Hacker News Reader

Comment by DrCatbox | Hacker News Reader

Somebody is mad about their book being read. Cry me a river. If you didnt want your book to be "stolen" then dont write it. You, as author, will not control what I read, how I read and where. So yes, I am gonna "steal" that book from you, just to steal from you, and then delete it from my computer. Its probably not worthy of being read anyway.

And furthermore, nobody is sharing your book illegally, they are sharing a digital copy of your book as a data-file, which is very quite different from a real book. You cant hold it you see, you cant smell it, you cant borrow it to your friend, only make another copy.

View on HN

"If you didnt want your book to be "stolen" then dont write it."

If you didnt want you car to be "stolen" then dont buy it.

If you didnt want you wife to be "raped" then dont get one.

If you didnt want you computer to be "hacked" then dont have one.

Very compelling argument.

A substantial difference between "a car" and "a file on a computer". One main difference is that one actually can steal a car: if I steal a car, I possess it, and the owner does not possess it. He or she can no longer use the car, while I can.

The book in question exists as a file on a computer. If I copy that file, then the owner is not deprived of the use of the file: he or she still possesses it, and can still use it. That's not theft in any traditional sense.

The other raping and pillaging scenarios are equally nonsensical, pretty much on the same logical grounds. Please try a new argument next time.

If the owner of the file makes his living by selling copies of the works he created, taking a copy and putting it on the web (where they can be had for free) reduces the value of his works. In other words, the owner is deprived of the use of his works because you've diluted their value.

The argument that "you still have the original so you are undamaged" is false. If the startup you work for dilutes your 5%=100shares of equity down to 0.0001% and the value of your stock is reduced to near zero, I can asure you, you won't feel comforted by the fact that you still have 100 shares.

Shares are different: they're like money, they represent value. A copy is a copy. Humans copy: that's how we made technological progress. Someone didn't invent agriculture while out on a hunt and then coast for the rest of his/her natural life on the "intellectual property" and then have his/her descendants coast on the proceeds. People copied what they saw that worked. Copying is how humans make progress, trying to stop or inhibit that is going to warp society beyond belief.

> they are sharing a digital copy of your book as a data-file, which is very quite different from a real book. You cant hold it you see, you cant smell it, you cant borrow it to your friend, only make another copy.

You can read it, yes?

I'm among the first to complain when people conflate "make a digital copy of" and "steal". However, you're going to the opposite extreme - pretending that because it's digital, it has none of the qualities of the original book. You're omitting quite a bit - he (and perhaps his editor) wrote every word in it, chose every image, researched the technology, and typeset the whole thing. Just because it ended up as both a PDF and a printed copy does not diminish the author's labor.

(It certainly diminishes the printer's labor, which is why we raise a stink when printed copies are cheaper than electronic ones.)

But you're hurting the entire ecosystem if you tell authors "stop writing if you don't like it". There's a middle ground somewhere.

Yes I can read it.

The argument I was trying to make is to bring attention to the difference between a file and a book, they are different beasts, sure you can read them, but its not the same thiing to read a book and to read from a computer screen or kindle. Its just not the same.

The author has no right decide how I am going to read the book. Its the redistribution which he holds a right to. Lets take the discussion to what form of distribution copyright should apply to. Lets discuss who can decide when to read and how to read a text. Who has the right and who has copyright?

Its not just so simple, oh hey copyright, do as I almighty author say. Where is the consumer-rights in all this debate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com