Neal Alexander wrote:
> soup2nuts wrote:
>> So are there any free ebooks out there for D or is this language still considered to be too new? And if there aren't what's a decent book to pick up, something the covers all the concepts fairly in depth?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590599608?ie=UTF8&tag=thelazpro-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1590599608 

There's also an eBook version available from APress if you prefer that format.  It's a bit cheaper too:

http://apress.com/book/view/1590599608


Sean

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> I do see the problem in the above idealized argument, but the problem is
> that the current situation was created by the very organizations who
> represent content creators like the RIAA and MPAA. They have cultivated
> this culture of disrespect towards the content creators via their
> disrespect towards the users of the content and via their DRM schemes.
> trust and respect goes both ways. This is why in free-software
> communities copy-rights are always respected (via mutual respect and
> trust instead of fear and DRM).

I'm rather proud that my compilers are not, have never, and never will be copy protected, DRM'd, require activation, phone home, nag for registration, etc.

I've been amply rewarded by discovering that my customers are nearly without exception decent, honorable, and nice people. I don't know if that is cause or effect, but it's fine with me either way.

They're still copyrighted, though <g>.

Walter Bright Wrote:
> I've been amply rewarded by discovering that my customers are nearly without exception decent, honorable, and nice people. I don't know if that is cause or effect, but it's fine with me either way.

Hmm, having troubles catching this. Shoot, where's the glossary. Ah there it is, and here are the relevant sections:

'my customers' = Those that have paid me.
'decent, honorable, and nice people' = Paid me.

So what you're saying is, 'Those that have paid me, have paid me'? Sure, makes logical sense I guess, but isn't really much of a statement.

What would really be more interesting, at least as far as I see it, is some mention of how you would know if you had been stolen from. Otherwise, saying anything like that is as hollow as saying, oh, 'Each copy that was purchased was not stolen'. Well, duh. But without something like that, all you are really saying here is, is that you have no idea how much of your stuff is stolen from you. Fair enough if that works for you, but I wouldn't try to claim that every user of your stuff is honest, just based on the fact that all of your paying users paid you. :P

> They're still copyrighted, though <g>.
So, you aren't concerned about people stealing from you on one level, but you are on another? :)

On 2008-05-10 15:25:52 +0200, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> said:

> On Sat, 10 May 2008 06:21:57 +0000, Manfred Nowak wrote:
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm especially surprised people do this in the very forum in which the
>>> authors participate.  Kind of a slap in their face, really.
>> 
>> Some years ago my statement of intent to bind executables to specific
>> hardware was arraigned here.
>> 
>> I wonder how you would call that arraigning, when considering your
>> statement above. For this please observe, that printing a book is also
>> binding some intellectual property to some specific hardware.
>> 
>> Please observe further, that the owners of the website holding the
>> torrent promise to remove torrents for copyrighted files from their
>> website on request of the copyright holder. I believe that no one is
>> allowed to criticize a decision of copyright holders to take no action
>> on beeing informed of a possible copyright breach. Especially is an
>> information on a possible copyright breach no slap in the face of holder
>> of the copyright.
>> 
>> -manfred
> 
> 
> Manfred,
> 
> Once again, my post did not approach the topic of drm or copyright
> holding.  It referred to common courtesy, respect for investment of work
> done under the terms it was completed.  Posting such a link is not
> helpful, useful or respectful to it's authors, unless the authors have
> given express permission to do so.  Even opensource operates under
> similar principles of courtesy.  And indeed, litigation can and may occur
> if the opensource licenses aren't followed.  It that sense even
> opensource "freedom" comes with it's own set of controls.
> 
> I see, though, that the demand for a subjective "freedom" that fits each
> persons ideals, is becoming more the cultural norm.  I sorry to see this
> because it lacks consistancy and respect for a persons contributions.
> 
> -JJR

The original goal of copyright was to support the development of new work.
I fully support and agree with that goal.
I often don't support how the law implements it, but the goal is worthwhile.
With respect to this I found the way the numpy book was distributed interesting (see http://www.tramy.us/), limited time and money.
People that do some work should be compensated for it.
In this case I fully agree that posting such a link just shows disrespect for the work
that the authors have done.

With respect to the way the book is distributed (and it is a good book and I paid for it, and I think it is worth it), I had some reservation to the fact that it is encrypted, I find an approach like the one used by http://www.pragprog.com/ (generate a pdf just for you with written in in each page <This book was generated for xxxx>) much better and even more effective.
Anyway (to my surprise) I didn't have any problem with the encryption, neither on mac not on linux.
I had thought about stripping it immediately, but I still haven't done it.

Fawzi

darrylb wrote:
> What would really be more interesting, at least as far as I see it,
> is some mention of how you would know if you had been stolen from.
> Otherwise, saying anything like that is as hollow as saying, oh,
> 'Each copy that was purchased was not stolen'. Well, duh. But without
> something like that, all you are really saying here is, is that you
> have no idea how much of your stuff is stolen from you. Fair enough
> if that works for you, but I wouldn't try to claim that every user of
> your stuff is honest, just based on the fact that all of your paying
> users paid you. :P

I've never encountered indications of widespread illegal copying of it.


>> They're still copyrighted, though <g>.
> So, you aren't concerned about people stealing from you on one level,
> but you are on another? :)

If you treat people with respect and honor, they'll respond in kind.

I've bought products where the maker treats me like a criminal. It always leaves me with a sour taste and a poor impression of that company. I don't believe that bodes well for the long term success of it.

Fawzi Mohamed wrote:

> With respect to the way the book is distributed (and it is a good book
> and I paid for it, and I think it is worth it), I had some reservation
> to the fact that it is encrypted, I find an approach like the one used
> by http://www.pragprog.com/ (generate a pdf just for you with written
> in in each page <This book was generated for xxxx>) much better and
> even more effective.
> Anyway (to my surprise) I didn't have any problem with the encryption,
> neither on mac not on linux.
> I had thought about stripping it immediately, but I still haven't done it.

I suppose the simple password on the ebook can be considered DRM in some fashion, but kwallet on KDE/linux remembers it for me, and so I only had to write it the first time (and I personally think that would be a descent thinkg of any PDF reader to do).

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
> 
>> With respect to the way the book is distributed (and it is a good book
>> and I paid for it, and I think it is worth it), I had some reservation
>> to the fact that it is encrypted, I find an approach like the one used
>> by http://www.pragprog.com/ (generate a pdf just for you with written
>> in in each page <This book was generated for xxxx>) much better and
>> even more effective.
>> Anyway (to my surprise) I didn't have any problem with the encryption,
>> neither on mac not on linux.
>> I had thought about stripping it immediately, but I still haven't done it.
> 
> I suppose the simple password on the ebook can be considered DRM in some
> fashion, but kwallet on KDE/linux remembers it for me, and so I only had to
> write it the first time (and I personally think that would be a descent
> thinkg of any PDF reader to do). 

Acrobat reader does not, so I resorted to removing the password.  It seems a rather silly form of DRM anyway.  A pirate only needs distribute the password with the file to circumvent it.

--bb

The world is a changing and changed place

When I wanted to know something I went to a library and looked it up and / or borrowed the book. I was not supposed to copy what I needed but I did , that was why I went to get it.

Everybody did . When I could afford to buy my own reference books I only bought what I had to and still used the Library where I could.

This saved the trees. Now the library is linked to my home and there are many more Libraries and paper copies are less needed and will become cherished antiques . This will save more trees and thats good because they really are what keeps us alive by making oxygen and consuming carbon dioxide.

The typed word on the Internet is public as soon as its typed. Trying to hang on to a conceived right to own those words or that knowledge is flawed by this new fact above.
Layers will try to maintain it but it will not be enforceable until all countries in the world agree to accept that copyright should exist.

This world wide agreement will never happen. Because one race will never trust another race nor respect its views it cant happen . Like religious fervour every religion believes it is irrefutably right . Every race believes this and every country will want something different .

So in my opinion what has to happen needs to happen at the time the words are typed , ie lodge your book with a restricted site ,the publisher , who pays you there and then . A one time fee as agreed . he publisher distributes the book and takes the risks ,because once another person has purchased the book and downloaded it , it becomes their property.

You can try to hang onto a right but it will be doomed to fail
The writers must accept now that the days of making big money writing and living of the royalties died when consumers became international . The Internet is just one aspect of that. Take China with the CD's right now

Hello Walter,

> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 
>> I do see the problem in the above idealized argument, but the problem
>> is that the current situation was created by the very organizations
>> who represent content creators like the RIAA and MPAA. They have
>> cultivated this culture of disrespect towards the content creators
>> via their disrespect towards the users of the content and via their
>> DRM schemes. trust and respect goes both ways. This is why in
>> free-software communities copy-rights are always respected (via
>> mutual respect and trust instead of fear and DRM).
>> 
> I'm rather proud that my compilers are not, have never, and never will
> be copy protected, DRM'd, require activation, phone home, nag for
> registration, etc.
> 
> I've been amply rewarded by discovering that my customers are nearly
> without exception decent, honorable, and nice people. I don't know if
> that is cause or effect, but it's fine with me either way.
> 
> They're still copyrighted, though <g>.
> 


Yes, clearly it is unwise to protect a product excessively with the assumption that all your customers are criminals.  Doing so speaks volumes; and in the end, copy protection schemes probably do little to prevent pirating.  If they actually manage some effectiveness, my guess is that the expense involved in adopting the anti-pirating scheme might be counteract the profits in the the long run (combine that with mounting customer frustration, and the strategy is possibly worse... it could mean loss of customer base).  It's the same with all controls that are unable to be enforced. 

BUT, the fact that a company uses or doesn't use a copy protection scheme, may or may not mean they trust their customers more or less.  In actual fact, it may just be another marketing move to make their customers feel good about themselves and the company to spin a reason to the Board why it isn't going to implement any form of anti-piracy protection in it's software (could be a very good reason).  Not to say that's what you do... I'm just saying that doing so doesn't necessarily make customer or company respectable.  Such respectability could quite easily be destroyed by some other poor customer/company relationship.  Respectability, I'm guessing, is more related to a consistant track record of conscientiousness, politeness, responsiveness, and honesty on the companies part.  But doing all that does not guarantee "decent, honorable, and nice" customers (or company).  That's really just a fantasy.

Now, that's not what we're talking about here.  Here we are wondering why the D newsgroup needs to be used as a medium for spreading and encouraging illegal copies of material -- that's reflects an aspect of honesty in this newsgroup.  We are not analyzing Google here and why it's so easy to find illegal content by using that search engine.  We are talking about this newsgroup... which, I hope, most of us want to keep respectable.  If this newsgroup wants to be respectable, it has to act so.  If it doesn't act so, it should be encouraged to act so.  If it can't be encouraged to act so, perhaps it should be enforced to act so.  If no one enforces this, then we invite problems as people with no respect (yes, they do exist!) push the limits to test how far they can go.

The fact that this newsgroup seems to allow freedoms that trample out other's freedoms (in the name of free speech -- see extreme racism in other posts) shows that there is more than a little contradiction going on here about what free speech means.  The line always has to be drawn somewhere.  By now it should be obvious that people will not always /choose/ to be respectable and honorable /even/ if you treat them so... assuming that they will does not make problems go away. So there will always be a time where a person has to step in and say "no".  If we consistantly choose to overlook problems like this, then we are asking to be plagued by much worse ones down the road.

There is no need for dictatorial intervention if these things are just simply delt with immediately.  This would be seen as simple policy in any other company that cared about it's image.

-JJR

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 
>> The torrent by itself should not be illegal.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> A torrent is a machine made and machine readable citation of _some_ source. Without the content of the _original_ source a torrent would be meaningless. Therefore a torrent is purely mechanical "derived work" and _should_ require the same treatment as the original source.
> 
> 
>> Had I downloaded the book via the above torrent and than sent a paycheck to the authors, would I still be violating the copyright?
> 
> You _should_ be violating the copyright, because the content of the book is not licensed on a "try before you buy" basis "without the prior written permission".
> 
> 
>> (which they could do simply because they prefer this method of
>> downloading).
> 
> In some countries this might be called "gross negligence".
> 
> -manfred

Do all the books in the library have a copyright that specifically allows a "try before you buy" basis "without the prior written permission", as you say? of course not.

Let me ask you my question again (slightly differently):
Had I sent a paycheck to the authors and then downloaded the book via
the above torrent, would I still be violating the copyright?

I prefer JJR's notion of common courtesy. I only disagree that being respectful means avoid mentioning this torrent [that was the first result in google it seems]. I agree with JJR that we should respect the creators, only my view point is that as long as I've paid the authors it shouldn't matter that much if I used the torrent link or downloaded via the official site.

--Yigal