Forum: Ruby free pdf ebook

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
093f483efe2bb542fb958a9644084841?d=identicon&s=25 hazal (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 16:47
Hello everybody,

i start to learn Ruby . i NEED

 "sams teach yourself RUBY in 21 days"  book.

can you give me any link to get it by downloading pdf format.

thank you
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 16:54
(Received via mailing list)
hazal wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> i start to learn Ruby . i NEED
>
>  "sams teach yourself RUBY in 21 days"  book.
>
> can you give me any link to get it by downloading pdf format.
>
> thank you
>
http://www.ebookmall.com/ebooks/sams-teach-yoursel...

Not free, though, and found after a quick Google query.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #48:

The number of items on a project's to-do list always grows or remains
constant.
9dec3df8319c613f6f4f14a27da0fdb4?d=identicon&s=25 Kyle Schmitt (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 16:57
(Received via mailing list)
Umm. No.
No.
And may I repeat no.
Someone wrote that and decided not to release it for free.  That's a
valid choice, and should be respected and supported.  Your lack of
will, or funds, to get the legal version of the book don't matter.

Now all that aside, you can learn ruby very nicely from the pragmatic
programmers guide (available legally, for free, online), and the
poignent guide to ruby (also available, legally, for free).

Use google. It's your friend.  It will find those guides for you, and
also find plenty of good examples.

And don't ask people to participate in theft like that.

--Kyle
Bb6ecee0238ef2461bef3416722b35c5?d=identicon&s=25 pat eyler (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 16:58
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/22/07, hazal <niyazi.ates@superonline.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> i start to learn Ruby . i NEED
>
>  "sams teach yourself RUBY in 21 days"  book.
>
> can you give me any link to get it by downloading pdf format.

1) this book is not available under a legitimate free download
2) this book is dated, and other books would make a better purchase.
3cb4fdcf13aad6a7dcae83876b0e784e?d=identicon&s=25 Josef 'Jupp' Schugt (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 17:41
(Received via mailing list)
* Kyle Schmitt, 22.03.2007 16:56:
> And don't ask people to participate in theft like that.

I'd suggest not to use the term "theft" in this context because for
example in Germany to commit a theft ("Diebstahl") you need to take
away something physical (and movable) from someone else. This does
not mean that in Germany it is no crime to download the book but only
means that downloading it is a different kind of crime. I'd suggest
simply writing it "unethical and illegal acts like that".

Besides this I would suggest printed works because the have an
indisputable advantage compared to PDFs: You can read them without
displaying them on a computer. This means

a) You can read them where using a computer (not even a laptop) is
   not a good idea.
b) You can have the book on your desktop and not covering valuable
   room on you screen.

Suggestions for books:

 - "Programming Ruby" von Dave Thomas et al.

 - "Ruby Cookbook" by Carlson & Richardson

If you are into Rails perhaps also

 - "Agile Web Development with Rails" by Hansson

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
9dec3df8319c613f6f4f14a27da0fdb4?d=identicon&s=25 Kyle Schmitt (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 17:49
(Received via mailing list)
Really?  What type of crime is it.  Completely off topic, but it's
interesting.
A777f1a2049d78a12ead38efb8f75f97?d=identicon&s=25 Tanner Burson (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 18:07
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/22/07, Kyle Schmitt <kyleaschmitt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Really?  What type of crime is it.  Completely off topic, but it's
> interesting.


The same kind of crime it is in the United States I imagine, civil
copyright
infringement.  This is getting way OT, but google for essays by Lawrence
Lessig for a lot more information on the differences between theft and
copyright infringement.
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 18:09
(Received via mailing list)
Kyle Schmitt wrote:
> Really?  What type of crime is it.  Completely off topic, but it's
> interesting.

Actually, it's theft, too, just not in the shoplifting-sense.

The German term would be "Urheberrechtsverletzung" (copyright
infringement): unlicensed, and not explicitly exempt by law (§ 53 UrhG),
copying and distribution of a copyrighted work, and / or usage of such a
work.

This is covered in § 106 UrhG (Urheberrechtsgesetz: Copyright law).

Disclaimer: IANAL.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #15:

If you like it, let the author know. If you hate it, let the author
know why.
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 18:11
(Received via mailing list)
Tanner Burson wrote:
> copyright infringement.
No, it can land you in a criminal court, additional to the civil branch
of the justice system.

(Yes, our RIAA and MPAA equivalents have gone crazy, too)

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #15:

If you like it, let the author know. If you hate it, let the author
know why.
E697493c55c095a375a66f53d633f06d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Wilson (caeman)
on 2007-03-22 18:33
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
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 18:40
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:40:35AM +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> * Kyle Schmitt, 22.03.2007 16:56:
> > And don't ask people to participate in theft like that.
>
> I'd suggest not to use the term "theft" in this context because for
> example in Germany to commit a theft ("Diebstahl") you need to take
> away something physical (and movable) from someone else. This does
> not mean that in Germany it is no crime to download the book but only
> means that downloading it is a different kind of crime. I'd suggest
> simply writing it "unethical and illegal acts like that".

It's not "theft" in the United States, either.  It's "copyright
infringement".  The law recognizes a distinct difference between "theft"
(depriving someone of something by taking it) and "infringement"
(violating a legally granted monopolistic privilege).

The book isn't closed on the subject of copyright infringement being
ethical, either.  Let's just stick with calling it "infringement" or an
"illegal" act, and avoid the controversy -- unless you really want to
hear my views on a logically consistent system of ethics derived from
first principles as it relates to the concept of "intellectual
property".
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 18:42
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:09:26AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> >Lessig for a lot more information on the differences between theft and
> >copyright infringement.
>
>
> No, it can land you in a criminal court, additional to the civil branch
> of the justice system.
>
> (Yes, our RIAA and MPAA equivalents have gone crazy, too)

In the US, you can end up in criminal court for activities related to
infringement, but not for the infringement itself.  The terms of the
DMCA, for instance, can land you in criminal court for certain types of
circumvention of so-called "security" measures that were deemed at the
time (by a bunch of technically deficient legislators) to be indivisible
from copyright infringement.

It's getting pretty thick on Capitol Hill.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 18:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:07:59AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> Kyle Schmitt wrote:
> >Really?  What type of crime is it.  Completely off topic, but it's
> >interesting.
>
> Actually, it's theft, too, just not in the shoplifting-sense.

The fact that it's illegal does not make it "theft".
9dec3df8319c613f6f4f14a27da0fdb4?d=identicon&s=25 Kyle Schmitt (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 19:19
(Received via mailing list)
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?

--Kyle
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 19:31
(Received via mailing list)
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:07:59AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>> Kyle Schmitt wrote:
>>> Really?  What type of crime is it.  Completely off topic, but it's
>>> interesting.
>> Actually, it's theft, too, just not in the shoplifting-sense.
>
> The fact that it's illegal does not make it "theft".
>
The law handles it similar to a theft, over here. And it is a *kind* of
theft in any case (loss of revenue, for example, and I know stuff like
that doesn't translate into automatic loss of revenue!).

Still, I placed the IANAL, disclaimer, and I'm expressing difficult
stuff in layman's terms,  from a layman's perspective to boot.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #20:

Open Code != Good Code
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 19:32
(Received via mailing list)
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.


--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #7:

Release early, release often. Clean compilation is optional.
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 19:38
(Received via mailing list)
Chad Wilson wrote:
> 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.

I found that I could understand _why's peculiar stile after I already
had somewhat adjusted to the Ruby culture in general.

The nice thing is, that there are many tutorials out there, that even I
can understand. Something, I found distinctly lacking in the so-called
enterprise-level languages like C/++ or Java.

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

And the Pickaxe is a very good reference, too. I tend to look into it
first, before consulting *ri.

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #20:

Open Code != Good Code
31ab75f7ddda241830659630746cdd3a?d=identicon&s=25 Austin Ziegler (austin)
on 2007-03-22 19:39
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/22/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

-austin
Ad7805c9fcc1f13efc6ed11251a6c4d2?d=identicon&s=25 Alex Young (regularfry)
on 2007-03-22 19:40
(Received via mailing list)
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.
Do we let people get away with mixing up Ruby with Rails?  Static with
strict typing?  Relational databases with SQL?  Just because a mistake
is commonly made doesn't make it any less a mistake.

> 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?
My take is that the disapproval was taken as read, and didn't need any
further embellishment.  Besides, the nuances of international copyright
law are far more interesting than a crude breach of community etiquette
:-)
Ac0085dae0703db56ad7f8cb9e1798ba?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip Gawlowski (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 19:55
(Received via mailing list)
Austin Ziegler wrote:

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

Probably closer to "ICBM, and I'm not afraid to use it!", rather than
power plant..

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski

Rule of Open-Source Programming #9:

Give me refactoring or give me death!
Ce8b03e5750097942c58e12b46724312?d=identicon&s=25 Giles Bowkett (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 20:24
(Received via mailing list)
The first edition of Programming Ruby is available free, extremely
good, very popular, and easy to find. The Sams book isn't free, is
obviously hard to find, and very probably sucks. Stealing Sams when
you can get Programming Ruby for free is like holding up a liquor
store when you already have a great job.
Ae16cb4f6d78e485b04ce1e821592ae5?d=identicon&s=25 Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2007-03-22 20:39
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/23/07, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:
> The first edition of Programming Ruby is available free, extremely
> good, very popular, and easy to find. The Sams book isn't free, is
> obviously hard to find, and very probably sucks. Stealing Sams when
> you can get Programming Ruby for free is like holding up a liquor
> store when you already have a great job.

Actually, reviews of the Sams book that I've seen have been uniformly
enthusisatic.

martin
33ec7e55a251c1be8d6febfd929aebbe?d=identicon&s=25 Greg Kujawa (gregarican)
on 2007-03-22 21:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 22, 3:37 pm, "Martin DeMello" <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> martin

Back when it first came out I used the Sams book and found it to be a
great intro to Ruby. Even after moving on to The Ruby Way, Programming
Ruby, and others I still look back on the Sams book as an effective
intro. A lot of the other languages that Sams books cover fall into
that realm too. Without exhaustive technical details the Sams Teach
Yourself Ruby book splits up the basic syntax and concepts into easy
to digest portions.
0ab6a5abab167b409f58d280dc59a229?d=identicon&s=25 Faisal N Jawdat (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 00:28
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> In the US, you can end up in criminal court for activities related
> to infringement, but not for the infringement itself.

IANAL, but I believe that is not the case, at least on a Federal level:

Prior to 1997, it was illegal to crime to commit copyright
infringement for commercial or financial gain.  The 1997 No
Electronic Theft Act makes it illegal to willfully infringe a
copyright (over a fairly minimal threshold) _without_ commercial
advantage or financial gain.  Possible penalties include fines and
jail time.

Details here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm

Again, I am not a lawyer.

-faisal
-<http://www.sapphiresteel.com/The-Little-Book-Of-Ruby>
-<http://www.infoq.com/minibooks/ruby>
6c86b3a65cdad42cf725805ca5bfd292?d=identicon&s=25 kaushik jha (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 06:41
(Received via mailing list)
you can download it from http://www.pdfchm.com
where you have to create an account then you can download it
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 06:55
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:18:40AM +0900, 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?

I think the problem is that by using the term "theft" you're assuming
not only an inaccurate premise, but also an ethical premise that many
people aren't prepared to stipulate.  It's like calling a nice juicy
steak "murder"; many people who like juicy steaks would argue with that.

I, for one dispute the notion that there's anything ethically sacred
about copyright law.  Copyright is, by definition and according to the
letters of some of the men who provided for it in the US Constitution, a
temporary monopoly granted and enforced by governmental fiat, not a
natural right.  That's why copyright is infringed, not violated or
stolen.

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.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 07:00
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:36:35AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >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.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 07:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:40:26AM +0900, Alex Young wrote:
>
> My take is that the disapproval was taken as read, and didn't need any
> further embellishment.  Besides, the nuances of international copyright
> law are far more interesting than a crude breach of community etiquette :-)

I tend to agree with that statement.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 07:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:30:19AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> theft in any case (loss of revenue, for example, and I know stuff like
> that doesn't translate into automatic loss of revenue!).

This is where my objection to the notion starts to stray into the area
of economic policy and larger political issues.

Assuming someone has a right to revenues, or at least a right to deny
revenues to others due to some kind of creative imprimatur, combines
aspects of fascism and socialism (both of which I find particularly
odious).  I'm more of a free market capitalist -- you don't have a right
to a revenue stream.  You only have a right to pursue revenue.  If you
fail to get it, the fact you have a crappy business model is not *my*
fault.


>
> Still, I placed the IANAL, disclaimer, and I'm expressing difficult
> stuff in layman's terms,  from a layman's perspective to boot.

IANAL, either.  So it goes.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 07:06
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:27:04AM +0900, Faisal N Jawdat wrote:
> advantage or financial gain.  Possible penalties include fines and
> jail time.
>
> Details here:
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm
>
> Again, I am not a lawyer.

Alas, I don't have time to read that right now.  I'll get to it later.
For now, I'll just stipulate that your statement is correct as
presented, and say "Wow, I wasn't aware of that bit.  Thank you for the
information."
1c0cd550766a3ee3e4a9c495926e4603?d=identicon&s=25 John Joyce (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 12:16
(Received via mailing list)
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.
31ab75f7ddda241830659630746cdd3a?d=identicon&s=25 Austin Ziegler (austin)
on 2007-03-23 13:17
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/23/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> 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.

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.

-austin
A6d3a37b5badfdd2f47655aa0e46604e?d=identicon&s=25 Eivind Eklund (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 14:07
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/23/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> 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.
Cd27ee83f652ed2988065df79a8c3fa2?d=identicon&s=25 johwait@gmail.com (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 15:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 23, 2:00 am, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > >> original intent of the post?
> the side of counting it as "theft", I find that simply distinguishing
>
> - 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/product.asp?isbn...
http://www.informit.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn...

and the second edition of Hal Fulton's book is available as a PDF:
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=91-978...

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
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 15:50
(Received via mailing list)
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.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 16:00
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:17:13PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >generally come up with between ignoring the subject because it's
> 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.


> 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.
116f45b21376abb015fdebf89916769f?d=identicon&s=25 Gary Williams (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 16:29
(Received via mailing list)
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
5d06917e13b29bcff1c1609492c06873?d=identicon&s=25 Dave Thomas (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 17:02
(Received via mailing list)
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
Ff9e18f0699bf079f1fc91c8d4506438?d=identicon&s=25 James Britt (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 17:27
(Received via mailing list)
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
A6d3a37b5badfdd2f47655aa0e46604e?d=identicon&s=25 Eivind Eklund (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 18:19
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/23/07, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> 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.
8f6f95c4bd64d5f10dfddfdcd03c19d6?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Denatale (rdenatale)
on 2007-03-23 21:14
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/22/07, Kyle Schmitt <kyleaschmitt@gmail.com> 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/
852a62a28f1de229dc861ce903b07a60?d=identicon&s=25 Gavin Kistner (phrogz)
on 2007-03-23 21:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 23, 2:13 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> there's nothing in the post where he said that he wanted it for free.

*cough*
(points to topic of thread)
8f6f95c4bd64d5f10dfddfdcd03c19d6?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Denatale (rdenatale)
on 2007-03-23 21:48
(Received via mailing list)
Oh well

On 3/23/07, Phrogz <gavin@refinery.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2:13 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> 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/
28d387417e63282250381cd389bd9386?d=identicon&s=25 Jerry Blanco (Guest)
on 2007-03-23 21:51
(Received via mailing list)
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.
8ae46ae3170a36a0f79ea109ef0ee2e7?d=identicon&s=25 Tim X (Guest)
on 2007-03-24 00:56
(Received via mailing list)
Thought I'd like to drop another issue in this thread which is often
missed.

I absolutely love electronic versions of books - in fact, they are
critical to
me being able to stay up to speed within my profession and allow me
access to
lots of information I wouldn't normally have. This is because I'm a
blind
programmer and printed books are simply not accessible.

However, I am somewhat frustrated and annoyed with corporate attitudes
and
the way things are getting twisted and turned around in this area.
Copyright
has changed from being protection for the author against their work
being
'stolen' and claimed by others or even to ensure a resonable
compensation for
their effort to government sanctioned protection for corporations and
protection of their market. Furthermore, it has an underlying assumption
that
we are all immoral untrustworthy individuals who must be forced by
legislation
into doing the "right thing". A premise which I reject.

The unfortunate consequence of this and the growing use of DRM means
that users
like me are actually losing access to material. Commercial screen reader
manufacturers are having trouble keeping up with all the DRM mechanisms.
As a
result, the cost of producing such software is increasing and the need
to
upgrade often (at a cost) is increasing. There are no good open source
solutions available because you can't get access to the DRM scheme
internals
unless you pay and even then, you couldn't include it in the source
because of
nondisclosure issues and you cannot reverse engineer it without running
the
risk of being sued etc.

Worse stil is the fact that if I want to access all this potentially
wonderful
electronic information, I have to use Windows because this is really the
only
platform with good quality commercial screen readers that will work well
with
things like Adobe or other DRM enabled readers (there are many you
cannot use
even then). Essentially, I lose my choice on what platform I wish to use
and
I'm restricted to using expensive commercial software (and screen reader
software is expensive because of the limited market and high
maintenance/development costs).

Things are getting worse. Universities are now beginning to increasingly
talk
about intelectual property and the need to use DRM for the material they
produce. This will make access to educational material even more
difficult for
anyone with vision impairment. This is particularly unfortunate for many
who
are vision impaired because it is often in areas of intellectual
pursuits that
we can compete on a level playing field, provided we can access the
learning materials.

then of course there is the broader question. If I purchase material
that uses
a particular DRM scheme and that scheme gets depricated over time and
replaced
by newer schemes, what responsability does the retailer have to ensure I
can
still access the original material I purchased X years ago? Obviously,
this
issue doesn't occur with printed books. However, with electronic books,
it is
an issue.

All of this aside, the bit that irks me the most is the underlying
assumption
implicit in all of this DRM that I'm essentially an immoral individual
with a
flawed character and I have to be controlled by legislation and
technology to
protect the revenue of a company. A company which must be using a flawed
business model if
they cannot succeed without such protection. The salt is rubbed in
further by
the fact its likely I still won't be able to access the material even
when I do
pay for it.

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.

Tim
3cb4fdcf13aad6a7dcae83876b0e784e?d=identicon&s=25 Josef 'Jupp' Schugt (Guest)
on 2007-03-24 01:23
(Received via mailing list)
* 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
Ad7805c9fcc1f13efc6ed11251a6c4d2?d=identicon&s=25 Alex Young (regularfry)
on 2007-03-24 12:17
(Received via mailing list)
Jerry Blanco wrote:
> You go to a cab stop, and say 'I want you to take me to the airport,
> 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...
5d06917e13b29bcff1c1609492c06873?d=identicon&s=25 Dave Thomas (Guest)
on 2007-03-24 15:06
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 23, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Tim X wrote:

> 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
49de3af41258a5772a1bad5c1533191d?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Hicks (Guest)
on 2007-03-24 18:46
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 23, 1:54 am, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> 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.

Robert
8ae46ae3170a36a0f79ea109ef0ee2e7?d=identicon&s=25 Tim X (Guest)
on 2007-03-25 04:56
(Received via mailing list)
Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> writes:

>> converting it into text or html so that I can access it from my
> FWIW, our PDFs do not have DRM enabled. All they have is your name
> stamped onto the bottom of each page.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave
>

Thanks Dave - I was actually going to post to the site and ask this
question.
You saved me the effort. Appreciated.

Tim
E7559e558ececa67c40f452483b9ac8c?d=identicon&s=25 Gary Wright (Guest)
on 2007-03-26 05:45
(Received via mailing list)
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
Cd27ee83f652ed2988065df79a8c3fa2?d=identicon&s=25 johwait@gmail.com (Guest)
on 2007-03-26 15:46
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 25, 11:45 pm, Gary Wright <gwtm...@mac.com> wrote:
> I doesn't seem to me that Chad's comments are
> 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
391f9b787cdc12aa2c179713f5103e3a?d=identicon&s=25 Ilan Berci (iberci)
on 2007-03-26 17:02
So far, I got cocaine, enterprise, theft, intellectual, and liquor, all
I need is camel and my bingo card will be complete!

ilan
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-27 23:17
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:45:08AM +0900, Robert Hicks wrote:
> 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.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-27 23:36
(Received via mailing list)
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:
> >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.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-27 23:38
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 02:19:01AM +0900, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> do perfectly without it if there wasn't jurisdictions willing to go
> overboard with implied warranties for public domain work.)

It should probably be pretty obvious by now that I basically agree with
every word of that -- but I figured I'd make it obvious and explicit.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-27 23:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:45:13PM +0900, Gary Wright wrote:
> I doesn't seem to me that Chad's comments are
> in contradiction to your points on property rights.

That's correct.  In fact, I agree with Dave's paragraph in full, with
the exception of the implication that I don't agree with it.  The only
problem that arises is that I'm inclined to differentiate between actual
property rights and "intellectual property rights", which are a market
externality imposed with the justification of encouraging innovation (no
comment at this exact moment on the worth of that justification).


> 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'.

Precisely -- and thank you for that excellent clarification.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-27 23:45
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:02:18AM +0900, Ilan Berci wrote:
> So far, I got cocaine, enterprise, theft, intellectual, and liquor, all
> I need is camel and my bingo card will be complete!

Umm . . . an example of an open source license that does not create a
development and distribution system that relies on copyright is Perl's
Artistic License.  It's interesting to note that Perl's mascot is the
single-humped dromedary camel.  This seems at odds with the Perl
approach to licensing, which is to dual-license under GPL and Artistic
License, probably to provide a BSD-like ecosystem while still leveraging
the mindshare of the GPL for popularity, since the dual-license model
creates sort of a "two-humped" reserve of distribution capability like
the bactrian camel.

There.  Camels.  Bingo?
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-28 00:10
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:17:20PM +0900, Alex Young wrote:
> overly simplistic and highly emotive for those who understand the
> difference, because they understand what can be lost when that viewpoint
> becomes entrenched.

Speaking solely for myself here, you're on the money (so to speak).
While I have some issues with the ethicality of copyright law, I would
still love to pay for a copy of one of the excellent books from the Prag
Progs (and, in fact, have already done so in the case of three or four
books bearing that imprimatur, and will surely continue to do in the
future).  Such payment need not take the form of filthy lucre, but if
that's the preference of an author such as Dave Thomas, I'm happy to
reward his work in that manner -- the parenthetically alluded books I've
acquired have been worth a fair bit more to me than the money I've paid
for them, which makes them all an excellent deal for me.

That in no way changes how I feel about copyright law, or the simple
fact that copyright infringement is not theft, which seems to be the
point at which you were stabbing.  So yes, as I said, you're on the
money at least as far as I'm concerned.


>
> 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...

I agree, and I once held the opinion that this was probably the best way
to fix an increasingly broken body of copyright law in the US.  I don't
think the idea is any less an improvement over the current system, now,
than I did when it first occurred to me -- but I'm now of the opinion
that other (less popular) solutions are even better.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-28 00:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 11:05:19PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> >often, this means
> FWIW, our PDFs do not have DRM enabled. All they have is your name
> stamped onto the bottom of each page.

Excellent!  I haven't yet ordered a PragProg PDF (despite owning several
hardcopy PragProg books), but as long as this policy of avoiding DRM
remains effective I'll most likely end up buying a few in time.

For what it's worth, I think the loyalty, respect, and good will of the
Ruby community in particular and even programmers in general will ensure
that you'll continue to profit from your generosity and quality work for
some time to come, without need of any attempts to use technical
enforcement of copyright.  I, for one, am more inclined to pay money for
these books the more generous and trusting you are.

I'm just a drop in the bucket, though.  I make no claims at this time
about the attitudes of others toward your largesse.
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-28 00:17
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:27:08AM +0900, James Britt wrote:
> 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.

. . . and, to the best of my knowledge as someone who doesn't even know
anything about you and is in no way connected with ruby-doc.org, the
website is excellent and trustworthy.
F361c70e8d51674fa7dc3aa69e04e739?d=identicon&s=25 Brian Tol (Guest)
on 2007-03-28 00:57
(Received via mailing list)
> I run ruby-doc.org.  To the best of my knowledge, everything hosted on
> that site is there with the permission of the owners.

As a Ruby newbie, and just out of curiosity, how is ruby documentation
treated in the Ruby community? In Perl land, tools like Cpan and
search.cpan.org republish everything verbatium (or at least it seems
that way). Rubyforge, RAA, and Ruby-doc.org are great resources, but
there doesn't seem to be anything as comprehensive as search.cpan.org.
Is there anything out there like that for Ruby? I.e., a search engine
for ruby itself, gems, etc. with Rdocs and source code?

-Brian
Ad7805c9fcc1f13efc6ed11251a6c4d2?d=identicon&s=25 Alex Young (regularfry)
on 2007-03-28 10:20
(Received via mailing list)
Brian Tol wrote:
>> I run ruby-doc.org.  To the best of my knowledge, everything hosted on
>> that site is there with the permission of the owners.
>
> As a Ruby newbie, and just out of curiosity, how is ruby documentation
> treated in the Ruby community? In Perl land, tools like Cpan and
> search.cpan.org republish everything verbatium (or at least it seems
> that way). Rubyforge, RAA, and Ruby-doc.org are great resources, but
> there doesn't seem to be anything as comprehensive as search.cpan.org.
> Is there anything out there like that for Ruby? I.e., a search engine
> for ruby itself, gems, etc. with Rdocs and source code?
There's a search box at http://ruby-doc.org which does that.  I'm not
sure exactly what's searched by it, though.
7f891fbe8e3bae7f9fe375407ce90d9d?d=identicon&s=25 Harold Hausman (Guest)
on 2007-03-28 11:19
(Received via mailing list)
> Rubyforge, RAA, and Ruby-doc.org are great resources, but
> there doesn't seem to be anything as comprehensive as search.cpan.org.
> Is there anything out there like that for Ruby? I.e., a search engine
> for ruby itself, gems, etc. with Rdocs and source code?

I've been using http://rubykitchensink.ca/ recently. I don't know
anything about how sweet perl is, but I've been unearthing good stuff
quickly using the kitchen sink.

hth,
-Harold
Fd22ee3cfc7dac283ce8e451af324f7d?d=identicon&s=25 Chad Perrin (Guest)
on 2007-03-29 22:37
(Received via mailing list)
Sorry to spam the list, but I seem to be having trouble getting emails
through.  I'm testing to see whether I can reply.

I've already tried the help address, so don't bother telling me I should
have emailed that address for "help".  It isn't working for me either.
5c5acc37e7ced01c8b482315d34257e7?d=identicon&s=25 hazal Ates (hazal)
on 2007-03-30 22:52
hazal wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> i start to learn Ruby . i NEED
>
>  "sams teach yourself RUBY in 21 days"  book.
>
> can you give me any link to get it by downloading pdf format.
>
> thank you

listen everybody :
yes i wrote this post in free PDF section. BUT

1. Did you hear before about " Mr. Neighborly's Humble Little Ruby Book.
Posted by Jeremy McAnally "
2. Did you hear this kinf of sentences in web sites before " pdf version
of this book free , buy for printed copy"
3. i though  "sams" book like that. i never use FREE.
4. therefore everybody write here about "legality , stolen , thief...bla
bla "
is nothing for me.
5 i prefer you can wrote some RUBY codes instead of answering each other
with hundreds and hundreds sentences.
6. "" if you are not a part of solution , maybe you are part of
problem.""
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.