Russian EBookseller LitRes Gets Competing EBook Apps Booted From Google Play 145
Nate the greatest writes "The developer of the popular Android app Moon+ Reader was surprised to discover this weekend that he is a filthy stinking pirate. Google informed him via an automated email that Moon+ Reader had been removed from Google Play because the app had switched to using pirate sites as the main sources of ebooks. Or at least, that's what LitRes claims, but when they complained to Google LitRes didn't tell the whole truth. What was really happening is that users of the app are enabling piracy, not the app itself. Thanks to the way Moon+ Reader is designed to let users share links to ebook sources some of the sources are indeed pirate sites (less than your average Google Search). In reality the app was no more a source of pirated content than your average web browser. What do you say when an ebook distributor's anti-piracy plan involves going after app developers rather than pirate sites? Something printable, IMO."
There are books that I can't buy (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, not everybody on earth can legally buy every book that he or she wants.
Depending on which country that you live in, there are restrictions imposed, prohibiting people from buying the "banned" books.
And in some countries, the "banning" has reached the cyberspace ... that is, not only you can't buy the dead-tree version of the book, you can't legally buy the ebook version, either.
Some of the government even installed bots watching over people who are on the Net.
For example, there are some books - if I want them - I can't get, from the place that I am staying right now.
They are not on display in brick and mortar bookstores. I can't place an order for them either.
And if I go online and try to pay and buy an ebook version (using my credit card) the bot may spot what I do and I may be invited for a cup of tea with some religious / political officials.
People in such position have two options:
1. Move out from that goddamn country
2. Download the pirated version
Option #1 seems obvious, but in some instances, not very practical. For family, business, or for whatever reason, people may not be so easily move from one country to the other.
Option #2, it's illegal, it's immoral, but then, government bots do not often watching over connections to the pirated sites.
Re:There are books that I can't buy (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't call Option #2 immoral. Any law banning a book is immoral in itself and should not be followed if you can help it.
As for the piracy aspect, if you CAN'T buy it legally, the writer/publisher isn't losing any income when you pirate it. So morally you are in the clear; if the book is later legalized, though, you should definitely pay for it to show your support.
Re:There are books that I can't buy (Score:5, Insightful)
> There is some material in printed/digital form that is illegal and morally reprehensible and should be banned
That's a fallacy for a number of reasons:
What's illegal in one country may not be in another.
Who decides what is "morally reprehensible" ? You?? Moral's are not absolutes -- they are decided upon by each meta-layer of the community. If a community wishes to decide for itself that it won't sell or read certain books that is their choice -- but they don't have the right to shove their man-made dogma down the throats of its inhabitants.
Governments need to get off their moral high horse and stop (trying) to dictate to others what its citizens can and can't read. Only a person who lives in fear tries to dictate morality to other people. That is never successful in the long run, anybody who says otherwise needs to pay attention to history. i.e.
* http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/censorship/bannedbooksthatshapedamerica [bannedbooksweek.org]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments [wikipedia.org]
> There is damn good reasons for some forms of censorship
Only cowards use censorship.
There is obviously content I have absolutely no interest in reading / watching / listening to. I also realize _my_ morals do NOT over-ride another person's as long as nobody is getting hurt.
If people are offended at a book's content then they need to grow the fuck up. They have a choice -- don't read it !! They also do NOT have the right to tell others what they can or can not read. We're all adults here. It's time to start treating others with respect even if you disagree with them.
--
Fashion: fabricated fad.
Re:There are books that I can't buy (Score:4, Insightful)
What about graphic pedophilia ?
What about graphic torture/snuff ?
Correct. It applies in this situations too. Or were you expecting someone to answer differently? You know, mentioning an extreme example is a good way to see whether or not someone really cares about free speech.
would your like a book published
I don't believe you should be able to restrict others' rights simply because you're offended by what they say.
and you will ALWAYS find some section of the community who disagrees for what ever reason.
Exactly. When you're on the chopping block, that won't be so fun, now will it?
Re: (Score:2)
I would include abusive DRM in this, and for all media. For example, if the DRM breaks the ability for me to read the book, play the music, view the movie, or run the software, on MY computer, but a pirated version exists, then I have no other choice. And I think this is justified because whoever intentionally added that DRM that blocks me out is already NOT expecting any revenue from ME. That may not justify the pirate making it available to everyone, but it does justify me downloading the pirated versi
Re: (Score:2)
Option 2 is NOT illegal, you victim of propaganda!
It's illegal to _publish_ books (upload) whose copyright (or license to publish) you don't have, but it's NOT illegal to download books, movies or music.
Re: (Score:2)
Option 2 is NOT illegal, you victim of propaganda!
It's illegal to _publish_ books (upload) whose copyright (or license to publish) you don't have, but it's NOT illegal to download books, movies or music.
I wish I can agree with you...
... but, please tell that to the folks who have been charged with "illegally downloading pirated copies of music / software / ebook / movies / whatever"
Re: (Score:2)
It's illegal to _publish_ books (upload) whose copyright (or license to publish) you don't have, but it's NOT illegal to download books, movies or music.
It is illegal in many countries. It is criminal in many countries depending on the degree to which you are doing it and on the exact circumstances. In the USA, there seems to be no law that gives the copyright holder statutory damages when you _download_.
By the way, there are cases where a copyright holder doesn't bother taking copyright infringers to court, but will react very forcefully if you make claims that your infringement is legal.
Re: (Score:1)
I encountered this problem when I started reading the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series. Books one & two were out in the US, but the third wasn't coming out here for another 9 months. I tried to buy the UK edition (which had been out for a while, so the holdup here wasn't the translation) but Amazon.co.uk couldn't ship it to me or sell me the e-book due to restrictions. I ended up torrenting the audiobook; I don't usually do audiobooks but I really wanted to get through the series. There's going to com
Re: (Score:2)
That is a legitimate option, but...
Which God died and said that you have a moral right to take whatever you want if someone doesn't want to sell it to you?
Good thing you don't need to take anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather, having a copy sent to you by a willing party. If we're talking about downloading it, that is. It kind of defeats the purpose of copyright (putting aside any disagreements with that for a moment) if the product isn't even made available. It's about as silly as allowing someone to both have copyright and DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather, having a copy sent to you by a willing party.
So, a "willing party" is sufficient to override any express wishes of the copyright holder regarding distribution of his intellectual property for any period of time, even a reasonable seven years like copyright used to be? That's one opinion. No copyright at all, then. If someone doesn't want to sell you the book he's written (or won't license his publisher to sell it where you live, or the publisher acting on behalf of the copyright holder won't distribute it), you are free to have someone who does have
Re: (Score:2)
So, a "willing party" is sufficient to override any express wishes of the copyright holder regarding distribution of his intellectual property for any period of time, even a reasonable seven years like copyright used to be?
I think so, yes.
That's one opinion.
Indeed it is.
Can the "willing party" sell you the copy?
I don't see why not. I've seen a fair number of people who say that 'normal' copyright infringement causes no harm, but then say that selling someone else's copyrighted material does cause harm. That confuses me somewhat.
Even if he doesn't want to distribute it anymore?
Yes?
Copyright means that the author has the right to determine the distribution of his work, which includes the right to say it will contain DRM when he does.
As much as I disagree with copyright, I don't think it's all about the authors anyway. I think it's more about encouraging innovation. In exchange for copyright, the work must go into the public domain someday. Kind of hard for it to go into the public domai
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you can try to make some sophistic argument why receiving an illegal copy may not be copyright infringement, but that doesn't help you at all with ebooks.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you can try to make some sophistic argument why receiving an illegal copy may not be copyright infringement, but that doesn't help you at all with ebooks.
How does this apply to my comment?
Re: (Score:2)
Downloading a copy of Microsoft Office (illegal) is no more lost income to Microsoft than downloading a copy of LibreOffice (legal).
But that's still a loss of potential profit if you had money to give them.
However, buying an illegal copy of Microsoft Office, does mean that Microsoft doesn't earn the money that you paid.
They don't earn any money either way. This distinction is meaningless to me as the money was never Microsoft's to begin with. The fact that they could have had it had different things happened is true in both cases.
Note that this is not necessarily the amount that they wanted for the product, but still a loss.
At most, it is a loss of money that they could have had if the 'pirate' had chosen another path.
Re: (Score:2)
If I would pay a disinterested third party for a counterfeit copy, why would I not just buy an authentic version?
The third party most likely sells it for a cheaper price.
Re: (Score:2)
I think His name was Jehovah, but the pronunciation always confuses me.
Re:There are books that I can't buy (Score:4)
It's pronounced "mee-toh-lo-gee".
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that no-one wants to sell it to him, it's that they're not allowed to sell it to him even if they wanted to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There are books that I can't buy (Score:5, Insightful)
I am taking NOTHING from you if I download, from a pirate site or other sharing mechanism, some media you are publishing, IF you have made it so I cannot download it legitimately. Likewise if you have made it so that I cannot use it when downloaded legitimately, I am taking NOTHING from you if I crack it.
I have NOT deprived you of any property by making a COPY. I have NOT deprived you of any revenue if you already made it so I cannot pay you for a working copy.
There are markets. If you do not want to sell a working copy to some particular segments of the market, then you are clearly not expecting any revenue from that segment of the market. If I am in that segment, then do not whine about what I do. If you want my revenue, make sure I can get it legally and that it works for me on MY computer. If you find it cost prohibitive to support some tiny segment of the market, then that is your decision to exclude them and let them figure it out.
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
This, a thousand time this. Unfortunately my mod points just expired.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we're clear that you have no right to it in the first place, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Morality doesn't come into it. As you know, all publications enter the public domain after some time, which currently is very long. This means that most publishing companies and authors will die before their books are scheduled to enter the public domain. These publishers and authors are only interim caretakers of the works. The public domain is the real owner forever after.
Therefo
As an author... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've published two books in both print and eBook versions. Not surprisingly, the eBook versions have better sales. My digital editions are DRM-free, and I never thought twice about resisting the pirates. Most of these are likely to be in countries for which it would be a hardship to pay the book price. People in developed countries would rather have the convenience of a quick download from their usual, trusted site (Amazon, B&N), rather than what amounts to a fraction of a Starbucks coffee. Unlike someone stealing a print edition, I'm not losing anything, and that includes any thoughts about a potential lost sale.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's also Eric Flint's thoughts on the matter
The second category are young people. Teenagers, basically, whose income is so low than even $4 or $5 is an obstacle for them. My attitude here is that giving such kids free copies will only benefit me in the long run, in the same way that libraries have traditionally been the way that authors develop a following among young readers. (That's how I became a fan of such writers as Heinlein, for instance.) And, again, they wouldn't have bought a copy ANYWAY – so where's the harm?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting that the thing the author cares about is something that can be easily measured: Sales they actually do get.
If one course of action results in 100 sales and 100 downloads which aren't sales, and one results in 1,000 sales and 10,000 downloads which aren't sales, the effect on the author is that the second course of action resulted in 10 times as many sales. The alleged "losses" don't matter; all that matters is whether total sales are higher or lower. Sales up? Author has won.
And what autho
Re: (Score:2)
You are looking at book writing as a business. For a lot of book writer, being read is what matters. Making a living out of it, while very important is balanced by their desire of recognition. I know quite a few artists, the balance is generally once they have broken even on the costs and get a bit of money in advance for their next work.
Telling stories is not the same business as selling words. Starbuck is a prime example, while they have maximized coffee selling rentability, they have only averaged cof
The app is payware, who cares (Score:2, Informative)
It is proprietary software for the simplest of operations on a computer. Who really cares. Let the business people have their pissing match.
http://fbreader.org/FBReaderJ free and on github.
Re: (Score:2)
Competing eBook apps? (Score:2)
Response (Score:4, Funny)
What do you say when an ebook distributor's anti-piracy plan involves going after app developers rather than pirate sites?
"If I were human, I believe my response would be, 'go to hell'. If I were human." -- Spock
Re: (Score:2)
What do you say when an ebook distributor's anti-piracy plan involves going after app developers rather than pirate sites?
"If I were human, I believe my response would be, 'go to hell'. If I were human." -- Spock
I think in a case like this, the Spockism would be even more strongly worded, such as...
"If I were Human, I believe my response would be, 'Eat a box of dicks'... If, I were Human..."
Unjust enrichment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me like the Moon+ Reader author should sue LitRes for Unjust Enrichment [wikipedia.org].
Also, seriously: Google taking action on an illegal app without judicial oversight?
This should be handled in exactly the same way as law enforcement requests: show the warrant first. (Or in this case, the judgement against.)
Society is quickly descending into a feudal corporate arms race. These sorts of shenanigans should be stomped on with both feet. If you can't compete fairly, then you shouldn't be in business.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Google needs to see a warrant to remove an app from their shop?
It's their shop, what they want to sell in their shop is their free choice. No-one has the right to be listed in that shop, being listed is a privilege. Google decides they don't like the app, so they remove it. That's all there is to it.
Applying your ideas to the physical world: it is just as much a privilege to have your products on sale in a supermarket. The supermarket decides what they accept in their store, and if they don't like
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Mastercard and Visa refusing to process donations to Wikileaks?
Cutting Wikileaks off from public support is effectively punishing them, but they have not been even accused [officially] of a crime.
Applying your ideas to the physical world: it is just as much a privilege to have your products on sale in a supermarket. The supermarket decides what they accept in their store, and if they don't like your product - or want to remove your product - they don't need anything like a warrant, or do they?
It's not that companies shouldn't be allowed to choose their vendors, it's that companies shouldn't be allowed to impose arbitrary rules, shouldn't be able to impose unjust prejudice, and shouldn't be able to engage in cronyism.
If I were a produce vendor, and if I could
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Mastercard and Visa refusing to process donations to Wikileaks?
Cutting Wikileaks off from public support is effectively punishing them, but they have not been even accused [officially] of a crime.
I really don't like them for doing it, on the other hand it is of course their business. The trouble is that Visa and Master have a de-facto monopoly on credit card processing, and there is no reasonable alternative for such services.
As it stands, they simply have the right do refuse to do business with people they think are involved in criminal activity. They may even have a legal obligation there, considering how some non-US banks got punished in the US for suspected money laundering recently. It makes bu
Re: (Score:3)
Society is quickly descending into a feudal corporate arms race.
Where have you been the past 100 years? It's been this way since the industrial revolution. It's just worse now because the resources needed to make progress are greater than even, yet at the same time, the rate of (expected) progress is more rapid than ever.
Fair has no meaning in business. All's fair in love and war. Business is war. People study war texts like the Art of War to gain an edge while doing business. There's even a book or two on the very matter. Problems arise when a business wages war agains
Re: (Score:2)
if they needed a warrant they'd never be removing anything..
basically these things work like this: you're outside of usa you're guilty of infringing if someone complains.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like the Moon+ Reader author should sue LitRes for Unjust Enrichment [wikipedia.org].
Surely if illegal downloads are not stealing because the author doesn't actually lose anything, then stopping someone from selling their stuff isn't stealing either. because the Moon+ Reader author would still have all the copies he or she created?
Why I disagree with this removal (Score:3, Insightful)
I paid good money for what I consider one of the best ereaders on the google store. Now i have no access to it through Play if I ever need to reinstall it on any of my devices. I couldn't give a rip if some people were using it to pirate cause i wasn't. My license for the app is through Play so I have to pay again to get if from another source. So everybody that used the reader is now screwed. I most certainly won't be using Google's reader cause it sucks.... way behind moon reader in features and customization. But I guess that's okay since it supports DRM. Crap move Google... go after the sharers and not the users.
Re: (Score:2)
So you chose to buy a tethered app?
The beauty of sideloading (Score:3)
Well, I'd been meaning to check out Moon Reader, ever since Aldiko blocked the third party plugin that was providing Dropbox sync. This will likely push me over the edge.
Do I think it's bogus that Google pulled the app with seemingly no warning or no review? Yes. But, thanks to the fact that Android allows users to sideload (unless further blocked by horrible carriers like AT&T) this developer at least has recourse to continue providing his app by direct channels, and users can continue using it. Had this happened to a developer on the iOS app store (as it does all the time) that developer would have no recourse at all.
I hope that this gets resolved quickly, and I hope that this developer winds up getting more attention from this publicity in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why to use Android instead iPhone or others. Apps just wanna be free (as in speech).
Single gatekeeper == dead business (Score:2)
This is scary as hell (Score:1)
As the developer of an open-source e-reader app, I have to say this scares the crap out of me... our current dev version has the same type of functionality, though I've always made sure to not include any site in the settings that is not 100% legit.
I hope Moon+ will be back in ther Market soon and that Google thinks twice before removing another app based on complaints from LitRes.
Re:Ahh, the razors edge... (Score:5, Insightful)
As the summary states, your argument applies equally to any web browser and google search, since those make it easy to find and download pirated material.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At a very technical level I see the point, however I notice two main differences. The first is that a browser is not built to circumvent copyrights. Browsers can share pirated goods inadvertently, where some software is built to share intentionally and avoid the copyrights. The second difference is that Google is, and all other web sites are, required to honor take down notices. Just to make sure that the previous statement is qualified, "required" should not imply "honored". The same does not always t
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is this thing isn't built to circumvent copyrights. Ebooks do not have to be listed at certain sites in order for the copyright to remain valid. You could have an Ebook which is little more then an organized collection of man pages and howto hosted by a software site. It is built to use regularly distributed content as well as irregularly distributed content at the users discretion.
Re:Ahh, the razors edge... (Score:5, Informative)
No. You're the idiot.
That distinction is entirely imaginary and is dependent entirely upon the intent of the end user.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference between "exists solely to facilitate piracy" and "can be used to facilitate piracy".
That distinction is entirely imaginary and is dependent entirely upon the intent of the end user.
You're both idiots. Let me explain by example: A nuclear bomb's purpose is to cause destruction. That doesn't mean it cannot facilitate peace. In the same way, even a tool designed solely to facilitate piracy could be used to reduce or prevent it. For example, if movies and other things now available on pirated websites were made available through an "official" site where you could get the same materials, and same quality, but it came with a time bomb that would cause it to cease being usable after a period of time. The problem with DRM is they put it on things you buy, but if they made it available for free, as a "try before you buy" product with the option to upgrade. It's been proven in case study after case study pirates buy more material outright than those who don't pirate. In other words: Your best customers are pirates.
As far as the line in the sand being dependent on intent, much of copyright law (not all!) falls under the umbrella of strict liability, which means intent doesn't have to be proven. The mens rea, or the "state of mind" of the criminal, plays no part. It is strictly the act itself which is considered. Either you did it, or you didn't. Intent is irrelevant. For example, if murder was a crime of strict liability, even if you shot a gunman who was about to mow down a bus full of children (a heroic act by most people's standards!) you'd be more of a criminal than the gunman -- he only threatened to shoot. You actually did.
This is why strict liability is so damned evil... it was created for situations where intent was unlikely to ever be proved (for example, improper toxic waste disposal... how can you prove any member of the corporation knew it was in violation? It may be impossible due to shared responsibility to identify the perpetuator of the criminal act as opposed to those who sincerely thought it was on the up and up), but expanded to include everything under the sun. It was also supposed to be a relatively lighter sentence, because there was no mens rea considered. That's also gone by the wayside.
So yeah, in short -- you're both wrong. But you both had the right idea.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's the same as the photocopier in the library... it can be used to facilitate breaking copyright laws... should the librarian be jailed or the photocopier maker be shut down for this ability?
No, but in a library where there is hard evidence of 99% of people using the photocopier to make illegal copies of books it might be smart to remove the photocopier from public access.
Re: (Score:1)
Or you could just kick people who do it out of the library.
Re: (Score:2)
Either choice is acceptable. The owner (google) of the library (play store) is perfectly free to choose whichever option they want. I've read the terms of service (https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html) and they allow for removing apps that "encourage or induce infringement of intellectual property rights", not just because of outright infringement. What exactly constitutes "encouragement" isn't spelled out, but leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation on Google's part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With copyrights under the DCMA there are no strict liability issues. A site must honor a take down notice under the law, at least in the USA. Most other countries comply with US law or have similar laws of their own (Often coerced by the US.). This means that a one time sharer is not punished unless they ignore the notices. The multiple strike policy similarly effects people that repeatedly share copyrighted materials, not one time offenders.
Trust me, I don't mean to imply the system we have is perfect,
Re: (Score:2)
With copyrights under the DCMA there are no strict liability issues. A site must honor a take down notice under the law, at least in the USA.
I think the site must honour a take down notice if (1) the take down notice is formally correct, that is contains all the elements required by the law, and (2) the site wants to guarantee that they cannot be sued successfully for copyright infringement themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
No legal actions have been taken. None of the legal terms that you've just thrown around have any relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
And as far as we know, the developer of this app hasn't stolen anything or broken any laws. He simply encouraged piracy which violates the TOS.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, there is a huge difference, which makes you a big hunking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting Slashdot intentionally facilitates idiocy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The legal definition falls to mans rea in my opinion. If I upgraded a pirate ship to make them faster than the King's ships, my intent was aiding. Similar to piracy today, many people justify it morally. Yes, I can get paid to upgrade ships. If I can upgrade a pirate's ship and make them more effective, well from one serf to another guess which I choose? My intent is clear however, I'm not doing it to just be a great engineer and make shipping better.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: The term in the first sentence should be "mens rea". Gah...
Re: (Score:2)
They intentionally facilitate piracy. It's one thing to have the ability to back up and copy your own data between devices. It's another thing all together when you allow sharing of data without better control.
Google is intentionally facilitating piracy. Both their Chrome browser (as a software), their search engine and their messaging services (gmail, Instant messaging and and Google Voice) allow users to share pirate data and Google knows this and allows it with little (if any) control.
(Stop blaming the tools and the providers of the tools for how their tools are used!!!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They intentionally facilitate piracy.
A long long time ago, in a galaxy far away, Veronica and Archie and WAIS and FTP and gopher and a bunch of other obscure Internet programs "facilitated piracy" by allowing people to download material that others had put up on the Internet.
But everyone jumped down Napster's throat for "facilitating piracy" as if Napster was doing something that nobody had ever done before. People were shocked, I say, absolutely shocked, to find out that you could use Napster on the Internet to download INFORMATION!
Save th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ahh, the razors edge... (Score:4, Insightful)
People jumped down Napster's throat because it didn't have substantial non-infringing uses. FTP, web browsers, Google, and other such technologies you and other commenters mention, have substantial non-infringing use.
So does Napster.
Napster had basically one purpose. That was to distribute MP3 files around the internet,
Actually, the one purpose Napster had was to index things that other people were making available.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the more relevant piece of Napster versus the rest of the Internet is that there was no way to control anything on Napster where the DCMA allowed for some level of control on the Internet.
If you host a Warez site and receive a take down notice, you can ignore it and be prosecuted or remove the material. Yeah yeah, they have to hunt you down and all that.. but it happen(s/ed). Napster's biggest problem was that it was not possible to control what got shared.
Re: (Score:2)
Napster's biggest problem was that it was not possible to control what got shared.
Of course it was. Find the offending site and issue a takedown. You can't copy over the net what isn't there, even if a convenient indexing service tells you that it is. Just like you can't ftp a file that has been taken down. It was not uncommon to find Veronica data that wasn't there, either. Or google links that are dead.
If Napster is bad, then Google is worse because they do it on a more massive scale. And FTP did it originally.
Re: (Score:2)
I know ... and damnit, that's what Youtube is for.
I have most of my songs from Youtube.
I don't know what those Napster guys were thinking!
Re: (Score:3)
I heard from a friend of a friend of an enemy that someone once used the Nook reader application to read a pirated book.
But I wouldn't trust a person like me, if I were you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, despite the crazy old english pirate tangent s.pertry took on this.... he's kind of right. Occums Razor and all, the simplest answer is that someone made a tool that made piracy easier. It doesn't mean the maker was out to make piracy easier, just that the tool he created (unknowingly?) did so.
Re: (Score:2)
What you point out is not the same thing I was mentioning. The Occam's razor I was pointing out is that the legality and law related to data sharing is often questioned by the public. Many people don't see the laws as justified and/or moral laws, therefor the laws are often loudly ignored.
What you point out is possibly a second blade on the razor. Multiple edges are common when discussing parsimony. I don't claim to know the authors intent with the software. I understand plausible deniability enough to
Re: (Score:1)
I get what they were doing, and understand it's not direct piracy. However, I disagreed with Napster for the same reason I disagree with these guys. They intentionally facilitate piracy. It's one thing to have the ability to back up and copy your own data between devices. It's another thing all together when you allow sharing of data without better control.
This is hardly comparisable to what napster did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My statements regarding pirates being paid is historically accurate, there is only a differentiation based on an alliance. For example, early in his career Francis Drake was called a privateer by England while Spain called him a Pirate. He even flew the Jolly Rodger as his flag. Perhaps you were implying that privateers were not pirates? My English may not always perfect but my history is usually accurate.
Nitpicking language on a forum is sometimes laughable, and in your case that's exactly what I did.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm not surprised you post anonymously however.
But we all are that you don't. No really.
Re: (Score:2)
An ellipse [reference.com] is "a plane curve such that the sums of the distances of each point in its periphery from two fixed points, the foci, are equal." Quite how that is useful in this discourse escapes me. Perhaps you meant ellipsis [reference.com]. Anonymous Cowards in glass houses...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Punctuation should be inside parenthetical
Stopped reading there.
Re: (Score:3)
<pedantic>
1. ... (it's 'altogether', dammit.) - Punctuation should be inside parenthetical
2. "Your" is possessive, as opposed to a contraction of "You are" makes no sense when describing "inability."
3. privateer is spelled incorrectly
</pedantic>
<pedantic class="extra-pedantic">Punctuation should be outside of parenthetical remarks unless they form a complete sentence, which this probably doesn't. I cannot parse your second point as a valid sentence. You also missed other spelling errors ("ellipse" vs "ellipsis"), and phrasing errors (I assume that GPP did not actually intend to suggest the person he was replying to had misplaced incomplete sentences, but that is what he wrote). </pedantic>
Not seeing much difference between your post and the OP from an editing perspective. Something about glass houses and rocks.
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of questions since I have never used the software. Do they honor DCMA requests and remove copyrighted materials when the owner makes the request? Do they have a mechanism for bypassing or removing copyright protection?
The first question is how the Internet generally works. If there is no way of honoring a copyright owners request, the dilemma should be obvious.
The second question requires a look at how e-books are distributed and some logic. The common platforms of Kindle and Nook, and software
Re:Ahh, the razors edge... (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing you are ignoring is that the kindle software will load ebooks that are not drm protected, you are not forced to buy ebooks from Amazon to read using the kindle software as long as you can get the ebook of interest on the device you can read it.
Realistically if I wanted to pirate ebooks all i need is a browser a search engine and a copy of the kindle software.
The issue with this software is it allows users to share links some of which can lead to commercial ebooks on pirate sites and some links are to non commercial ebooks. People create content all the time with the intent that it be freely shared. I like to write music, some people like to write story's, poetry, manuals and other stuff.
I honestly don't see a problem with this app if anything it seems like an improvement to the many other ereader programs out there. You seem to be arguing for approved sources and texts , do you really think that is a positive move?
The most positive thing we can do as people is the sharing of our culture and ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is something wrong with you? You may as well suggest that Google facilitates piracy through Chrome as Chrome allows people to set it where you can download pirated material just by visiting piracy websites.
If you want to act like the contrary "voice of reason" in hopes that the mods will upvote you, you should probably read the article and understand the situation before you let your greasy cheeto fingers type away at that disgusting keyboard of yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What law does this and web browsers and FTP clients and your computer's TCP/IP stack break?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and lets get precise. They did NOT remove a "service". They removed a software offering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moon Reader doesn't just allow you to add custom OPDS sources. At least one update from the Google Play store came with TUEBL [tuebl.ca] pre-installed as a source. That's pretty sketchy since many of the app's users would have no idea TUEBL is any less "legitimate" than Gutenberg.
Re: (Score:2)
... except where it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguabl
Re: (Score:2)
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).
I disagree with your premise. The immorality of "unauthorized use of knowledge or culture," is not inherent. This is a learned behavior, causing the moral dilemma to be that of one breaking the letter of the law. In your contention, the letter of the law is still being violated, and so fails to solve the moral dilemma.
I absolutely recognize an individuals right to sell their creative works, and even DRM the hell out of it, if that's what they think is best for their own interest. I will however, in no way
Re: (Score:2)
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).
But you _can_ run it by buying a different computer or installing some different software. Just because you are too cheap to pay out that doesn't mean you _can't_ use it. That's your choice.