www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Hi,

I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask: 
(yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place 
to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
Aug 26 2010
next sibling parent reply Vladimir <vlad mymail.rus> writes:
Stanislav Blinov Wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask: 
 (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)
 
 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place 
 to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?

I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.
Aug 26 2010
next sibling parent reply "Yao G." <yao.gomez spam.gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:27:31 -0500, Vladimir <vlad mymail.rus> wrote:

 I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes  
 directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy  
 already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.

LOL. Gotta love the way you justify being a pirate. -- Yao G.
Aug 26 2010
parent Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Yao G. wrote:
 On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:27:31 -0500, Vladimir <vlad mymail.rus> wrote:
 
 I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes 
 directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy 
 already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.

LOL. Gotta love the way you justify being a pirate.

It's somewhat a disease in Russia. At one point, in the middle/late 1990s, piracy has gone to such lengths that almost every piece of software, music, video and you name it was available at virtually no cost (or at least very little compared to official prices, e.g. $3 vs $20). From this came many homegrown "professionals" that got their hands on things such as Windows, Visual Studio, Photoshop, 3DS MAX and so on. They got it, clicked it, assumed it was easy to get and easy to use - and here we are - we have a HUGE army of developers, artists, photographers... And most of them (not all, mind you, but the very most) - are in doublequotes just because anything they could REALLY do is find an take, but not think and use (no offense Vladimir, maybe you ARE from those "not all", I simply judge from my own experience). Even now I face the professionalism and skills of my local Internet "providers" (read - I don't use their services). Later rise of torrents and other filetrackers put even more oil to the fire. Now I love resources like old-games.ru - resources where you really can find something that's just not available in any other form today. But this is different. Even Microsoft, with all I personally think about them, put a lot of effort into Visual Studio. And the fact that the company is richer today than I'll probably be in my life won't justify my "desire" to take their product for free. No one earns anything just for the shiny eyes.
Aug 26 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Vladimir wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:
 
 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask: 
 (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place 
 to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?

I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.

Thanks for the honesty but no thanks. The "book guy" puts a lot of effort into D and I'm sure that work on TDPL was tremendous hit on all his resources (both mental and physical) as well. A hard an honest work needs to be compensated, and an (assumed) overall current income has nothing to do with it (I assume that's plain jealousy talking in you). If Andrei so wished, he could publish the book for free, but he didn't. Mind you, he and Walter and others have LOTS thing to do except D, but they keep perfecting the language, keep finding new goals, keep participating in discussions in this newsgroup, keep helping the language and the community. What stops you from earning 10 to 100 times more? Being a Russian? I doubt it. If you desire earning more, then do it. Plain assumptions and "big" talk are no justifications for plain stealing. P.S. Seems that some things would never change. I think there would be far less "professionals" out there weren't it not for piracy. Anyway, does someone have any other options on the topic?
Aug 26 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 8/26/10 16:35 PDT, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Vladimir wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:

 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to
 ask: (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good
 place to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?

I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.

Thanks for the honesty but no thanks. The "book guy" puts a lot of effort into D and I'm sure that work on TDPL was tremendous hit on all his resources (both mental and physical) as well. A hard an honest work needs to be compensated, and an (assumed) overall current income has nothing to do with it (I assume that's plain jealousy talking in you). If Andrei so wished, he could publish the book for free, but he didn't. Mind you, he and Walter and others have LOTS thing to do except D, but they keep perfecting the language, keep finding new goals, keep participating in discussions in this newsgroup, keep helping the language and the community. What stops you from earning 10 to 100 times more? Being a Russian? I doubt it. If you desire earning more, then do it. Plain assumptions and "big" talk are no justifications for plain stealing. P.S. Seems that some things would never change. I think there would be far less "professionals" out there weren't it not for piracy. Anyway, does someone have any other options on the topic?

Thanks for your kind words. If you email me your address, I'll be glad to mail you a signed copy of TDPL's collector edition as a gift. Andrei
Aug 26 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Vladimir,

 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to
 ask: (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)
 
 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good
 place to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?
 

directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.

IIRC there are VERY few people in the world who make much money writing books. I'm talking few enough that if you pay attention to the bookstore, you may recognize 10% of there names. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 26 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Max Klyga <max.klyga gmail.com> writes:
Hi, there.

Amazon is a good place to buy books. I had no problems with delivery from US
Amazon so far.
Aug 26 2010
next sibling parent Olivier Pisano <olivier.pisano laposte.net> writes:
Le 27/08/2010 02:08, Max Klyga a crit :
 Hi, there.

 Amazon is a good place to buy books. I had no problems with delivery from US
 Amazon so far.

Hi, +1 I had preordered TDPL on Amazon.fr and got it delivered in France about a week after its release in the US, which I think is more than reasonable. I don't see any reason why it should be more problematic in Russia. Cheers, Olivier
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <blinov loniir.ru> writes:
  27.08.2010 4:08, Max Klyga wrote:
 Hi, there.

 Amazon is a good place to buy books. I had no problems with delivery from US
 Amazon so far.
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Filtered-With-Copfilter: Version 0.84beta4 (ProxSMTP 1.8)
 Copfilter-Filtered-With: SpamAssassin 3.2.5
 Copfilter-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2
 by Markus Madlener   http://www.copfilter.org

Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply digited <digited yandex.ru> writes:
[heavy_ot]
Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and .torrent
user
is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help to find
out
if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in english
or
not.
[/heavy_ot]

as for me, i prefer paper books over reading from screen, but i'm not interested
in d2. I won't buy tdpl in english because of questionable rate of
price/usefulness for me, but i'll buy it on russian (for collection), if it will
be translated and will have a reasonable price.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <blinov loniir.ru> writes:
  27.08.2010 14:48, digited пишет:
 [heavy_ot]
 Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and .torrent
user
 is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
 Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help to find
out
 if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in
english or
 not.
 [/heavy_ot]

could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.
 as for me, i prefer paper books over reading from screen, but i'm not
interested
 in d2. I won't buy tdpl in english because of questionable rate of
 price/usefulness for me, but i'll buy it on russian (for collection), if it
will
 be translated and will have a reasonable price.

As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of translators and local publishers. It's too bad I don't know any other language except Russian and English, because I fear that translation tendency touches not only English books.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a look 
 at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are unbearable 
 far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such books are 
 either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to know aspects of 
 the particular area covered by the book. That leads to mistakes, 
 inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself is hardly 
 readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy the book 
 from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks to the 
 author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of 
 translators and local publishers.

In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a 
 look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are 
 unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such 
 books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to 
 know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to 
 mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself 
 is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy 
 the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks 
 to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of 
 translators and local publishers.

In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.

I would say, though, that the most important thing is to use a language which you are reasonably fluent in. I occasionally have to maintain a body of code which was written by an Italian programmer. Some of the comments are in Italian, amd the variable names are all in Italian, but most of the comments are in his attempt at German, but they have Italian word order. Some maintenance has been done by a fellow Australian who was just learning German, he added comments in some English-German hybrid. It's hilariously incomprehensible. And unfortunately google translator only works with real languages...
Aug 27 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh4i0ceoo7cclz korden-pc...
 For example, Sony Computer Entertainment has most of their code and 
 samples commented in Japanese. Official English documentation may come 
 weeks (or even months) after initial release of a product, and is often 
 incomplete. In this case, using Google translator is often the only way to 
 understand their code for non-Japanese speaking developers.

That could actually explain, at least partly, why Epic shuns the PS3.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a 
 look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are 
 unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such 
 books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to 
 know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to 
 mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself 
 is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy 
 the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks 
 to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of 
 translators and local publishers.

In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage.

I can tell that this wasn't true even 15 years from here. Books, interviews, movies, games - all had solid and nice translations, pleasant to read an hear. But something has changed. And not for the best. But during the time when 'localization' was not all that bad funny things did happen too. Here in Russia there's an accountant software package developed by 1C for some 10-15 years now. It has builtin language that has natural 'English' form, but is available also completely localized. All constructs, functions, keywords, everything is translated into Russian. I can say that average-skilled programmer or coder could easily catch up that language if he saw it in normal English. But catching up this 'localized' flavor is a big PITA.
 
 I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad 
 translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author 
 is saying.

True, and this is great mean to both stay focused and not get frustrated when you realize that what you've read in 'official' translation was a terrible mistake.
Aug 27 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomek Sowiski wrote:
 Oh, and if the problem called for a turbo spreadsheet, I had to re-learn 
 the function names all over because in VBA they're English. :-/

My father spent years in Japan after the war, and of course Japanese words would creep into his vocabulary. So I grew up thinking a lot of Japanese words were english <g>.
Aug 27 2010
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Tomek Sowiski wrote:
 Oh, and if the problem called for a turbo spreadsheet, I had to re-learn 
 the function names all over because in VBA they're English. :-/


 My father spent years in Japan after the war, and of course Japanese words
would 
 creep into his vocabulary. So I grew up thinking a lot of Japanese words were 
 english <g>.

Japanese did assimilate many english words. Every time I hear it - what they say? - it's unnatural.
Aug 31 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford 
 a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to 
 order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of 
 the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have 
 lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to 
 those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a 
 topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after 
 they're available from the shelves.
 
 When I was a kid, I didn't have a credit card nor internet connection. It 
 was impossible to buy books from online stores. The local libraries were 
 the best places to find computer science / engineering related literature.

When I was a kid, the library was really the only place to get books. There were no mega bookstores like B&N. (I remember when B&N first came to town, what a magical place it was.) Even if there were well-stocked bookstores, I had no money to buy books. I spent a lot of time at the library, reading hundreds of books. As a teenager, there was a local strip mall bookstore packed with used paperbacks. I'd buy a pile, read them, and then sell them back to the store for half price and buy another pile. They were cheap enough that I could indulge myself. These days, I buy all my books because going to the library twice (once to get, once to return, plus late fees) is far more expensive and time consuming, compared to point & click on the internet. My house is full of books :-O
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending. -Steve

Totally agreed. Though one may tell "So what? Some torrent user have bought the book as well, and he just 'lends' it to others". But that is not true. Because most times no "buying" is involved, and because torrent is not lending - you get a copy for yourself, and no longer need to worry about returning or paying for it. I already said before that the only point that justifies content trackers for me is when you physically (and legally) can't get your hands on something in any other way (book is not published anymore, game developer long ago 'went out of scope', etc.)
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.

a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.

That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing. I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people reading the same book concurrently. I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point that there are viable alternatives).

This world could be free, This world could be won..."
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:
 That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is 
 that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For 
 example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money 
 (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some 
 low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, 
 job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of 
 D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for 
 profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable.

I've never heard of anyone dissuaded from writing a free book because capitalist Andrei wrote one.
 The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad 
 thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write 
 something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change 
 your profession.

It's bad that you have to work at your chosen profession? Is it also bad that a carpenter has to cut wood to get paid?
 If you have high moral and you know that you can only 
 write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy 
 books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, 
 capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the 
 society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.

I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions all the time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels. They can switch to carpentry any time <g>. (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)
Aug 27 2010
parent Frank Fuente <franfu telefonica.es> writes:
 I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions

 time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels.

 switch to carpentry any time <g>.
 (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)

Is that why D2 is taking so long to complete :-)
Aug 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up your 
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).

Not in the US.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh82xgi1eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to
 educate people.

Educating people doesn't feed your family.

Unless you hapen to be a Steven King or Tom Clancy, neither does writing books. And that was true well before pdf torrents.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 I suppose only millionaires with lots of time on their hands (although 
 that happens very rarely) would be the ones to write books?

Up until rather recently, most scientific progress *was* done by millionaires with time and funds to spare to spend on it. Or by someone who managed to get a millionaire to fund them.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 I for one, tend to think that copyright is a great method of rewarding 
 innovation, and although it has some rough edges, it's better than not 
 having anything.  The world seems to be pretty damn innovative to me.

I think that some categories of software will never be free open source. For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of tedious detail work with no glory. People will want to be paid to write it, and others will be willing to pay for it. Of course, custom applications will have to be paid for, too.
Aug 30 2010
next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open source. For
 example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of tedious
 detail work with no glory.

Aww come one, we should be able to write a few CTFE functions that generate the source code to tax prep software for you. Been working on this, but I keep running into the following bug: mixin(taxPrep(Countries.unitedStates)); // Error: Out of memory. Tax code too complicated.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Monday 30 August 2010 18:07:43 dsimcha wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open source.
 For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of
 tedious detail work with no glory.

Aww come one, we should be able to write a few CTFE functions that generate the source code to tax prep software for you. Been working on this, but I keep running into the following bug: mixin(taxPrep(Countries.unitedStates)); // Error: Out of memory. Tax code too complicated.

It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 30 2010
next sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Jonathan,

 On Monday 30 August 2010 18:07:43 dsimcha wrote:
 
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article
 
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open
 source. For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software
 is a load of tedious detail work with no glory.
 

generate the source code to tax prep software for you. Been working on this, but I keep running into the following bug: mixin(taxPrep(Countries.unitedStates)); // Error: Out of memory. Tax code too complicated.


I've been threatening for years to do it in postscript :)
 It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books
 with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke.
 

Well, Duh! Any table long enough to hold the tax code will break under it's own weight /without/ the tax code on it!
 - Jonathan M Davis
 

... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Monday 30 August 2010 19:05:17 BCS wrote:
 It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books
 with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke.

Well, Duh! Any table long enough to hold the tax code will break under it's own weight /without/ the tax code on it!

LOL. Well, in this case, they were stacked vertically, which is a bit different. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 30 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Jonathan,

 On Monday 30 August 2010 19:05:17 BCS wrote:
 
 It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book where they stacked all the books
 with the tax code in them on top of a table, and the table broke.
 

under it's own weight /without/ the tax code on it!

different. - Jonathan M Davis

I was assuming they didn't use a step ladder. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 I think that some categories of software will never be free open
 source. For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is
 a load of tedious detail work with no glory. People will want to be
 paid to write it, and others will be willing to pay for it.
 

It won't be free as long as the tax code keeps changing. Any app that quits being a moving target, will get replaced by something that is just as good or better, and free. -- ... <IXOYE><
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves. When I was a kid, I didn't have a credit card nor internet connection. It was impossible to buy books from online stores. The local libraries were the best places to find computer science / engineering related literature. No one did mention that in addition to money, the book author gets truckloads of good reputation, if the topic turns out to be useful. You get invitations to all kinds of important places and employers. When I was still buying C++ books, I remember having this kind of conversation in a book store: "Do you have any metaprogramming books?" "Why, yes" "Any books by Alexandrescu" "Just this one" "I'll take it then. Keep the rest." Note that I'm not advocating piracy this time!
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:48:46 -0400, digited <digited yandex.ru> wrote:

 [heavy_ot]
 Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and  
 .torrent user
 is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
 Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help  
 to find out
 if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in  
 english or
 not.
 [/heavy_ot]

You have this completely wrong. Book publishing, like most copyrightable material, works on an investment model -- a publisher invests a lot of money to get a book written and published, and then recoups that investment after selling N copies of the book at a much smaller price. What you are saying is that the author doesn't lose anything if someone doesn't buy their book. But when someone uses their creation without compensating them for it, then the model breaks down -- who will pay for creating books when it is going to be a losing investment? All you will get is books that people are willing to write for free, and those won't be very good. People with excellent talent for writing books won't write free books, because they can use their talents elsewhere to make money and provide for their family. The reason we make stealing IP illegal is so people will have an incentive to innovate and create IP. If you want to live in a world where all you get is what Richard Stallman gives you, you can have it. I'd rather have people do what they're best at (and Andrei is good at writing), and pay for the results than only measure the physical cost of an item, ignoring the innovative qualities of it. How many good books do you think would be produced if copyright law didn't exist? Copyright and patent laws exist to *encourage* creation, they achieve the result with an indirect requirement, because otherwise it's impossible to charge for innovation. IP is a funny thing, and most people don't see how the model works -- hey it costs you nothing to produce *this one copy*, so why should I pay for that? Well, because it didn't cost nothing to produce the *first one*, and nobody is going to pay for me to write the book in the first place if they can't charge you for this one copy! It takes some logical thinking to see why it's stealing, but trust me, it is stealing.
 as for me, i prefer paper books over reading from screen, but i'm not  
 interested
 in d2. I won't buy tdpl in english because of questionable rate of
 price/usefulness for me, but i'll buy it on russian (for collection), if  
 it will
 be translated and will have a reasonable price.

As someone who is frugal, I may not ever buy TDPL. But that's mostly because 1) I feel like I have a good understanding of D2, and I'm comfortable with the online resources, and 2) I reviewed the book already, so I already know what's mostly in it :) But I would recommend anyone who wants to learn D2 to buy the book, it's a much simpler process than the time it takes to do it the way I did. And it *is* a good book. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:48:46 -0400, digited <digited yandex.ru> wrote:
 [heavy_ot]
 Piracy is not stealing - author actually loses nothing from it, and
 .torrent user
 is not guaranteed to buy a book if unable to download a .pdf
 Futhermore, .torrent distribution may be a good advertisement and help
 to find out
 if a russian-speaking coder wants to actually order a 1300+ rur book in
 english or
 not.
 [/heavy_ot]

material, works on an investment model -- a publisher invests a lot of money to get a book written and published, and then recoups that investment after selling N copies of the book at a much smaller price. What you are saying is that the author doesn't lose anything if someone doesn't buy their book. But when someone uses their creation without compensating them for it, then the model breaks down -- who will pay for creating books when it is going to be a losing investment? All you will get is books that people are willing to write for free, and those won't be very good. People with excellent talent for writing books won't write free books, because they can use their talents elsewhere to make money and provide for their family. The reason we make stealing IP illegal is so people will have an incentive to innovate and create IP. If you want to live in a world where all you get is what Richard Stallman gives you, you can have it. I'd rather have people do what they're best at (and Andrei is good at writing), and pay for the results than only measure the physical cost of an item, ignoring the innovative qualities of it. How many good books do you think would be produced if copyright law didn't exist? Copyright and patent laws exist to *encourage* creation, they achieve the result with an indirect requirement, because otherwise it's impossible to charge for innovation.

True, except when the whores in Congress retroactively extend copyright terms to "until Hell freezes over" because the media companies say so, even if the copyright owner happens to be dead or not contactable, thus discouraging innovation instead of helping it. BTW, I feel a little bad making this comment. What if you were a whore? Would you really want to be compared to Congress?
Aug 27 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:
 True, except when the whores in Congress retroactively extend copyright terms
to
 "until Hell freezes over" because the media companies say so, even if the
 copyright owner happens to be dead or not contactable, thus discouraging
 innovation instead of helping it.

I'm all for copyright law, except that it should be limited to 20 years. No extensions. Software and business method patents should be scrapped entirely.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vh32icf3eav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 The  good news about copyright is that the ideas are not what's protected, 
 it's  the expression of the ideas.  So you can take ideas from copyrighted 
 material and rephrase it to continue innovating.

Yea, until the copyright owner, which is most likely some deep-pocket corporation instead of the individual who actually created it in the first place, decides to sue you even though they know damn well they don't have a case. Since you're unlikely to be a filthy rich as them, you're forced to pay them a settlement even though you and them both know damn well that you're in the right and the courts *would* side with you *if* it were to actually go that far. This *does* happen, and it happens plenty. Even if piracy destroys the copyright system, so does corporate extortion.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
This isn't just true for programming. Some major universities (e.g. in
Croatia) usually require the student to read textbooks written in
English. A lot of books have never been translated to a local
language, and those that have often have lousy 1:1 translation, with
not much thought given to the semantics of a sentence. Translating
technical terms is especially difficult. In fact most of our technical
terms around here are almost identical to English ones, with an added
letter or two. So when you read a translated book it feels like you're
reading in two different languages.

The good thing is that learning English is mandatory in Junior school,
at least where I come from.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a look at
 translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are unbearable far too
 often. Most of the time, people who translate such books are either totally
 incompetent in CompSci, or know little to know aspects of the particular
 area covered by the book. That leads to mistakes, inconsistensies, errors.
 And often, the translation itself is hardly readable compared to original.
 So I'd personally rather buy the book from original publisher (therefore
 giving my monetary thanks to the author) rather than pay additional sum for
 questionable work of translators and local publishers.

In the last couple of my trips to conferences in Europe, I talked to developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.

Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
 money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
 download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
 their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
 taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
 need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
 publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
 worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
 willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:08:04 -0400, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 Copyright and patent laws exist to *encourage* creation, they
 achieve the result with an indirect requirement, because otherwise it's
 impossible to charge for innovation.

True, except when the whores in Congress retroactively extend copyright terms to "until Hell freezes over" because the media companies say so, even if the copyright owner happens to be dead or not contactable, thus discouraging innovation instead of helping it.

hehe, I agree there. The fact that a copyright lasts longer than anyone ever lived is sort of a perversion. But I think we'd be much worse off without any copyright protection. The good news about copyright is that the ideas are not what's protected, it's the expression of the ideas. So you can take ideas from copyrighted material and rephrase it to continue innovating. But software patents that last 17 years? That's just crap, and I hope someday we can do better than that. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
 and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
 *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
 share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
 efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
 not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
 modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
 see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
 recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
 advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.

Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy. In either case the author gets as much/little money assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
 and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
 *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
 share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
 efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
 not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
 modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
 see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
 recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
 advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.

Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy.

In fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can use it. So effectively, the author is giving you a license attached to the book to whomever possesses it to read it, as long as someone paid for the book originally. The publisher sets the price based on this model, so if that is not the model being used, the publisher loses money. One copy == one license fee. The reason money is lost is because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire pricing structure is based on it. If he knew half the people who read the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it. Downloading the book means that you have a copy, and the web site you downloaded it from has a copy, but it only has been paid for once. This breaks the license terms, and is effectively stealing from the publisher. In reality what happens is thousands or hundreds of thousands of people download it, and now the publisher's pricing model is completely destroyed. It's backwards to think about, but it's how it works. The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the book. The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and remain a profitable company. Without the law, publishers go out of business, and books are never created in the first place. Here's another way to think about it: Let's say a publisher wants to publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and make a profit. Then when the book is finished, you get your copy. How well do you think this model will work? Essentially it's the same as the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the publisher. Who wants to do that? I want to peruse a book before buying it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written? BTW, I can download electronic copies of books from my library for free too. The library pays for one license per copy, and while I'm reading it, nobody else can. That model also fits within the copyright law. Legal use of copyright material doesn't have to be expensive or "unjust". To see a very good way of reading actual books that you only want to read once and then give away, see paperbackswap.com. What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't illegal. Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing up your software, or transferring it to another medium for your own benefit). The thing that is illegal is when two or more copies of the item are being used and only one has been licensed.
 In either case the author gets as much/little money
 assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people
 who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.

At this point, the author is probably getting very little money (not sure, never wrote a book), it's the publisher recouping his initial investment to the author to write the book. If you don't like the model, start your own publishing company and give more money to the authors. See how long you stay in business... I agree that people who want to justify stealing often just simplify the model to prove their point. You can try to justify it all you want, it's still stealing. See how far your justification story gets you when they take you to court. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:40:43 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar>  
wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:

 No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books
 that other people have bought.  If I lent you my copy of TDPL then
 it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book.  If you
 have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that
 copy.  This falls under fair-use.  You are allowed to transfer your
 copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or
 lend it to them as long as you are not also using it.  There is a
 difference between copying and lending.

That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing.

See my response to retard. The publisher prices his book with the *understanding* that libraries will buy the book and lend it to people, or that some people won't buy it and will just borrow a copy from a friend. They have done lots of research to find the correct price point so people will buy it (not to expensive) and they make a profit (not too cheap). What screws up the pricing is when people can easily get copies without paying for them, without following the "one license, one book" model. Then they lose money. Look at what it has done to the music industry. The losses are hard to comprehend, because a "non-sale" doesn't cost anything. But when you invest so much money expecting a return on the investment, only to not get your money back, the model doesn't work, the industry suffers, and the eventual beneficiaries from the industry (i.e. you) suffer. It wouldn't happen overnight, but if copyright law was abolished, eventually we would have only poetry to read :) If you bought a $20 savings bond with the promise that in 5 years, it would be worth $100, but at the end of 5 years, you were given back $20, would you consider that fair? They had your $20 for 5 years, using it to make money, and you only just got back what you invested! Is that a model that will convince people continue to buy savings bonds? Even though nobody lost any money? At the same time, nobody is going to pay $500 for a book, so copyright law was put into place to lower the prices of things, with the promise "if you lower your prices, we'll give you assurances that more people will buy your books." It's an agreement the government put in place to stimulate innovation, and it works very well.
 I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking
 a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't
 read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have
 a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people
 reading the same book concurrently.

 I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be
 encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to
 live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is
 so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of
 digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do
 think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point
 that there are viable alternatives).

FLOSS only exists because writing software is profitable :) Think about it... I write software because I can make a living doing it. If FLOSS is all that existed, then I wouldn't write software (gotta make money somehow), so I wouldn't have the skills to contribute software to the OSS community. Same for Walter, Andrei, etc. -Steve
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:18:26 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides
 copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any
 difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and
 destroyed the copy.

In fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can use it.

Actually they can. You can read it loud just like the teacher used to do in the elementary school. You can also share the book with a friend unlike in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html - the copyright mafia is constantly inventing new ways to restrict use.
 The reason money is lost is
 because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire
 pricing structure is based on it.  If he knew half the people who read
 the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge
 more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it.

The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to educate people.
 The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a
 book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the
 book.  The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and
 remain a profitable company.  Without the law, publishers go out of
 business, and books are never created in the first place.

That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable. The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change your profession. If you have high moral and you know that you can only write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.
 Here's another way to think about it:  Let's say a publisher wants to
 publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who
 potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and
 make a profit.

You can't know how much is enough.
 Then when the book is finished, you get your copy.  How
 well do you think this model will work?  Essentially it's the same as
 the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the
 publisher. Who wants to do that?  I want to peruse a book before buying
 it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written?

I think sites like wikipedia work this way.
 
 BTW, I can download electronic copies of books from my library for free
 too.  The library pays for one license per copy, and while I'm reading
 it, nobody else can.  That model also fits within the copyright law. 

That is ass-backwards retarded from technical point of view, but yes, it fits within the copyright law.
 What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't
 illegal.

They perfectly understand that it's illegal. They don't care because it feels irrational and unjust. That's it.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent =?iso-8859-2?B?VG9tZWsgU293afFza2k=?= <just ask.me> writes:
Dnia 27-08-2010 o 22:03:46 Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com>=
  =

napisa=B3(a):

 I can tell that this wasn't true even 15 years from here. Books,  =

 interviews, movies, games - all had solid and nice translations,  =

 pleasant to read an hear. But something has changed. And not for the  =

 best.
  But during the time when 'localization' was not all that bad funny  =

 things did happen too. Here in Russia there's an accountant software  =

 package developed by 1C for some 10-15 years now. It has builtin  =

 language that has natural 'English' form, but is available also  =

 completely localized. All constructs, functions, keywords, everything =

 translated into Russian. I can say that average-skilled programmer or =

 coder could easily catch up that language if he saw it in normal  =

 English. But catching up this 'localized' flavor is a big PITA.

Reminds me of my previous job where I did plenty of Excel. Now, for some= = functions Polish names were natural: SUM -> SUMA AVERAGE -> =A6REDNIA LEN -> D=A3 SLOPE -> NACHYLENIE But common workhorse functions were notoriously given names so descripti= ve = that made the writer's wrists ache and the reader's eyes tear: STDEV -> ODCH.STANDARDOWE VLOOKUP -> WYSZUKAJ.PIONOWO MID -> FRAGMENT.TEKSTU TRIM -> USU=D1.ZB=CADNE.ODST=CAPY MMULT -> MACIERZ.ILOCZYN NORMSINV -> ROZK=A3AD.NORMALNY.S.ODW Oh, and if the problem called for a turbo spreadsheet, I had to re-learn= = the function names all over because in VBA they're English. :-/ Tomek
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:52:45 +0400, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Here I agree that paper books beat any ebooks.
 As for Russian translations - I don't like them since I've taken a  
 look at translated GoF book on design patterns. Translations are  
 unbearable far too often. Most of the time, people who translate such  
 books are either totally incompetent in CompSci, or know little to  
 know aspects of the particular area covered by the book. That leads to  
 mistakes, inconsistensies, errors. And often, the translation itself  
 is hardly readable compared to original. So I'd personally rather buy  
 the book from original publisher (therefore giving my monetary thanks  
 to the author) rather than pay additional sum for questionable work of  
 translators and local publishers.

developers who were not native english speakers about this. They were unequivocal and emphatic in wanting to do their programming in english. The thing is, the programming community is global, covering about every country and language, and english is what binds them all together. They're cut off if they are not conversant in technical english, and as you said, are unhappy with second-rate buggy translations. This wasn't true 25 years ago, when localizing the programming tools was all the rage. I use google translator a lot. Sure, it often gives very bad translations, but they are good enough that you can get what the author is saying.

I would say, though, that the most important thing is to use a language which you are reasonably fluent in. I occasionally have to maintain a body of code which was written by an Italian programmer. Some of the comments are in Italian, amd the variable names are all in Italian, but most of the comments are in his attempt at German, but they have Italian word order. Some maintenance has been done by a fellow Australian who was just learning German, he added comments in some English-German hybrid. It's hilariously incomprehensible. And unfortunately google translator only works with real languages...

That's funny. I was once working at a company that enforced writing English comments to avoid issues like this (even though the whole company is Russian). Since then it's plain unnatural to me to write comments in anything other that English. Many large international companies do the same, or have specially hired technical writers to write English manuals. For example, Sony Computer Entertainment has most of their code and samples commented in Japanese. Official English documentation may come weeks (or even months) after initial release of a product, and is often incomplete. In this case, using Google translator is often the only way to understand their code for non-Japanese speaking developers.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:40:56 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 retard wrote:
 That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare
 is that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work.
 For example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money
 (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than
 some low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame
 (talks, job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the
 development of D. If the money was provided by other means, there
 wouldn't be a need for profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would
 be acceptable.

I've never heard of anyone dissuaded from writing a free book because capitalist Andrei wrote one.

Having a decent commercial book discourages projects like http:// en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Beginner's_Guide_to_D---on the other hand, these projects also require motivated authors. There are also examples of free, good quality texts by motivated authors (e.g. many blog posts these days are CC licensed). The commercial bookstores / newspapers often don't have good alternatives to up-to-date blog articles..
 If you have high moral and you know that you can only write one good
 book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy books after
 The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here, capitalism
 might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the society.
 Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.

I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions all the time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels. They can switch to carpentry any time <g>.~

'Pays well', 'is enjoyable', 'has a justified reason' are totally different points of view. Sometimes/often a work can't satisfy each one of those.
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
 Having a decent commercial book discourages projects like http://
 en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Beginner's_Guide_to_D

Having a book like TDPL encourages adoption and will eventually spawn user-made tutorials and free books (because people will have knowledge of the language by learning from TDPL). You can't write a good free book about a language unless you understand it well, and before TDPL you had to keep track of the newsgroups for any language changes and you had to try to figure out D on your own (I'm referring to D2). Honestly, I find the wikibooks approach rather silly. Someone starts a project, then leaves, and expects someone else to just jump in and continue writing. That's no good. You either commit to your project, or if you're solo and can't finish it on your own then you enlist the help of others. But you need to keep everyone informed of the progress. And you need some kind of plan/schedule. I've found this after a bit of googling: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/3412.html http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/41861.html So someone comes up with an idea, others think it's a good idea, a few commits here and there and it all stagnates from there on. It becomes a random bunch of code snippets each written in different style and some of the code probably broken (e.g. that case of writefln vs writeln some weeks ago that popped up in the NG). I don't find wikibooks a good learning place at all. But maybe that's just my experience from the few books I've tried reading there. On the other hand, a book like Pilgrim's Dive Into Python 3 is an excellent example of a free book. But the author took the time to plan and write it, he was really committed to his project (unlike these NG posts like "hey lets do this!" "yeah, lets do it!" "zzz").
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:13:10 +0000, Frank Fuente wrote:

 I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions

 time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels.

 switch to carpentry any time <g>.
 (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)

Is that why D2 is taking so long to complete :-)

Maybe it's because some of DIP text [2] and bibliography links were in a wiki [1] and wikis are a bad form of communication [3]. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d58qq/ interview_with_andrei_alexandrescu_part_3_d/c0xo1bt [2] http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi? action=browse&amp;id=LanguageDevel/DIPs [3] http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php? art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=116345
Aug 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
OT: Anyway, I don't think making tutorials for newbies is a priority
right now. Even if you make a fantastic free D book it still wouldn't
help much, because D2 is missing libraries. It's the same situation as
Python 3 was when it was released (heck, many Python 2 libraries have
not been ported to Python 3 yet). Newbies might have a good time
learning the language, but when it's time to do some actual work
they'll realize there's few libraries they can use.

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:56 PM, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:13:10 +0000, Frank Fuente wrote:

 I'm sorry, this just makes no sense to me. People change professions

 time under capitalism. Novelists aren't locked in to writing novels.

 switch to carpentry any time <g>.
 (In fact, I know a programmer who switched to making ceramic pots.)

Is that why D2 is taking so long to complete :-)

Maybe it's because some of DIP text [2] and bibliography links were in a wiki [1] and wikis are a bad form of communication [3]. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d58qq/ interview_with_andrei_alexandrescu_part_3_d/c0xo1bt [2] http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi? action=browse&amp;id=LanguageDevel/DIPs [3] http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php? art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=116345

Aug 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:36:49 +0000, retard wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:03:29 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
 could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
 prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves
 and money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if
 *able* to download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to
 share more of their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their
 efforts are simply taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is
 not a car, you don't need to read it ALL before buying, and most
 modern authors and publishers provide samples so potential reader may
 see if the book is worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was
 recently provided for all willing), so I don't see any reasons for
 advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.

Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and destroyed the copy. In either case the author gets as much/little money assuming that reading the book doesn't break it too badly. Those people who reason about the problem this way wouldn't buy the book in any case.

Sure it makes a difference. Say I lend the book from the library. While I have it, you and a lot of other people go to the library and ask for the same book. The library people go "man, this sure is a popular book, we better get some more copies". Author makes more money. -Lars
Aug 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:12:46 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar>  
wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 17:34 me escribiste:

 FLOSS only exists because writing software is profitable :)  Think
 about it...  I write software because I can make a living doing it.
 If FLOSS is all that existed, then I wouldn't write software (gotta
 make money somehow), so I wouldn't have the skills to contribute
 software to the OSS community.  Same for Walter, Andrei, etc.

FLOSS exists because in software people found other ways to get profit with services or by request from a single user.

I worked in a company that had one very large customer, which accounted for more than half of our profit. The customer sort of fell in our lap, we happened to have exactly what they wanted at a point where they were desperate for it, so we got the contract. Through bending over backwards and doing anything they asked, we were able to keep that contract for years and years (I think they still are in business together). On the other side of the business, we spent (well, not exactly me, others in the company) millions of dollars and years of time developing other products, each one pretty much a failure, each one never really made any money. Some of those products were cool, and some people really liked them. But none of them proved to be the killer application that would save the company. If not for that one large customer with a guaranteed contract, we would have gone out of business long ago. After 5-6 years of listening to how this new product, or that new system was going to make us so much money, I became cynical about just about any new product we created. Each one was touted to be one of the greatest ideas and was exactly what the market needed. I never felt like they were in the right place, but nothing happened because the money we made from that one customer kept the other side of the business afloat. To say that the other side of the business was anywhere close to a success is just a complete farce. Not completely, but I liken this to FLOSS. If you look at most companies, almost none of them rely solely on open source freely available software. They also sell non-open-source software. Yes, the model works -- for a very small number of projects, and in a world where 90% of software is sold for profit. Would it work in a world where 90% of software was FLOSS? I'm not sure. I tend to think not, because like I said, if you can't make money at something, why not do something that will make money? The number of software developers will go way down, and the number of quality projects will go down too. This of course is my opinion. But I can say with 100% certainty that the current situation where most software is sold for profit works rather well. The likelihood of that changing is pretty much nil. There are exceptions, but there are exceptions in everything. I of course am not sure that FLOSS wouldn't work, and maybe some day it will be that way. But I tend to think that while things *are* working rather well, we should continue with what works.
 Anyway, this is getting too long and time consuming. My point was only
 that this is no black or white, there are a lot of alternative models,
 and some have proven to be sustainable, and a lot of copyright laws are
 plain BS, and goes *against* innovation and society.

Yes, the argument could last indefinitely -- Without a way to prove that alternative models do or do not work (one company succeeding in a world where the rest of the companies have a different model isn't proof to me), there's no way to resolve the argument. I for one, tend to think that copyright is a great method of rewarding innovation, and although it has some rough edges, it's better than not having anything. The world seems to be pretty damn innovative to me. -Steve
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:43:22 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:18:26 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:49 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:

 Assume the library bought the damn book and someone always provides
 copies of the books online. In that case it really doesn't make any
 difference financially if I lent it or downloaded from the web and
 destroyed the copy.

In fact it does. When the library has lent out the book, nobody else can use it.

Actually they can. You can read it loud just like the teacher used to do in the elementary school. You can also share the book with a friend unlike in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html - the copyright mafia is constantly inventing new ways to restrict use.

And that will never change. It hasn't in a hundred years. Richard Stallman predicting the future is hardly evidence of anything ;) Let's not forget that we have an open society where everything is openly debated, and where our elected officials are held accountable for their actions (like they will be this November). First, the chances of copyright law being changed to alter the provisions of fair-use is 0. The DMCA is an atrocity, and should be repealed, but it probably will lose its teeth the first time it's tested in court. And second, any changes will have to be judged against existing law by trials. The point is, all types of fair-use are accounted for in the pricing structure of the book. Once you start having "unfair use" or piracy, the pricing model doesn't work, and without laws to protect against such abuses, its quite possible that we would have a much less innovative society, with less books or crappier books. Shit, just look at the over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale software. For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.
 The reason money is lost is
 because you are destroying the publisher's assumption, and his entire
 pricing structure is based on it.  If he knew half the people who read
 the book were going to download it without paying for it, he'd charge
 more, or simply not publish because it's not worth it.

The loss of money might not be that important. The greater goal is to educate people.

Educating people doesn't feed your family. Making money does. If educating people doesn't make you money, then you're likely to do something else, especially if you have the intelligence to write a good book. I suppose only millionaires with lots of time on their hands (although that happens very rarely) would be the ones to write books?
 The publisher must make such assumptions because the COG for a
 book is not worth nearly as much as creating the IP that goes into the
 book.  The law protects them so they can make those assumptions and
 remain a profitable company.  Without the law, publishers go out of
 business, and books are never created in the first place.

That's hardly the case. One reason why open sourced books are so rare is that the capitalistic finance system competes with voluntary work. For example, when Andrei writes a book about D, he probably wants money (because life isn't free), money (because he wants to be richer than some low class douchebag trolling in the newsgroups), he wants fame (talks, job offers, other contacts), he wants to contribute to the development of D. If the money was provided by other means, there wouldn't be a need for profits from the book anymore, thus piracy would be acceptable.

Oh yeah, how dare people try to make money off of books. Who do they think they are? People should just spend years writing books and give them away for free, so I can benefit and they can starve. That's the way it should be! I can see where you got your name ;)
 The plus side of capitalism is that it encourages writing books. The bad
 thing is (if you're a novelist), you basically *have to* always write
 something, because there's no other way to get money unless you change
 your profession. If you have high moral and you know that you can only
 write one good book during your lifetime, you should stop writing crappy
 books after The book and collecting money with your previous fame. Here,
 capitalism might encourage you to waste the rest of your time hurting the
 society. Capitalism isn't equal to justice in all cases.

Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works. You seem to have a very twisted view on reality.
 Here's another way to think about it:  Let's say a publisher wants to
 publish a book, but before doing so, accepts fees from all people who
 potentially will buy the book, until it has enough to pay the author and
 make a profit.

You can't know how much is enough.

Trust me, the publishers know exactly how many copies they need to sell to make a sustainable profit.
 Then when the book is finished, you get your copy.  How
 well do you think this model will work?  Essentially it's the same as
 the current model, but now *you* are taking all the risk, not the
 publisher. Who wants to do that?  I want to peruse a book before buying
 it, how can that work if I have to pay for it before it's written?

I think sites like wikipedia work this way.

wikipedia writes books? And charges fees for the contract of writing them? I've never heard of that...
 What people don't understand is the *act* of copying something isn't
 illegal.

They perfectly understand that it's illegal. They don't care because it feels irrational and unjust. That's it.

No, it's *legal*. What's not legal is giving the copies to others. Many people *do not get it*. They think if they can do something, and do it easily, then why should it be illegal? Especially when they have legally obtained all the items necessary to pirate. Ignorance is probably less prevalent now that individuals are being sued over their actions, but I'd say most people still don't get how copyright works, and what rights they have. Almost everyone I've ever told that copying music and giving it to a friend is illegal were defiantly ignorant about it, not defiantly knowledgeable. I was probably in that majority until I really studied copyright laws when the DMCA/decss controversy was around. -Steve
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:13:54 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.  For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.

The number #1 problem with open source is the lack of workforce. The reasons for this have less to do with financial issues. The freedom it provides also scatters the community. When you're not aiming at high profits, you can choose exactly the combination of licenses, languages, and toolchains you prefer. Typical FLOSS enthusiastic's mindset: "Oh no! They made a BSD licensed desktop calculator in Ruby - quickly, we must make a 'better' BSD licensed clone in Python. The audience liked the GUI and the GMP backend was optimal for the task, therefore let's use those same libraries ourselves. To avoid intellectual deterioration, we should avoid studying the existing code at all costs!!" Another thing is that professional developers don't have too much energy to be spent in hobby projects after 8..12 hours of daily work, commuting etc. The number #2 problem is that stupid unnecessary projects never die. Linux distributions get higher scores in international rankings when their repositories are full of all kinds of crap software.
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Stanislav Blinov <blinov loniir.ru> writes:
  27.08.2010 4:48, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
 On 8/26/10 16:35 PDT, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 Vladimir wrote:
 Stanislav Blinov Wrote:

 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to
 ask: (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good
 place to look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?

I'm quite satisfied with the torrent version. As long as no money goes directly to the D development I refuse to buy books. The book guy already earns 10 to 100 times as much as a normal developer in Russia.

Thanks for the honesty but no thanks. The "book guy" puts a lot of effort into D and I'm sure that work on TDPL was tremendous hit on all his resources (both mental and physical) as well. A hard an honest work needs to be compensated, and an (assumed) overall current income has nothing to do with it (I assume that's plain jealousy talking in you). If Andrei so wished, he could publish the book for free, but he didn't. Mind you, he and Walter and others have LOTS thing to do except D, but they keep perfecting the language, keep finding new goals, keep participating in discussions in this newsgroup, keep helping the language and the community. What stops you from earning 10 to 100 times more? Being a Russian? I doubt it. If you desire earning more, then do it. Plain assumptions and "big" talk are no justifications for plain stealing. P.S. Seems that some things would never change. I think there would be far less "professionals" out there weren't it not for piracy. Anyway, does someone have any other options on the topic?

Thanks for your kind words. If you email me your address, I'll be glad to mail you a signed copy of TDPL's collector edition as a gift. Andrei

I could gather myself for I wrote in the email (if I got an address hint right).
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:44 -0400, retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:
 
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:35:32 +0400, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

Author may not lose anything, but she actually doesn't gain what she
could, so yes, this is stealing. Pirates steal profit (and often
prestiege as well), profit that may have paid off spent time, nerves and
money. And torrent user is not guaranteed to buy the book if *able* to
download a .pdf as well. It doesn't stimulate authors to share more of
their thoughts and knowledge when they see all their efforts are simply
taken away without any kind of thanks. A book is not a car, you don't
need to read it ALL before buying, and most modern authors and
publishers provide samples so potential reader may see if the book is
worth buying (btw, a whole chapter of TDPL was recently provided for all
willing), so I don't see any reasons for advertisement here.

Do you think the libraries also steal from the authors? If I can't afford a book or don't find it important enough, I can ask the local library to order it and later read it for free. This also encourages other member of the target audience to loan the book without paying--the libraries have lists of most recent books and all kinds of enthusiastics subscribe to those lists. This is also a great way to introduce new readers to a topic. I've noticed that books I order get lots of attention after they're available from the shelves.

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books that other people have bought. If I lent you my copy of TDPL then it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book. If you have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that copy. This falls under fair-use. You are allowed to transfer your copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or lend it to them as long as you are not also using it. There is a difference between copying and lending.

That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing. I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people reading the same book concurrently. I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point that there are viable alternatives). -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Somos testigos de Jaimito, venimos a traer la salvación, el mundo va a desaparecer, somos testigos de Jaimito!". Nos enyoguizamos... Así que "somos testigos"? Te dejo el culo hecho un vino, y la conch'itumá, y la conch'itumá! -- Sidharta Kiwi
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 17:34 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:40:43 -0400, Leandro Lucarella
 <luca llucax.com.ar> wrote:
 
Steven Schveighoffer, el 27 de agosto a las 15:03 me escribiste:

No, libraries don't steal, they buy their copies or are given books
that other people have bought.  If I lent you my copy of TDPL then
it wouldn't be stealing either, someone paid for that book.  If you
have a copy of a book from the library, then nobody else has that
copy.  This falls under fair-use.  You are allowed to transfer your
copy of IP to someone else (despite what EULA's try to enforce), or
lend it to them as long as you are not also using it.  There is a
difference between copying and lending.

That being true, the practical consequences are the same: A doesn't buy the book, but reads it anyway. So according to the argument about downloading the book via torrent was "A is stealing profit from the author". If A lends the book instead of downloading it, he is still getting the knowledge but not paying from it (so the author doesn't get paid either). I really have a lot of trouble understanding why one is reasonable or fair use and why another is stealing.

See my response to retard. The publisher prices his book with the *understanding* that libraries will buy the book and lend it to people, or that some people won't buy it and will just borrow a copy from a friend. They have done lots of research to find the correct price point so people will buy it (not to expensive) and they make a profit (not too cheap).

Well, that's not true in Argentina, most books (and music records) explicitly forbids public loaning (on the other hand, anyone that receives any kind of subsidy from the national treasure must provide a free copy to the National Congress Library).
 What screws up the pricing is when people can easily get copies
 without paying for them, without following the "one license, one
 book" model.

I really think that what publishers really want is one fee per user, not per physical copy. Maybe they count the lending as a variable to calculate the price, but is not what they wish for, as in some countries are lobbying to put a tax to compensate for piracy.
 Then they lose money.  Look at what it has done to the music industry.
 The losses are hard to comprehend, because a "non-sale" doesn't cost
 anything.  But when you invest so much money expecting a return on the
 investment, only to not get your money back, the model doesn't work,
 the industry suffers, and the eventual beneficiaries from the industry
 (i.e. you) suffer.  It wouldn't happen overnight, but if copyright law
 was abolished, eventually we would have only poetry to read :)

You are insane, really. I don't know much about books, because I don't read much (yeah, I'm an illiterate), but I do hear a lot of music, and I'm following the development of alternative models for a long time, and music is *completely* sustainable without distribution companies. There are plenty of cases (most notably the In Rainbows Radiohead album, as a major band, for small bands is even better, because having the opportunity to sign with a big label is almost impossible while using alternative channels to distribute your music, even for free to get a wider audience that will *pay* to go to the shows, gives you a fairly good chance of earning *something*). With books is harder because there aren't shows. The music industry is desperate to cover this reality to survive a little more. [snip]
I'm not convinced about the argument about the paper book taking
a "time-slice" to be read so it's OK to share because 2 people can't
read the same book at the same time, I think libraries usually have
a few copies from the same book because there is usually little people
reading the same book concurrently.

I'm not talking any side here, I really think authors should be
encouraged to keep writing books, and for that to happen, they have to
live, and to live, get some profit, but I'm not convinced the topic is
so black & white. There is a lot of discussion about IP because of
digital media, and it's not very clear how the future will be, but I do
think the old model is exhausted (CC and FLOSS making an excellent point
that there are viable alternatives).

FLOSS only exists because writing software is profitable :) Think about it... I write software because I can make a living doing it. If FLOSS is all that existed, then I wouldn't write software (gotta make money somehow), so I wouldn't have the skills to contribute software to the OSS community. Same for Walter, Andrei, etc.

FLOSS exists because in software people found other ways to get profit with services or by request from a single user. Anyway, this is getting too long and time consuming. My point was only that this is no black or white, there are a lot of alternative models, and some have proven to be sustainable, and a lot of copyright laws are plain BS, and goes *against* innovation and society. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Es más probable que el tomate sea perita, a que la pera tomatito. -- Peperino Pómoro
Aug 27 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 
 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).

Not in the US.

It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 27 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up 
 your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).

Not in the US.

It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use.

(IANAL) "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v. Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v. Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference). Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio) and declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to get in the way of corporate greed.
Aug 27 2010
parent David Gileadi <gileadis NSPMgmail.com> writes:
On 8/30/10 5:28 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 DMCA will eventually be repealed. It goes against existing laws and
 fair-use. There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it
 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).

 FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the
 DMCA to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up
 the bill in a heartbeat :)

 -Steve

The trend seems to be in the other direction: the ACTA treaty is considered by many to be the DMCA for the rest of the world. Ars Technica's thoughts on it are at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/world-get-ready-for-the-dmca-actas-internet-chapter-leaks.ars
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 27 August 2010 22:47:54 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 
 On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 
 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up
 your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own  benefit).

Not in the US.

It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use.

(IANAL) "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v. Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v. Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference). Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio) and declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to get in the way of corporate greed.

Well, since both fair use and the DMCA are law, and they contradict each other, I believe it would take a court ruling to say which won out, and even then it could easily depend on the exact circumstances of the case. Some situations might be deemed legal under fair use while others might be deemed illegal due to the DMCA. Personally, what I'd really love to have happen is have a case go to court where someone did something under fair use which was illegal under the DMCA and have at least some portion of the DMCA overruled by the Supreme Court due to it violating fair use. But I can't imagine the odds of that happening are very high. After all, the DMCA has been around for a while now, and it hasn't happened. Also, odds are that it would happen in a suit by a big corporation against an individual, and the individual wouldn't be able to afford to take the case that far, so it wouldn't actually get to the Supreme Court to be ruled on. In any case, I can dream, I suppose. The DMCA is one of the worst laws ever passed, but there's not much that we can do about it. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:21:02 -0400, Jonathan M Davis  
<jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote:

 On Friday 27 August 2010 22:47:54 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.vh3740cneav7ka localhost.localdomain...

 Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up
 your
 software, or transferring it to another medium for your own   



 Not in the US.

It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered under free use.

(IANAL) "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v. Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v. Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference). Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio) and declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to get in the way of corporate greed.

Well, since both fair use and the DMCA are law, and they contradict each other, I believe it would take a court ruling to say which won out, and even then it could easily depend on the exact circumstances of the case. Some situations might be deemed legal under fair use while others might be deemed illegal due to the DMCA. Personally, what I'd really love to have happen is have a case go to court where someone did something under fair use which was illegal under the DMCA and have at least some portion of the DMCA overruled by the Supreme Court due to it violating fair use. But I can't imagine the odds of that happening are very high. After all, the DMCA has been around for a while now, and it hasn't happened. Also, odds are that it would happen in a suit by a big corporation against an individual, and the individual wouldn't be able to afford to take the case that far, so it wouldn't actually get to the Supreme Court to be ruled on. In any case, I can dream, I suppose. The DMCA is one of the worst laws ever passed, but there's not much that we can do about it.

DMCA will eventually be repealed. It goes against existing laws and fair-use. There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the DMCA to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up the bill in a heartbeat :) -Steve
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Csuthy?= <csuthy gmail.com> writes:
Hi,

I live in Hungary and I preordered TDPL from Amazon.UK (there was some
discount for it). With some delay (~ 2-3 weeks after US release) but
it arrived without any problem.


Br,
Lanten

2010/8/27 Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com>:
 Hi,

 I've noticed I'm not the only one Russian here, so I've decided to ask:
 (yeah, I know I'm quite a bit late)

 Did anyone buy TDPL in Russia? If so, where from? Is Amazon a good place to
 look (there seemed to be trouble getting stuff from them)?

Aug 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:35:56 -0400, David Gileadi <gileadis nspmgmail.com>  
wrote:

 On 8/30/10 5:28 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 DMCA will eventually be repealed. It goes against existing laws and
 fair-use. There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it
 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).

 FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the
 DMCA to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up
 the bill in a heartbeat :)

 -Steve

The trend seems to be in the other direction: the ACTA treaty is considered by many to be the DMCA for the rest of the world. Ars Technica's thoughts on it are at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/world-get-ready-for-the-dmca-actas-internet-chapter-leaks.ars

That's scary shit... I found a later post here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars Thanks for posting this. -Steve
Aug 30 2010
prev sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:
 I think that some categories of software will never be free open source. 
 For example, tax prep software. That's because tax software is a load of 
 tedious detail work with no glory. People will want to be paid to write 
 it, and others will be willing to pay for it.
 

For german tax declarations there is http://www.taxbird.de/. It's supposed to be a linux-compatible alternative to the windows-only Freeware "ELSTER" provided by the government. It's not usable though, because the developer is still waiting for some information from some state office or something regarding electronic submission of the declarations (a feature offered by ELSTER). But at least it proves people are willing to provide this kind of software as open source ;-)
Aug 30 2010