Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

free pdf ebook

 
 
Rick DeNatale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
Oh well

On 3/23/07, Phrogz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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)
>
>
>



--
Rick DeNatale

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jerry Blanco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2007
My 2 cents:
I bought Agile Web Development, even though I could have downloaded it
for free.
Dave put a lot of hours writting that book and he deserves to be paid
for it. (BTW, great job, Dave!) Pragmatic Bookshelf guys put a lot of
hours publishing it and they deserve to be paid for it too. BTW, no,
I'm not related to PB or Dave in any way.

This whole conversation sounds a bit unrealistic to me. Forget the
whole 'is it theft', 'the law says blahblah', etc.
You go to a cab stop, and say 'I want you to take me to the airport,
but don't feel it's fair for you to charge me'. See what happens.
You go to a cafe and say 'I'll have a coffee but since coffee grows
from the Earth, and we ALL humans are entitled to a part of it, I
won't pay you.' See what happens.
You go to Barnes and Noble and say 'I'll take this book, but since the
ideas contained thereof are not truly ownable by anybody, I won't pay
for it.' See what happens.

How is Dave's book different? Please people, let's forget the 'is it
legal', 'is it moral'... is it logical to rationalize downloading
books and not paying for them? (Please don't answer me. I know where I
stand, I know where you stand, and don't want to be bothered arguing
about this)

If you don't want to pay for your own copy, get it from your library!
You already paid for it through your taxes!

JB.


On 3/23/07, Rick DeNatale <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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/
>
>



--
/(bb|[^b]{2})/ <- The question

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2007
--------------enigD5DAC5B7790A548D5DF73639
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Jerry Blanco, 23.03.2007 21:48:

> Dave put a lot of hours writting that book and he deserves to be paid
> for it. (BTW, great job, Dave!) Pragmatic Bookshelf guys put a lot of
> hours publishing it and they deserve to be paid for it too.


I bought "Free as in Freedom"

> You go to a cab stop, and say 'I want you to take me to the airport,
> but don't feel it's fair for you to charge me'. See what happens.


Nothing sound I suppose.

> You go to a cafe and say 'I'll have a coffee but since coffee grows
>> from the Earth, and we ALL humans are entitled to a part of it, I

> won't pay you.' See what happens.


Coffee is a good example to show that even people wo are nothing but
egoistic can have interest in paying a fair price. Of the money you
pay for the coffee little reaches the people that grow it and the
farmers can hardly survive with what they are paid. If you were one
of them what would you consider to do? Perhaps grow something that
pays a much better price? Especially if it is a plant that has always
been grown in the Region so that you already know how to grow it?
Good idea, isn't it?

Well, the plant I have in mind is Coca, the product that is sold
Cocain. Perhaps it is a good idea to pay the coffee farmers a fair
price than to pay even more than this amount of money for fighting
Coca plantations.

See? Paying a fair price can make sense even if only highly egoistic
interests are considered.

> You go to Barnes and Noble and say 'I'll take this book, but since the
> ideas contained thereof are not truly ownable by anybody, I won't pay
> for it.' See what happens.


Hmm, the only case of a holder of IP where I consider it an ethical
duty not to buy products of is - believe it or not - Disney. Why
this? Disney has much of its production done in Korea. This were not
a problem if it weren't NORTH Korea. To my knowledge Disney is the
largest source of Dollars of the Juche regime. The the payment the
artists obtain is a mere joke. Since the day I know of this I have
not bought one single Disney item. Not even paper towel with Disney
motives on it (although it would have costed less than the paper
towel I bought instead). If I watch Disney movies (I like a number of
them) it is television broadcasts that are broadcast no matter if I
watch them or not. But even this does not necessarily imply to obtain
illegal copies of Disney movies.

In short my personal problem is usally that too little of the money
paid actually reaches the artists.

One side-remark: At least in Germany writing books is rather a hobby
than a job. It is very hard (almost impossible) to make one's living
only of writing books.

The subject is also a question of mentality. A german discounter has
invented the slogan "Geiz ist geil!" which may be translated as
Avarice is cool! but also as "Avarice is lecherous!" ("geil" comes in
both flavors the latter being the original one).

Many Germans seem to love this statement. If you say that avarice is
contemptible and one of the seven deadly sins people may even start
laughing at you.

Well, I also go to cheap discounters but usually not because of the
price. The products I usually buy aren't cheaper there but they are
usually fresher and often have a better quality. As it turned out
they are also less contaminated with pesticides than products sold
elsewhere and in the case of fresh products usually come from the
vincinity (which often is not true for products sold elsewhere).

The world is not at all black and white but full of different shades
of grey. Seems as I am not the first one to observe this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
--=20
Blog available at http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-schugtjo/blog/
PGP key with id 6CC6574F available at http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/


--------------enigD5DAC5B7790A548D5DF73639
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGBG9Trhv7B2zGV08RAh3eAKDg8sxULuKRnrVOBP9YJt LcrGd7mwCfVWTh
CXlEIrzGvSsYEXLelMUDjNA=
=uvWv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigD5DAC5B7790A548D5DF73639--

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex Young
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2007
Jerry Blanco wrote:
> My 2 cents:
> I bought Agile Web Development, even though I could have downloaded it
> for free.
> Dave put a lot of hours writting that book and he deserves to be paid
> for it. (BTW, great job, Dave!) Pragmatic Bookshelf guys put a lot of
> hours publishing it and they deserve to be paid for it too. BTW, no,
> I'm not related to PB or Dave in any way.
>
> This whole conversation sounds a bit unrealistic to me. Forget the
> whole 'is it theft', 'the law says blahblah', etc.
> You go to a cab stop, and say 'I want you to take me to the airport,
> but don't feel it's fair for you to charge me'. See what happens.
> You go to a cafe and say 'I'll have a coffee but since coffee grows
> from the Earth, and we ALL humans are entitled to a part of it, I
> won't pay you.' See what happens.
> You go to Barnes and Noble and say 'I'll take this book, but since the
> ideas contained thereof are not truly ownable by anybody, I won't pay
> for it.' See what happens.
>
> How is Dave's book different? Please people, let's forget the 'is it
> legal', 'is it moral'... is it logical to rationalize downloading
> books and not paying for them? (Please don't answer me. I know where I
> stand, I know where you stand, and don't want to be bothered arguing
> about this)

Excuse me for answering, but I don't believe that you do know where I stand.

I don't think anybody is arguing your point - in fact, I think you're in
violent agreement with most here. Nobody is trying to rationalise
getting something for nothing - that is to entirely miss the point, at
least as I understand it.

While I've only been peripherally following this thread, and so may have
missed something along the way, the main point of those saying "is it
theft?" has been to emphasise the practical and moral difference between
depriving someone of a physical item which they then no longer have
access to, and obtaining without consent something for free which would
otherwise have to be paid for, *without* denying the original owner
access to it. Nobody (that I've seen, other than possibly the thread's
originator) is saying that either is right, or trying to rationalise
either. Conflating the two (as the big media owners like to do) is
overly simplistic and highly emotive for those who understand the
difference, because they understand what can be lost when that viewpoint
becomes entrenched.

My own personal feelings on the matter are that the situation would be
much simpler if copyright was not transferable, but that really *is* a
conversation for another day...

--
Alex

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2007

On Mar 23, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Tim X wrote:

> To try and get things back on topic for the group - one of the
> things that made
> me try out ruby was the availability of accessible material, such
> as the
> pragmatic programmers ruby book etc. I'd be quite willing to pay
> for electronic
> books like this one as long as I can then use it how I want -
> often, this means
> converting it into text or html so that I can access it from my
> preferred
> platform, Linux. The other good thing about getting into ruby is
> that there is
> a wealth of material out there from users, such as blogs, guides
> and tutorials
> that members of the ruby community have made available to anyone
> who wants
> them.



FWIW, our PDFs do not have DRM enabled. All they have is your name
stamped onto the bottom of each page.


Cheers


Dave

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Wright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2007

On Mar 23, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:
> 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.


I doesn't seem to me that Chad's comments are
in contradiction to your points on property rights.

I think he was just pointing out that 'theft' is
a term that has a well defined ethical and legal
meaning with respect to personal property but has
no well-defined ethical or legal meaning with
respect to copyright, trademarks, or patents. It
is true that many people use the term 'theft'
with respect to these concepts but Chad's point is
that it is a usage pattern that obfuscates rather
than clarifies the discussion. At least that is
the sense I got from his postings.

So you can be a strong property rights proponent
and simultaneously insist that copyright infringement
is not 'theft'.

Gary Wright



 
Reply With Quote
 
johwait@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2007
On Mar 25, 11:45 pm, Gary Wright <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> I doesn't seem to me that Chad's comments are
> in contradiction to your points on property rights.
>
> I think he was just pointing out that 'theft' is
> a term that has a well defined ethical and legal
> meaning with respect to personal property but has
> no well-defined ethical or legal meaning with
> respect to copyright, trademarks, or patents. It
> is true that many people use the term 'theft'
> with respect to these concepts but Chad's point is
> that it is a usage pattern that obfuscates rather
> than clarifies the discussion. At least that is
> the sense I got from his postings.
>
> So you can be a strong property rights proponent
> and simultaneously insist that copyright infringement
> is not 'theft'.
>
> Gary Wright

As a follow up to several of the earlier postings, much has been
offered what US copyright is, and how it is observed ex-US. Some of it
was spot on, some of the comments were close but not entirely
accurate. Whether you agree with copyright law or not, here is the FAQ
on copyright from the US copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
on how things actually work today.

Cheers,
John Wait

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ilan Berci
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2007
So far, I got cocaine, enterprise, theft, intellectual, and liquor, all
I need is camel and my bingo card will be complete!

ilan


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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chad Perrin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2007
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:45:08AM +0900, Robert Hicks wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:54 am, Chad Perrin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I still wouldn't go around passing out illegal copies of books, of
> > course. There are other reasons to avoid such behaviors than the
> > strictly ethical, such as professional integrity, et alii.
> >

>
> Wow! So having professionl integrity trumps ethical questions? However
> you want
> to "name" the "act" it is wrong and shouldn't be condoned but
> confronted.


No, professional integrity doesn't trump ethics. I recommend you take a
class in reading comprehension. I don't ignore ethics in favor of
professional integrity: I let professional integrity guide me when it
doesn't prompt me to do something unethical.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chad Perrin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2007
Before I begin . . .

I've been away from my keyboard for several days. I apologize for the
slow response.


On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:01:31AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
>
> 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.


No, I'm not conflating two points. I am, instead, making one point and
avoiding another that would just drag the core discussion way off-topic.

The one point:
Copyright infringement is not theft. The author, whether or not he has
a "right" to control over the copying rights (thus the term "copyright")
of his work, is not "entitled" to a sale -- that would suggest that
people should be forced to buy copies of the work whether they want them
or not. If you're a proponent of strong copyright law, what you're
actually supporting is orthogonal to whether or not there's any "right"
to a sale -- it's a "right" to control over copying rights. In other
words, the holder of a copyright is supposedly entitled to prevent
anyone else from transferring his works, but not entitled to any sales
of copies of those works. It's a fine, but important, distinction in
attempting to draw the line between copyright infringement and theft.


>
> 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."


Actually, copyright isn't the basis of "the open source movement". It's
the basis of the FSF/GPL style of open source licensing, but there are
several other approaches, some of which are effectively unrelated to
copyright law except that they must in some way be declared as exempt
from the standard applicability of copyright in some way, and some of
which rely on copyright law to create an even stronger exemption from
copyright law.

Examples:

Public domain (in US law) is something that must be declared for a new
work. Copyright law is essentially completely irrelevant to the model
of open source software development that involves declaring everything
public domain.

A license that has strong copyleft characteristics (inheritable by
derivative works, et cetera) but is otherwise about as unrestrictive as
public domain (no distribution requirements, no exerting copyright
privileges over the works except for the obvious persuant to the
license) basically uses copyright law to create a "protected public
domain" where works can enter the public domain but not be taken out
(aka, derivative works cannot be subject to normal copyright
restrictions).

Both of these would effectively be unchanged if copyright law were to
evaporate tomorrow, except that nothing in the former of the two
examples would ever be incorporated into proprietary works (because
"proprietary" would cease to have meaning in that sense).


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


While I disagree with that, it's entirely orthogonal to the point I was
making. That is, I disagree ethically and in principle, though
obviously it is necessary to account for copyright in what I do because
it's *the law*.


>
> 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.


If the author is *entitled* to a sale, then I absolutely can be forced
to buy something (ethically), because he's *entitled* to that sale.
Assuming the ethical validity of copyright law for argument's sake, I
absolutely should buy it before I use it if the creator so requires;
you're right about that. This doesn't mean he's entitled to a sale. I
believe you're using the word "entitled" entirely too loosely to be
strictly accurate.


>
> 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.


I believe that property rights are among the key underpinnings of free
markets. I just don't believe that thoughts (even if you have them
because you encountered a physical representation thereof) qualify or,
if they do qualify, they belong to whomever currently has them in his or
her head -- period. Again, that's kind of orthogonal to my point,
though.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the value of copyright and patent law,
as long as you are willing to avoid conflating them with (tangible)
property rights -- at least until you actually provide a convincing
argument that copyright and patent law are, in fact, forms of property
protection equivalent to tangible property rights. Keep in mind that
"convincing" implies that I'm convinced. I'm perfectly willing to be
convinced, but I'm also not a pushover on this subject since I haven't
arrived at my current convictions by chance.


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


Agreed. By the same token, your statement doesn't make it "morally"
wrong.

There's a matter of conflating morality with ethicality, as well, but
that's kind of irrelevant to the meat of the discussion at this point.
Again, my point was simply that violation of copyright and patent law is
not "theft", that nobody is ever "entitled" to a sale of anything
(before a contract is signed at least), and that one should be careful
in how one characterizes copyright violation in discussion.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."

 
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