Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > free pdf ebook

Reply
Thread Tools

free pdf ebook

 
 
Eivind Eklund
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On 3/23/07, Austin Ziegler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I note your scare quotes. They're a bit of a silly thing to put in
> because the United States and other jurisdictions *have* defined
> intellectual property.


They have defined copyright, trademarks, patents, and some places a
variant kind of design protection. "Intellectual property" is a
mismash made over these very different granted limited monopolies.

> We can disagree with the implementations as
> they stand, and I think that most modern computer scientists disagree
> with the current implementations. HOWEVER, I think that "theft" is
> still an appropriate word as relates to illicit e-books. You are
> depriving an author of a sale to which they would otherwise be
> entitled and are therefore denying them income to which they are
> entitled.


HOWEVER; I still think "theft" is an appropriate word as relates to
nonsense postings. You are depriving a reader of his time and mental
resources which they would otherwise e entitled and are therefore
denying them the opportunity to make income which they would otherwise
have.

No, didn't think we felt that shoe fit, either.

The point is that the copying does NOT deprive the author of anything.
In fact, copying MAY lead to higher direct income.

There are six cases here:
(1) Do not download and do not buy
(2) Do not download and do buy
(3) Download and buy, would buy without download
(4) Download and buy, would not buy without download
(5) Download and do not buy, would buy without downloaded
(6) Download and do not buy, would not buy without download

Classifying all cases from (3) to (6) as "theft" tend to result in
muddled thinking, including the assumption that there's always lost
revenue. This is not true. Loss of revenue hinges on (5) being
greater than (4). The rest of the cases is a red herring; they make
no difference to revenue, and just create more value in society by
making the work available to more people (or available in a new form.)

Both the statistical and the anecdotal evidence I have seen indicate
that (4) is in fact larger than (5) for aggregate copying/purchasing,
with the statistics covering music, and the anecdotal evidence
covering music, movies, and self development books.

> Like it or not, we *must* have some legal regime for protecting the
> intellectual work and output of people whose skills are best suited
> that direction.


Like it or not, we *must* have guilds to protect against unlicensed
production of beads.
Like it or not, we *must* have protection for the buggy whip manufacturers.
Like it or not, we *must* have slaves working the cotton fields.

There's no must in either of that. It is a choice of laws, a choice
where society pays with a set of restrictions covering the activities
for some (or many people) to further other activities, and where
change in technology change the payoffs for various groups. We may
choose to keep protection, or we may choose not to, and this will give
different payoffs for different groups in society, leading to
different activity. We are heavily invested in the present form, so
changes will be expensive. It is difficult to say whether a different
set of restrictions would be better for society as a whole or not.
However, there is no "*must*" about it. We managed to live well
without these restrictions, and I have not seen anybody that have
shown in any convincing way that we wouldn't be doing reasonably well
without them today. If you've got simulation results or research
results that show otherwise, I'd be very interested in seeing them.
'cause I don't know of any proper research (simulations or similar)
that says much at all here, just a bunch of people taking it for
granted that we "have to have".

Eivind.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
johwait@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On Mar 23, 2:00 am, Chad Perrin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:36:35AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > On 3/22/07, Phillip Gawlowski <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >Kyle Schmitt wrote:
> > >> OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for
> > >> something.

>
> > >> Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.

>
> > >> He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
> > >> Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
> > >> original intent of the post?
> > >Because programmers thrive on exact language, and exact meanings of
> > >terms, maybe? ESR has written some interesting stuff about that.

>
> > Nah. It's a bikeshed to the nuclear power plant of intellectual
> > property discussions in general.

>
> Speaking solely for myself here . . .
>
> Since I have an (admittedly non-mainstream) interpretation of the ethics
> of "intellectual property" (note scare-quotes) that is decidedly not on
> the side of counting it as "theft", I find that simply distinguishing
> between theft and copyright infringement is the best compromise I can
> generally come up with between ignoring the subject because it's
> off-topic and refusing to let a bit of FUD go unchallenged. I don't
> like to let such FUD go unchallenged, of course, because unchallenged it
> becomes a meme, and propagates. Not my idea of fun.
>
> --
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [http://ccd.apotheon.org]
> "Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
> build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


The original book mentioned, along with quite a few other books are
available on line via Safari Books Online http://safari.informit.com/0672322528

There are also several, shorter-than-book-length PDFs available
including:
http://www.informit.com/bookstore/pr...321474070&rl=1
http://www.informit.com/bookstore/pr...321483508&rl=1

and the second edition of Hal Fulton's book is available as a PDF:
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...780768666304-0

In full disclosure, I both program a bit in Ruby, and am employed by
the company that publishes the above mentioned titles. But hey, I
read them. And I managed not to stand on my copyright soap box and
mention what happens to authors when...

Cheers,
John Wait


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chad Perrin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:16:01PM +0900, John Joyce wrote:
> Yep, this was one of the scarier points. Making DRM illegal to
> circumvent, stepping on the Fair Use doctrine, but not doing it
> clearly. This was used to jail a Russian who allegedly broke Adobe's
> eBook DRM scheme.


Actually, I intended to allude to that event in my previous comments,
and my understanding of that event was that it was precipitated by
cracking Adobe's DRM scheme, not by infringement of copyright. So,
though it appears you're right about copyright being directly punishable
as a criminal act, I don't think that was an example of that. Please
let me know if you have information to the contrary, as (being on
vacation and typing this from a hotel room) I really don't have time to
do my own Google research right now.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chad Perrin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:17:13PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Chad Perrin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:36:35AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >> Nah. It's a bikeshed to the nuclear power plant of intellectual
> >> property discussions in general.

> >Speaking solely for myself here . . .
> >
> >Since I have an (admittedly non-mainstream) interpretation of the ethics
> >of "intellectual property" (note scare-quotes) that is decidedly not on
> >the side of counting it as "theft", I find that simply distinguishing
> >between theft and copyright infringement is the best compromise I can
> >generally come up with between ignoring the subject because it's
> >off-topic and refusing to let a bit of FUD go unchallenged. I don't
> >like to let such FUD go unchallenged, of course, because unchallenged it
> >becomes a meme, and propagates. Not my idea of fun.

>
> I note your scare quotes. They're a bit of a silly thing to put in
> because the United States and other jurisdictions *have* defined
> intellectual property. We can disagree with the implementations as
> they stand, and I think that most modern computer scientists disagree
> with the current implementations. HOWEVER, I think that "theft" is
> still an appropriate word as relates to illicit e-books. You are
> depriving an author of a sale to which they would otherwise be
> entitled and are therefore denying them income to which they are
> entitled.


The term "intellectual property" is more marketing than legalistic
terminology. It is used to encompass patent, copyright, and trademark
laws, which actually relate to three very distinct bodies of law. The
term is misleading, arbitrary in its scope, and not helpful in
presenting a realistic view of what these laws entail. Thus, scare
quotes.

It's amusing to me that you're willing to stipulate, or have even
confirmed for yourself (I don't know if you have), that the US legal
system at least does not in any way connect copyright infringement with
theft -- and yet, you continue to assume that "reasonable" means "will
consider copyright infringement to be theft". It's not. It's not
legally theft, it's not theoretically theft -- it's just popularly
misunderstood by certain lay person demographics to be theft, or
theft-like.

It's *not* an appropriate term, because it's inaccurate, and ignores an
important element of theft (directly depriving the victim of the
rightful possession of a measurable thing subject to natural scarcity).

The author is not "entitled" to a sale: if you don't want to buy it,
you don't have to. I'm not depriving him of a sale if I receive a copy
for free: doing so in no way prevents me from purchasing, and the sale
is not something he possessed anyway. All I am doing is, arguably,
reducing the likelihood of generating some small portion of revenue in
some statistically measured fashion, maybe, in accordance with his
chosen business model.

. . or maybe increasing it.

On the other hand, his business model is predicated upon the assumption
that such behavior running counter to his business model will be
prevented by men with guns.


>
> Like it or not, we *must* have some legal regime for protecting the
> intellectual work and output of people whose skills are best suited
> that direction. That's why there's three different regimes
> (expressions : copyright, inventions : patents, and brands :
> trademarks) although all three regimes have been badly stretched
> beyond what is reasonable and rational into things which provide
> effectively perpetual monopolies without sufficient benefit to society
> in return. It's the lack of benefit to society which is the problem
> here with the current definitions, not the existence of the regimes
> for protecting the intellectual work and output.


I reject your thesis here, because you fail to support it substantively.
You make a claim about benefit to society and what one must or must not
do, and provide no backing for it in evidence or logical necessity.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually
spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game." - Marvin Minsky

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
Just as a point of curiosity for a very slow moving nube, is
http://www.ruby-doc.org/ a good site for finding online free (and not
infringed!) ruby info sources? I'm a little wary of unrecommended sites
- I've been burned a few times. Are their other sites? I'm most
interested in Ruby in particular as a quasi-portable language and not=
as
much in Rails since I only do limited Web Dev and my understanding is
that Rails is primarily meant for that. Also, I am very much interested
in the theory of how to develop with Ruby(best practices? I hate that
term) as opposed to necessarily straight pragmatic use.

Thanks,


Gary Williams

-----Original Message-----
From: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) [(E-Mail Removed)] On Behalf
Of Chad Wilson
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:34 PM
To: (E-Mail Removed)
Subject: Re: free pdf ebook

I found the Poignant Guide difficult to read. I used to be a programmer
many moons ago, but only recently have tried to get back into the swing
of things. I am used to reading technical manuals. The way of
describing things in the Poignant Guide tended to confuse me, rather
than help.

But, I have enjoyed learning Ruby with the Pragmatic Programmer book,=
as
well as the on-line tutorials.

-w

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007

On Mar 23, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> The author is not "entitled" to a sale: if you don't want to buy it,
> you don't have to. I'm not depriving him of a sale if I receive a
> copy
> for free: doing so in no way prevents me from purchasing, and the sale
> is not something he possessed anyway. All I am doing is, arguably,
> reducing the likelihood of generating some small portion of revenue in
> some statistically measured fashion, maybe, in accordance with his
> chosen business model.


I believe you are conflating two separate arguments to try to justify
your point.

No the author is not entitled to a sale.

However, the author _is_ entitled, if they so wish, to ask for
payment when someone takes possession of their book.

Copyright is the basis of the open source movement: it is the claim
of copyright that allows the owner to insist on a particular license:
"I own the copyright, and I'll grant you a license under the
following terms."

Respect for copyright is an essential part of what we all do.

Similarly, the copyright owner of a book has the right to set the
terms under which you use that work.

So, the correct phrasing of your initial sentence would be "I can't
be forced to buy something." But, if the author has made it a
condition that you _do_ buy it before using it, then you really
should buy it before using it.

Earlier, you said you were in favor of free markets. Most economists
believe that property rights is one of the key underpinnings of such
a system: if you have no property rights, you can't transfer that
capital, and you can't use it as collateral when raising funds. de
Soto has a great book on the subject, explaining why weak property
rights cause great inefficiencies in developing economies.

Using copyrighted works and ignoring the terms of use is probably not
theft. But that doesn't make it morally right.


Regards


Dave Thomas

 
Reply With Quote
 
James Britt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
Gary Williams wrote:
> Just as a point of curiosity for a very slow moving nube, is
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/ a good site for finding online free (and not
> infringed!) ruby info sources?


I run ruby-doc.org. To the best of my knowledge, everything hosted on
that site is there with the permission of the owners.


--
James Britt

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little
time to change that here and there."
- Richard P. Feynman

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eivind Eklund
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On 3/23/07, Dave Thomas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Copyright is the basis of the open source movement: it is the claim
> of copyright that allows the owner to insist on a particular license:
> "I own the copyright, and I'll grant you a license under the
> following terms."


Hey, we BSDers also exist. Our "giving away as far as we are able"
variant works quite well. Public domain - which is what happens when
there is no copyright - also seems to work quite well.

Yes, there is a whole host of people that participate in open source
under a "I'll live in fear of being exploited"-mindset, and we would
lose those - at least until they see that things work well anyway.
Still, copyright is not needed for what we do day to day, and there
are many projects that get by well more or less without it (and would
do perfectly without it if there wasn't jurisdictions willing to go
overboard with implied warranties for public domain work.)

Eivind.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick DeNatale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On 3/22/07, Kyle Schmitt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for something.
>
> Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
>
> He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
> Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
> original intent of the post?


C'mon Kyle, how do you read his intent out of the post, or that he
knew full well that it was illegal.

I for one gave, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It' pretty
clear that English is not his native language, and even if it is,
there's nothing in the post where he said that he wanted it for free.

Now if he'd started out saying that he couldn't find it on warez, that
would be a horse of another color.


--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phrogz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
On Mar 23, 2:13 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
[snip]
> there's nothing in the post where he said that he wanted it for free.


*cough*
(points to topic of thread)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good ebook site [For Me]. 6000+ ebook index rebratted C Programming 0 11-11-2007 02:22 PM
Good ebook site [For Me]. 6000+ ebook index rebratted Computer Support 0 11-10-2007 04:48 AM
Good ebook site [For Me]. 6000+ ebook index rebratted Digital Photography 0 11-10-2007 04:47 AM



Advertisments