooSpam.bom> wrote in
> news:CMSdncrjLMJE7kzcRVn-gw@adelphia.com:
>
>> What are favored sources for Palm E-books.
>
> Don't forget Usenet:
>
> alt.binaries.e-book and alt.binaries.e-book.flood
>
> Of course, it's up to the reader to determine which are authorized
> e-books,
> and which are not. I've really enjoyed finding e-book versions of many of
> the SF books I have in my library.

http://ebook.23ae.com/main.html

Also, some links on this T|E links page:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/thedoctor/palmcomp.html


>
> --
> Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
> albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
> www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 9:06:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>Don't forget Usenet:
>
>alt.binaries.e-book and alt.binaries.e-book.flood

Also: alt.binaries.e-book.palm
alt.binaries.ebooks
alt.binaries.e-books

But the pickins has really gotten poor in recent months.

>I've really enjoyed finding e-book versions of many of
>the SF books I have in my library.

Course even if you own a copyrighted book, unauthorized downloading of it is
still a copyright violation, and you're just (almost?) as guilty as those who
don't give such excuses. Suppose you see a book you want to download and you
don't own it? Simple. Just check it out from the local library and hold it while
you read your ebook. Same logic/violation... ;) 
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:17:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in
news:fg67t0tsv70nft2ngo5afv5ltv0dllvej1@4ax.com:

> Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>>I've really enjoyed finding e-book versions of many of
>>the SF books I have in my library.
>
> Course even if you own a copyrighted book, unauthorized downloading of
> it is still a copyright violation, and you're just (almost?) as guilty
> as those who don't give such excuses.

Howso? IIRC, I'm allowed to have backup copies of legally obtained
materials.

> Suppose you see a book you want
> to download and you don't own it? Simple. Just check it out from the
> local library and hold it while you read your ebook. Same
> logic/violation... ;) 

You're not an attorney, are you?

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:32:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote in
news:Xns95CEA219E7520albertnurickcom@24.93.44.119:

> Of course, it's up to the reader to determine which are authorized
> e-books, and which are not. I've really enjoyed finding e-book
> versions of many of the SF books I have in my library.
>
If you


--
Regards,

Stan
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:34:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote in
news:Xns95CEA219E7520albertnurickcom@24.93.44.119:

> Of course, it's up to the reader to determine which are authorized
> e-books, and which are not. I've really enjoyed finding e-book
> versions of many of the SF books I have in my library.
>
If you like SF, Baen has a number of their books posted on the website
for free download. Legal, too.

--
Regards,

Stan
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 4:32:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Stan Gosnell <me@work.com> wrote in news:Xns95CFB2B49CBBEmework@
204.52.135.8:

> If you like SF, Baen has a number of their books posted on the website
> for free download. Legal, too.

Good pointer. Here's the link:

http://www.baen.com/library/

The introduction is long, but worth reading; it's a good treatise on the
ebook piracy issue from a publisher's perspective. A quote:

"Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the
additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a
book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly
exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that
of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at
reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other
books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc."

The entire page is worth reading. Members of the MPAA and the RIAA
should have to read it a dozen times. Daily.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 5:06:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>Howso? IIRC, I'm allowed to have backup copies of legally obtained
>materials.

Without the authors/publishers permission the only legal backup copy of a paper
book is another legally obtained paper book. Read the copyright warnings
generally found a few pages in. But in all practicality no one's going to bother
you when you download such a book. My point was that you can stop the charade of
pretending to own all the books you download since it's just as legal (or
illegal) to download the books you don't own...
>
>> Suppose you see a book you want
>> to download and you don't own it? Simple. Just check it out from the
>> local library and hold it while you read your ebook. Same
>> logic/violation... ;) 
>
>You're not an attorney, are you?

Yep.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 8:05:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>"Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the
>additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a
>book usually engender.

Since nobody can know how much pirating of ebooks actually takes place, and how
many book sales are lost or gained because of it, this is just meaningless
speculation. And it has been used often over the years in the ebook groups to
try to justify unlawful copyright violations.

>the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that
>of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at
>reduced cost: public libraries, ...

The thing about the internet that scares many intellectual property owners is
the potential size of the problem. At a library one bought novel may service 52
people a year. On the internet one bought novel can service millions in a day.

>The entire page is worth reading. Members of the MPAA and the RIAA
>should have to read it a dozen times. Daily.

Ah, so you enjoy downloading illegal music and movies also. Well, as I said
before, no need to make any justification. There isn't any. Just enjoy... ;) 
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 4:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:05:32 GMT, AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote:

>Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>"Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the
>>additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a
>>book usually engender.
>
>Since nobody can know how much pirating of ebooks actually takes place, and how
>many book sales are lost or gained because of it, this is just meaningless
>speculation. And it has been used often over the years in the ebook groups to
>try to justify unlawful copyright violations.
>
Doesn't it work the other way around too ?
See how you can download whole movies over the internet
Certainly hurt the dvd sales, didn't it ?
(clue : the dvd sellers got a way to add value to dvds with bonuses)

>>the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that
>>of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at
>>reduced cost: public libraries, ...
>
>The thing about the internet that scares many intellectual property owners is
>the potential size of the problem. At a library one bought novel may service 52
>people a year. On the internet one bought novel can service millions in a day.
>

Yeah, sure, millions of "the space crusade" read every day... right
I don't know about you, but my limitation over reading books is
reading time and when I want a book in a library, I manage to get it
in a few weeks at max. Plus I don't know people who read ebooks as
fast as normal books.
Honestly, I find it much easier to read a book than an ebook. Your
argumentation about "millions" reading an ebook and hurting book sales
is just as much hot air, based on zero serious data


>>The entire page is worth reading. Members of the MPAA and the RIAA
>>should have to read it a dozen times. Daily.
>
>Ah, so you enjoy downloading illegal music and movies also. Well, as I said
>before, no need to make any justification. There isn't any. Just enjoy... ;) 

Another unfounded assumption
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 5:11:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in
news:7qc9t0969e792ar8c95oqiqqc9i7ou539k@4ax.com:

> Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>Howso? IIRC, I'm allowed to have backup copies of legally obtained
>>materials.
>
> Without the authors/publishers permission the only legal backup copy
> of a paper book is another legally obtained paper book.

A source for this?

> Read the copyright warnings generally found a few pages in.

I did it. It says "all rights reserved", and that all duplication is
prohibited. It appears the publisher isn't aware of the statutes
concerning fair use.

Kinda reminds me of the "we're not responsible" signs in valet parking
garages. Scares away the sheep.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
December 31, 2004 7:24:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:03:52 +0000, Albert Nurick wrote:
> I'll assume that the opinion of one who makes his money in publishing is
> worth a wee bit more than some armchair Internet quarterback. Read the
> *entire* reference, and you'll see that the publisher observed
> disproportionately large increased sales in back-catalog publications
> after they appeared for download as free e-books.

I heard a speech by someone associated with Baen books last year. By
giving away the first book of an author's series as an eBook, it generated
demand for the rest of the books since people could try it out for free
before buying it. The best quote from the speech was "The more I give
away, the more money I make!"

> No, but thanks for playing. I just find the heavy-handed tactics by
> those two organizations laughable. Remember when the MPAA was up in arms
> about video tape recorders? They were going to ruin Hollywood! Now
> video represents huge revenue to the studios.

Not just a huge revenue, but the main source of revenue for the studios.
They actually make more money in the video release than playing the movie
in the theaters.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:40:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

S. Delerme <delerme@free.fr> wrote:

>See how you can download whole movies over the internet
>Certainly hurt the dvd sales, didn't it ?

I think it probably does. Given the choice between getting anything for free or
paying for it, I think it's safe to say that most will go for the freebe.

>Plus I don't know people who read ebooks as fast as normal books.

For me, reading from a modern high resolution PDA is just as fast.

>I find it much easier to read a book than an ebook.

Yes paper books are easier to read than ebooks. But it's hard to carry several
paper books in your front pocket, one of the advantages of ebooks. Another
advantage is that you can get them for free on the net... 8-O
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:41:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>I just find the heavy-handed tactics by
>those two organizations laughable.

Perhaps, but so far there appears to be no other solution to the problem of
people stealing music and movies. As fast as they try copy protection it's
broken, or won't work with existing equipment. If someone was stealing your
property by the millions wouldn't you try something drastic to stop it when all
else fails?

>Remember when the MPAA was up in arms about video tape recorders?
>hey were going to ruin Hollywood! Now video represents huge
>revenue to the studios.

Yep. But I doubt it will turn out as well for them this time.

>Open your mind, Aaron.

It's open. I never said I wasn't guilty of ebook pilfering. I just said it's
silly to try to justify it...
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:45:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Nemo <nemo@nowhere.org> wrote:

>By giving away the first book of an author's series as an eBook,
>it generated demand for the rest of the books since people could try it
>out for free before buying it.

The difference is that here the author is *giving* away his book whereas on the
net when downloading unauthorized books, people are *taking* his book. The
author has no say in his generosity. Are you that open minded about people who
take *your* property that you *didn't* give away??

>The best quote from the speech was "The more I give
>away, the more money I make!"

My favorite quote: "The more books I steal the more money I save."

Source: Me.... ;) 
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:38:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:45:04 +0000, AaronJ wrote:

> The difference is that here the author is *giving* away his book whereas
> on the net when downloading unauthorized books, people are *taking* his
> book. The author has no say in his generosity. Are you that open minded
> about people who take *your* property that you *didn't* give away??

Nothing is being "taken" from someone in this context, unless you
are considering "copyright" to be "property", like a lawn or a house or a
car.

To "take" something, means you deprive one person of that thing.

Making digitally-perfect copies, does not deprive the author of his
physical copy of that article. It may, however, dilute his interested
customers, who can now obtain a copy without cost, instead of buying a
"real" copy in a store, but the analogy doesn't quite fit.

If, however, an author sold those ebooks electronically, and
another website was giving that same work out for free, you could say that
the author was being deprived of sales, but it certainly isn't "theft".

Its a very grey area of legal defense, to be sure, and many
companies and authors are trying to use the existing legal system that
covers physical printed works, as a means to defend against digital copies
of their work.

It is infringement, to be sure, but "theft"? No.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:47:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in
news:2robt0h7bu8kmm0kkhrotuot8itkqitm5l@4ax.com:

> Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>I just find the heavy-handed tactics by
>>those two organizations laughable.
>
> Perhaps, but so far there appears to be no other solution to the
> problem of people stealing music and movies.

I'm not sure it's really a problem. Since the Napster days the music biz
has been complaining about lost sales, even when sales weren't declining.
Now they blame declining revenues on download, as opposed to the
homogenization of the media markets and very mediocre products at high
prices.

CD pricing hasn't followed market trends; it still costs $15-20 for an
album. Evolve or die.

OTOH, Hollywood is making money hand over fist. DVDs seem to be selling
quite well, and the prices are dropping.

The solution? It's not treating customers like criminals. It's figuring
out how they want to consume your product, giving it to them that way,
and building a business model around it. Successful companies know this.
Those that don't learn it don't last... you can't make a customer do
things your way, because someone out there will give him what he wants...
kinda like what Netflix has done with Blockbuster's market.

> As fast as they try copy
> protection it's broken, or won't work with existing equipment.

Copy protection is silly. All it does is takes rights away from folks
who want backups, and slows down major pirates only minimally. Five
minutes on Google will let you find a freeware program that will
duplicate protected DVD moviess, for example.

> If
> someone was stealing your property by the millions wouldn't you try
> something drastic to stop it when all else fails?

Been there. I've written and published software since the early 80's.
We never copy protected our programs, and we certainly never sued
customers. I do think I might evolve my product in such a way that I got
value every time they used the product, instead of just when they
purchased it. Hmmm...

>>Remember when the MPAA was up in arms about video tape recorders?
>>hey were going to ruin Hollywood! Now video represents huge
>>revenue to the studios.
>
> Yep. But I doubt it will turn out as well for them this time.

They'll have to get smart and figure out how to use the technological
shift to form a new business model, just like they did before after they
stopped whining about the sky falling, and stopped trying to outlaw the
new technology.

For these industry bozos, the sky is *always* falling. And don't get me
started on how they screw their artists, and how they've run roughshod
over US copyright law...

--
Albert Nurick
albert@nurick.com
www.nurick.com
04 FJR1300A
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:07:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"David A. Desrosiers" <hacker@gnu-designs.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.02.01.38.44.408199@gnu-designs.com...
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:45:04 +0000, AaronJ wrote:
>
>> The difference is that here the author is *giving* away his book whereas
>> on the net when downloading unauthorized books, people are *taking* his
>> book. The author has no say in his generosity. Are you that open minded
>> about people who take *your* property that you *didn't* give away??
>
> Nothing is being "taken" from someone in this context, unless you
> are considering "copyright" to be "property", like a lawn or a house or a
> car.
>
> To "take" something, means you deprive one person of that thing.
>
> Making digitally-perfect copies, does not deprive the author of his
> physical copy of that article. It may, however, dilute his interested
> customers, who can now obtain a copy without cost, instead of buying a
> "real" copy in a store, but the analogy doesn't quite fit.
>
> If, however, an author sold those ebooks electronically, and
> another website was giving that same work out for free, you could say that
> the author was being deprived of sales, but it certainly isn't "theft".
>
> Its a very grey area of legal defense, to be sure, and many
> companies and authors are trying to use the existing legal system that
> covers physical printed works, as a means to defend against digital copies
> of their work.
>
> It is infringement, to be sure, but "theft"? No.

Sounds like the same argument for/against downloading music.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:37:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:07:49 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:

>> It is infringement, to be sure, but "theft"? No.

> Sounds like the same argument for/against downloading music.

Yes, and an argument that will never be solved.

As long as people want something for nothing, and other
people want to be fairly compensated for their work, this argument will
continue to go on an on, for centuries.

I still haven't downloaded a single mp3 of any mainstream music
from the Web, and I certainly don't intend to. Most of what is out there
is garbage. I prefer Indy bands now, and my own friend's bands that are
signed with multiple CDs in stores (and they promote their music by having
nearly their full album online on their websites).

Oh well. Some day these companies will wake up.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:51:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"David A. Desrosiers" <hacker@gnu-designs.com> wrote:

>To "take" something, means you deprive one person of that thing.

If I download an unauthorized ebook and read it without paying for it I have
committed a civil copyright violation. If I sneak into a movie theater and watch
a movie without paying for it I have committed a criminal violation. Neither
taken item is a physical thing. One situation can get you fined and the other
jailed. Whether morally or legally it cannot be justified...
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>very mediocre products at high prices.

Don't like the product?
Not a justification for stealing it.

>CD pricing hasn't followed market trends;
>it still costs $15-20 for an album.

Don't like the price?
Not a justification for stealing it.

>OTOH, Hollywood is making money hand over fist.

Steal from the rich? No Justification there.

>The solution? It's not treating customers like criminals.

It appears the ones being treated like criminals are mostly the criminals.

>It's figuring out how they want to consume your product, giving it to them that way,
>and building a business model around it.

Don't like how they run their business? Not a justification for you know what...

>Copy protection is silly.

Maybe. But it's their right to do it and not a justification.

>For these industry bozos, the sky is *always* falling. And don't get me
>started on how they screw their artists, and how they've run roughshod
>over US copyright law...

Are you sure you're not a pirate? You keep trying to justify stealing... ;) 
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:51:26 +0000, AaronJ wrote:

> Neither taken item is a physical thing. One situation can get you fined
> and the other jailed. Whether morally or legally it cannot be
> justified...

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm simply further proving that we
need to adjust how we prosecute these people for these violations, and we
need to start using, or inventing, terms that properly describe the
violation.
January 2, 2005 7:47:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:51:27 +0000, AaronJ wrote:
> Don't like the product?
> Not a justification for stealing it.

You still thinking the old way.

Back when products were physical, if you were unable (or unwilling) to pay
for a product, you had 2 choices: steal it, or do without it.

With the advent of non-physical products, the rules change. I now have a
third alternative: copy it.

(You can call it stealing if you wish, but you will be hard pressed to
find someone who has been deprived of the item in this case. Everyone who
had the item before the copying still has the item.)

That 3rd alternative gives us - the consumers - power. If companies
produce the product we want at the price we want, we will buy it. If they
don't, we won't and it's pretty much as simple as that.

What we want is:
1) a fair price. Charging the same price for an eBook as they do for a
physical book is unfair. Period.
2) no DRM. DRM deprives us of the resale and portablity RIGHTS that we
have.
3) An official, proofed eBook version. Too many books simply don't have
an official eBook version, making the pirated version the only one
available.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

> Back when products were physical, if you were unable (or unwilling) to
> pay for a product, you had 2 choices: steal it, or do without it.

Or do what the rest of us do.. write/create a better alternative,
or spend the time and money to save up for the one you want, and buy it
yourself.

> With the advent of non-physical products, the rules change.

The rules might change, but the laws remain the same.

> I now have a third alternative: copy it.

Just because you "want" it, and can make a digitally-perfect
duplicate of it, doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law by doing so.

> (You can call it stealing if you wish, but you will be hard pressed to
> find someone who has been deprived of the item in this case. Everyone
> who had the item before the copying still has the item.)

Ok, so lets say you come up with a very unique music riff, and
put it out in one of your albums. Then another band/artist takes your
riff, and incorporates it into ALL of his songs, and HE becomes known as
the one with the riff. Would you be pissed? You are being deprived of
something (in this case, recognition).

In the case of copyright infringement, you're depriving the
original author of his right to retain the copyright of his work, and
distribute that work under the terms he sees fit. The US Copyright office
defines these terms. If you're unclear, feel free to look those up.

> That 3rd alternative gives us - the consumers - power. If companies
> produce the product we want at the price we want, we will buy it. If
> they don't, we won't and it's pretty much as simple as that.

Yep, simple as that. Fines for infringement, or jail. Pick one.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:39:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"David A. Desrosiers" <hacker@gnu-designs.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.02.04.37.49.420301@gnu-designs.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:07:49 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:
>
>>> It is infringement, to be sure, but "theft"? No.
>
>> Sounds like the same argument for/against downloading music.
>
> Yes, and an argument that will never be solved.
>
> As long as people want something for nothing, and other
> people want to be fairly compensated for their work, this argument will
> continue to go on an on, for centuries.
>
> I still haven't downloaded a single mp3 of any mainstream music
> from the Web, and I certainly don't intend to. Most of what is out there
> is garbage. I prefer Indy bands now, and my own friend's bands that are
> signed with multiple CDs in stores (and they promote their music by having
> nearly their full album online on their websites).
>
> Oh well. Some day these companies will wake up.

Well...I have the vinyl recording of (f'rinstance) Everybody Loves Somebody
Sometime. It's worn out, so I (allegedly) download it and put it on a CD?
Did I break a law? I guess. Morally, I feel justified because I *did* pay
for the original recording, however. Nobody is injured because I wouldn't
have paid for a different format that included the one song that I wanted to
own again.

Now, I have a hardcover book of Never Dream of Dying. Do I have a right to
download it to my Palm to read on the run? Offhand, it seems that the same
justification (or excuse) applies. Whatcha think?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:56:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in
news:9upet0lhiq1kvfdqaeq5jjmndvkvip43mc@4ax.com:

> Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>very mediocre products at high prices.
>
> Don't like the product?
> Not a justification for stealing it.

My point was that this is a factor is declining sales. And as Mr.
Desrosiers pointed out, theft and copyright infringement are two
different things, although theft sounds much more dramatic.

>>CD pricing hasn't followed market trends;
>>it still costs $15-20 for an album.
>
> Don't like the price?
> Not a justification for stealing it.

Again, I was arging that this is a factor in reduced sales.

>>OTOH, Hollywood is making money hand over fist.
>
> Steal from the rich? No Justification there.

Again, I was arging that this is a factor in reduced sales.

>>It's figuring out how they want to consume your product, giving it to
>>them that way, and building a business model around it.
>
> Don't like how they run their business? Not a justification for you
> know what...

Again, I was arging that this is a factor in reduced sales.

>>Copy protection is silly.
>
> Maybe. But it's their right to do it and not a justification.

Justification for what? Again, I was arging that this is a factor in
reduced sales.

>>For these industry bozos, the sky is *always* falling. And don't get
>>me started on how they screw their artists, and how they've run
>>roughshod over US copyright law...
>
> Are you sure you're not a pirate? You keep trying to justify
> stealing... ;) 

Hardly. I was pointing out the numerous foolish, anti-consumer steps
taken by the RIAA and its members.

None of this justifies copyright infringement; it's still wrong. But
it's not unexpected when you don't give your paying customers what they
clearly want.

--
Albert Nurick
albert@nurick.com
www.nurick.com
04 FJR1300A
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:54:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"David A. Desrosiers" <hacker@gnu-designs.com> wrote:
> As long as people want something for nothing, and other
>people want to be fairly compensated for their work, this argument will
>continue to go on an on, for centuries.

Translation:
If people don't want to pay what the owner asks, many will steal it instead.

I would ad another truism:
If it's easy and relatively safe to steal, many will steal it no matter what...

>I still haven't downloaded a single mp3 of any mainstream music
>from the Web, and I certainly don't intend to.

Oh oh. That qualifier "mainstream" is in there. If you're going to profess
complete honesty here you would have to say that you have never committed a
copyright violation of any kind when downloading from the web. And if you have
then there is no justification for it, even if it's non-mainstream... ;) 
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 8:54:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:54:21 +0000, AaronJ wrote:

> Oh oh. That qualifier "mainstream" is in there. If you're going to
> profess complete honesty here you would have to say that you have never
> committed a copyright violation of any kind when downloading from the
> web. And if you have then there is no justification for it, even if it's
> non-mainstream... ;) 

You got it. Exactly.

I'm a staunch defender of copyright when it comes to our own Free
Software packages, including currently-open cases with the FSF. Look it up.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:15:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Nemo <nemo@nowhere.org> wrote:

>Back when products were physical, if you were unable (or unwilling) to pay
>for a product, you had 2 choices: steal it, or do without it.

Yep, jails are filled with the people who made the wrong choice.

>With the advent of non-physical products, the rules change.

The rules are basically the same. The technology changed.

>I now have a third alternative: copy it.

You and millions of others. That's the basic problem.

>you will be hard pressed to find someone who
>has been deprived of the item in this case.

When I download an unauthorized item, I deprive the author/artist/publisher of
the *cash* I would have paid for the item, not the item itself.

>If companies produce the product we want at the price we want,
>we will buy it.

Not if it's easily obtainable for free. Nothing is cheaper than free.

>What we want is:
>1) a fair price. Charging the same price for an eBook as they do for a
>physical book is unfair. Period.

Then don't buy it. But it's no justification for a unauthorized download.

>2) no DRM. DRM deprives us of the resale and portablity RIGHTS that we
>have.

Same answer as #1

>3) An official, proofed eBook version. Too many books simply don't have
>an official eBook version, making the pirated version the only one
>available.

Same answer as #1

There is simply no justification for downloading an unauthorized ebook...
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"AaronJ" <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:g8dgt0hjo855vj000e030n1vapkg5pr58b@4ax.com...
> Nemo <nemo@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
>>3) An official, proofed eBook version. Too many books simply don't have
>>an official eBook version, making the pirated version the only one
>>available.
>
> There is simply no justification for downloading an unauthorized ebook...

If there is no way to legally obtain it, I wouldn't care if downloading was
illegal.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:

>None of this justifies copyright infringement; it's still wrong.

Drum roll. That has been my point all along.
There is absolutely no justification for a copyright violation, no matter what
the reason. So why do posters here keep trying to justify it? Heck we're mostly
anonymous here. Just say you do it...and do it... ;) 

>But it's not unexpected when you don't give your paying
>customers what they clearly want.

Do you think that the beer runs at the local convenience store are because the
crooks don't like the choices of beer...
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"AaronJ" <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:gfegt01ofpdl7144rjsr75el9ce6j81fav@4ax.com...
> Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>
>>None of this justifies copyright infringement; it's still wrong.
>
> Drum roll. That has been my point all along.
> There is absolutely no justification for a copyright violation, no matter
> what
> the reason. So why do posters here keep trying to justify it? Heck we're
> mostly
> anonymous here. Just say you do it...and do it... ;) 

The big payoff is in making those schoolkids ante up for their pirating.
Kids today!

That is, what kind of a direction should they take in enforcement? Who? How
much?

>
>>But it's not unexpected when you don't give your paying
>>customers what they clearly want.
>
> Do you think that the beer runs at the local convenience store are because
> the
> crooks don't like the choices of beer...
January 2, 2005 9:49:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:15:18 +0000, AaronJ wrote:
> When I download an unauthorized item, I deprive the author/artist/publisher of
> the *cash* I would have paid for the item, not the item itself.

I've heard the same lame argument a while back for pirating software. The
fact is that if you wouldn't have purchased it, or you were unable to
purchase it, you have deprived the author of nothing. You were not a sale
in the first place.

> Not if it's easily obtainable for free. Nothing is cheaper than free.

A small group of people think that way. But the fast majority (for now)
do not. They know that if the authors are not compensated, they will stop
producing.

The problem is that unless the industry changes their attitudes fast, that
vast majority will shrink, and the small group that only want something
for free will become the majority.

> Then don't buy it. But it's no justification for a unauthorized download.

As I explained before, there are now other alternatives.

> There is simply no justification for downloading an unauthorized ebook...

Then there is no point in you beating a dead horse here.

I see companies paying off congress to pass legislation preventing works
from going into the public domain. This is graft at its worst.

I see companies filing lawsuits against their supporters (for "stealing"
their music, for "using" their trademarks/copyrighted works/etc.).

Get off your high horse and get with reality. Ali Baba knew what was
right: It is never a crime to steal from thieves.
January 2, 2005 9:51:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:32:15 +0000, AaronJ wrote:
> There is absolutely no justification for a copyright violation, no matter what
> the reason. So why do posters here keep trying to justify it? Heck we're mostly
> anonymous here. Just say you do it...and do it... ;) 

Justification:
1. We have the might, therefore we have the right.
2. The other alternatives are unacceptable.

Morals don't stop these companies from infringing on our rights. Why
should we let morals stop us from infringing on theirs?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:25:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

AaronJ <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in
news:g8dgt0hjo855vj000e030n1vapkg5pr58b@4ax.com:

> You and millions of others. That's the basic problem.

Yes, if millions of people are doing it, there is a problem. And the
approach being taken by the music industry won't fix the problem. When
there is a problem, it needs to be corrected, but simply prosecuting a
few when millions are doing it won't correct it. When I was an officer
in the Army I learned very well that you never, ever give an order you
can't enforce, and it's the same in civilian life - never, ever enact a
law that can't be enforced. If millions of people ignore a law, then
that law is harmful in itself, because it results in people becoming used
to disregarding laws. You can rant and rave all you want, but it will do
no good, and more likely do harm. If the law is being ignored by most of
the people, then change the law, and it will be better for all involved.

--
Regards,

Stan
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:27:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:49:15 -0500, Nemo wrote:

> Ali Baba knew what was right: It is never a crime to steal from thieves.

This is the most-ridiculous thing I've ever heard to date.

Stealing is a crime. Period. If someone robs your house, and takes
your wife's jewelry, and you know who did it, and you rob that thief's
house and steal his television set and stereo, are you guilty of theft?

Yes.

If you see someone murder another person, and you go and kill that
murderer, are you guilty of murder? Yes.

Don't be so ignorant an naive to think that just because you're
committing a crime against someone else who is guilty of crimes, that you
are somehow exonerated of that crime.

You're not, and all of the laws and courts back me up on this.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:43:38 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:

> If there is no way to legally obtain it, I wouldn't care if downloading
> was illegal.

If there was no legal way to obtain it, then it can't be obtained
illegally or legally, unless someone broke into the writer's house, and
ripped the typed pages from his typewriter or computer, for an unfinished
or undelivered work.

If it was never in the public, and never available through "legal"
channels (i.e. through a publisher or on the Internet through an ESD),
then it simply isn't available, so being "illegal" or not, isn't even a
valid excuse.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:30:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:51:36 -0500, Nemo wrote:

> Morals don't stop these companies from infringing on our rights. Why
> should we let morals stop us from infringing on theirs?

Because its against the law. How is that not clear enough?

We have rights for a reason. Thousands of people have died in
centuries past to guarantee us those rights. Now you're willing to ignore
the rights of others, just because you believe yours are more important?

Please. Use your head.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:39:49 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:

> Well...I have the vinyl recording of (f'rinstance) Everybody Loves
> Somebody Sometime. It's worn out, so I (allegedly) download it and put
> it on a CD? Did I break a law? I guess. Morally, I feel justified
> because I *did* pay for the original recording, however. Nobody is
> injured because I wouldn't have paid for a different format that
> included the one song that I wanted to own again.

Lets put this in real-world terms. You have a vinyl recording of
some song. Its worn out. You already paid for it. If a digitally-perfect
representation of that recording was not available, would you steal
another vinyl copy from your local record store? Or would you purchase
another copy?

This is the exact reason I burn all of my store-bought music media
straight away on CDR, and put the original back in its case, never to be
opened again, unless I need to burn another copy because the one I'm using
in my car or at work is lost, stolen or damaged.

Perhaps you should have done the same with your vinyl recording?

What you're downloading, is not the same thing as your vinyl
recording, and hence, it is a copyright violation to do so, whether you
think its right or not, US law backs this up, and copyright law is on OUR
side. It is not some evil to be vanquished just so more people can violate
it.

> Now, I have a hardcover book of Never Dream of Dying. Do I have a right
> to download it to my Palm to read on the run? Offhand, it seems that the
> same justification (or excuse) applies. Whatcha think?

Does the author allow you to download it in electronic format,
suitable for reading on your Palm device? If not, then no, this too is a
copyright violation. You do not have permission for the electronic copy,
even if you have purchased the paper copy. Trademark and copyright law is
also very clear on this issue.

How about writing to the author, and see if he would be amendable
to let you use an electronic version of the book for a few dollars in
exchange?

If the book was available in electronic version from the author's site
for 50% less than the paper copy, would you purchase it there? Or would
you still seek out another location to download it "for free" instead?
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 1:40:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"David A. Desrosiers" <hacker@gnu-designs.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.03.00.28.58.690545@gnu-designs.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:43:38 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:
>
>> If there is no way to legally obtain it, I wouldn't care if downloading
>> was illegal.
>
> If there was no legal way to obtain it, then it can't be obtained
> illegally or legally, unless someone broke into the writer's house, and
> ripped the typed pages from his typewriter or computer, for an unfinished
> or undelivered work.
>
> If it was never in the public, and never available through "legal"
> channels (i.e. through a publisher or on the Internet through an ESD),
> then it simply isn't available, so being "illegal" or not, isn't even a
> valid excuse.

Interesting how you left off the part I was addressing: There is simply no
justification for downloading an unauthorized ebook...

I was pondering the possibility that there may be some justification.
Technically illegal, but then, so is slandering a loser. Ever hear of the
cases where someone is indeed slandered, and the award is one dollar? Yes,
crime. Damage, nothing to speak of.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 1:43:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"Nemo" <nemo@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.01.02.23.51.33.311134@nowhere.org...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:32:15 +0000, AaronJ wrote:
>> There is absolutely no justification for a copyright violation, no matter
>> what
>> the reason. So why do posters here keep trying to justify it? Heck we're
>> mostly
>> anonymous here. Just say you do it...and do it... ;) 
>
> Justification:
> 1. We have the might, therefore we have the right.
> 2. The other alternatives are unacceptable.
>
> Morals don't stop these companies from infringing on our rights. Why
> should we let morals stop us from infringing on theirs?
>

To quote a recently published Famous Author: Because I could do it, that's
why.

But even so, I didn't download Mr. Clinton's book.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:38:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

Stan Gosnell <me@work.com> wrote:

>If millions of people ignore a law, then that law is harmful in itself,

In this case millions of people ignore the law because the new
technology allows them to with little fear of prosecution. Basic intellectual
property law has not changed for over half a century. Why is it suddenly bad?

>If the law is being ignored by most of the people,
>then change the law, and it will be better for all involved.

Yep, lets give people all the free books, music and movies they want. Oh, and by
the way Stan how about you working for free too...
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:36:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

"Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org> wrote:

>"AaronJ" <noemail@noemail.com> wrote

>> There is simply no justification for downloading an unauthorized ebook...
>
>If there is no way to legally obtain it,
>I wouldn't care if downloading was illegal.

I don't care either Necron. I wouldn't care even if you could buy it. You came
in late so let me relate how I started all this.

Being a long time frequenter of the ebook binary groups, which I think just
about everybody knows is where you find mostly pirate books, I find some humor
in people there (and here) trying to justify their up and downloads. We all know
it is stealing, but for some reason they try to justify it. I don't know how
many times I've seen someone post that they only download books that they
already own in paper form. If you believe that all these (honest?) people only
download books they already own, I have a bridge here in the Arizona desert that
I want to sell you.

So when a few days ago a poster here said he used the ebook binary groups to get
copies of books already in his library, I simply pointed out that it was just as
illegal to do that as it was to download any old unauthorized ebook. My point
was that there is no justification downloading this material, so why not just do
it and don't bother to post such excuses. And there sure are *plenty of excuses*
given for this activity as seen in this thread just the past few days. (High
prices, nasty manufacturers,bad product,stealing from the rich,copy
protection,bad laws,ect ect ect.)

So to all of you participating in this discussion, let me end my participation
here and now (the thread is getting a bit long in the tooth), not by proclaiming
my honesty to the world as other ebookers seem to want to do, but rather by
posting before God and everybody that I will never ever make any such excuses
for my actions. There is simply *no justification* for them... ;) 
January 3, 2005 8:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:27:13 -0500, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> Stealing is a crime. Period. If someone robs your house, and takes
> your wife's jewelry, and you know who did it, and you rob that thief's
> house and steal his television set and stereo, are you guilty of theft?

No. Not if I stole back my wife's jewelry.

> If you see someone murder another person, and you go and kill that
> murderer, are you guilty of murder? Yes.

No. Self defence is still legal in most states. If I witness a murder, I
can argue that my life is at risk because the murderer will go after me.

> Don't be so ignorant an naive to think that just because you're
> committing a crime against someone else who is guilty of crimes, that you
> are somehow exonerated of that crime.

I never thought I was exonerated of the crime. But the discussion was
about justifying "stealing" eBooks.

These companies are paying off congress to pass laws to prevent works from
going into the public domain. Therefore they are stealing from the public.

In my opinion, there is no moral argument against stealing from a
thief.

> You're not, and all of the laws and courts back me up on this.

Interesting. Since the law is an accomplice in the theft of the public's
works.
!