John Reimer wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
>> Hmm.  So maybe it's a case of a slightly misguided D enthusiast just
>> trying to be helpful, rather than a malicious attempt to hurt sales of
>> the Tango crew's book.  If so then presumably Mr. Ivasyuv will take down
>> the link when he realizes the fuss it's causing.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> 
> That would be the non-confrontional way of looking at it. 
> 
> But then it still doesn't explain why he would respond to Mike's thread by
> posting this link. It's almost like saying:  "Don't mind Mike's offer;
> here's the real deal without the bother or the price".  Hmm... yes, maybe
> that's considered helpful in some places. :P

Someone tried to be just as 'helpful' in a blog comment when I first posted about the contest a few days ago. I emailed him after I deleted the comment and he was quite friendly in his reply. I suppose some people just view the world through different (copyright-filtering) glasses.

Mike Parker wrote:

> John Reimer wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> 
>>> Hmm.  So maybe it's a case of a slightly misguided D enthusiast just trying to be helpful, rather than a malicious attempt to hurt sales of the Tango crew's book.  If so then presumably Mr. Ivasyuv will take down the link when he realizes the fuss it's causing.
>>>
>>> --bb
>> 
>> 
>> That would be the non-confrontional way of looking at it.
>> 
>> But then it still doesn't explain why he would respond to Mike's thread
>> by
>> posting this link. It's almost like saying:  "Don't mind Mike's offer;
>> here's the real deal without the bother or the price".  Hmm... yes, maybe
>> that's considered helpful in some places. :P
> 
> Someone tried to be just as 'helpful' in a blog comment when I first posted about the contest a few days ago. I emailed him after I deleted the comment and he was quite friendly in his reply. I suppose some people just view the world through different (copyright-filtering) glasses.


Yes, that philosophy of taking before it's given does pervade some cultures
(in some places, it used to be called "stealing")... such redefinition
of "liberty" does little good to encourage good workmanship. But the
concept seems to have disappeared in some parts of the world.

I am all for sharing hard work with others, but it's much better when the that creation is given of freewill... not forcefully taken.  The former creates a community of trust and appreciation, and the latter (can engender) resentment and frustration, combined with a loss of economy and motivation.

The fact that you authors are donating the earnings on this book to the Tango project has been an example of freewill contribution of sorts.  I think that should stand as a good testimony of your intentions.  No one should demand more.  This isn't just about copyright... this also about respect and appreciation of another's hard work.

-JJR

Mike Parker wrote:
> If you'd like a chance to *legally* get your hands on a free electronic copy of Learn to Tango with D, head on over to The One With D and enter the contest. All you need to do is post a comment on this post:
> 
> http://dblog.aldacron.net/2008/01/19/learn-to-tango-with-d-contest/
> 
> Follow the rules outlined there and you'll be eligible. Good luck :)

Thanks, Mike. I posted my comment :)

John Reimer wrote:
> Yes, that philosophy of taking before it's given does pervade some cultures
> (in some places, it used to be called "stealing")... such redefinition
> of "liberty" does little good to encourage good workmanship.

And such redefinition of "stealing" does little to help your point
in my eyes. I can actually sympathize with the Tango team; nobody likes having
his copyright infringed. But that's all that it is, infringement, and every
time you call it stealing a little part of the English language withers and dies.

Stealing is defined as taking something without its owner's consent. The point
of this is that after it was taken, the original owner *doesn't have it any more*.

Copyright infringement is the copying of something without the copyright holder's consent, the difference being that the copyright holder doesn't lose it.

So it's not stealing.

The Copyright Lobby would very much like to redefine copyright infringement as stealing, because, well, "copyright infringement" doesn't sound very criminal and "pirates" actually sounds cool :)

But that's purely a PR tactic - copyright infringement has, and never had, anything to do with "stealing".

People have argued that every time you infringe the copyright of a commercial product, you "steal" a sale from the copyright holders.

I put "steal" in quotes because it is very much in question if you can steal an immaterial concept that hasn't even occured yet.

Nothing wrong with arguing against copyright infringement, but please call it by its proper name.

 --downs

downs wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Yes, that philosophy of taking before it's given does pervade some cultures
>> (in some places, it used to be called "stealing")... such redefinition
>> of "liberty" does little good to encourage good workmanship.
> 
> And such redefinition of "stealing" does little to help your point
> in my eyes. I can actually sympathize with the Tango team; nobody likes having
> his copyright infringed. But that's all that it is, infringement, and every
> time you call it stealing a little part of the English language withers and dies.
> 
> Stealing is defined as taking something without its owner's consent. The point
> of this is that after it was taken, the original owner *doesn't have it any more*.
> 
> Copyright infringement is the copying of something without the copyright holder's
> consent, the difference being that the copyright holder doesn't lose it.
> 
> So it's not stealing.
> 
> The Copyright Lobby would very much like to redefine copyright infringement as
> stealing, because, well, "copyright infringement" doesn't sound very criminal
> and "pirates" actually sounds cool :)
> 
> But that's purely a PR tactic - copyright infringement has, and never had,
> anything to do with "stealing".
> 
> People have argued that every time you infringe the copyright of a commercial
> product, you "steal" a sale from the copyright holders.
> 
> I put "steal" in quotes because it is very much in question if you can steal an
> immaterial concept that hasn't even occured yet.
> 
> Nothing wrong with arguing against copyright infringement, but please call it
> by its proper name.
> 
>  --downs


downs, you assume too much. :) If I say "steal", it's likely that I'm referring to actual property loss: in this case, assets lost as a result of loss sales... which classifies as a loss of property.

I'm not referring to copyright infringement (I never even mentioned that), which I'm sure could be debated with many arguments from both sides. Nor would I like to enter such a debate. My mind works a lot simpler than that. :)

-JJR