Live data from Hacker News

Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

torrentfreak.com

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#91

I'm tired of this. I am not going to pay for any product I can pirate anymore. I don't even feel guilty about it. If the artist wants money he should set up a donations account so I can pay him directly. I'm tired of these middlemen. I'm also tired of people preaching about how piracy is unethical. A copied piece of data is not equivalent to a lost sale. People cannot own information. You cannot own an algorithm or i…

Explain to me again why you should have something for free that I created by putting years of my life into it?

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#92
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because that person made it? Are you saying people have no right to own the things they make? "I can only see so far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants." Imagine if you had to pay for every one of the thousands little concept that your own idea (inevitably) derives from. That system would be unsustainable. We can only make progress because we can expand and improve on what were created before.

Who is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from? That's a straw man. The argument for paying people for new IP is that for a limited time we should offer rewards for people to add to the collective knowledge of our society. So really in terms of your argument, the consumer isn't paying for "standing on the shoulder of giants" either. The consumer of IP is only paying for the…

Who is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from?

Oh, I don't know. The USPTO?

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#93
post #84
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's just an ad hominem. No it isn't....

The value of IP laws doesn't depend upon the (fabricated) motivations of those who created it. So, yeah, it is an ad hominem.

Actually, it isn't. Ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

In this case, he is referring to a third party (the monarchy) who actually did use it as a monopoly priviledge for the monarchy. Saying that it is frabricated does not make it so. In fact, if you look at all that was said, it was "Historically, Intellectual property was created as one more monopoly privilege for the monarchy."

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot own an algorithm or idea. Imagine if Newton owned the laws of motion, imagine if he owned calculus. And you can't copyright them either. How can someone own an arrangement of words or sounds. Because that person made it? Are you saying people have no right to own the things they make?

I made co2. If you want to pass it through your lungs you shuld pay me. I made a joke about that one guy being fat. Whenever someoness tells my joke or some along that line he should pay me because I did it.

Oh man. I'm considering how much money I'd earn from the {{fact}} (now {{citation needed}}) tag on Wikipedia... :-)

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Books need to be written, edited, typeset, 'printed' / 'put into ebook format', distributed, etc. The author writes the book. Typesetting and "putting into ebook format" are a copy-and-paste affair, taking at most a day. Pirated books don't need to be printed or distributed.

That time still isn't free.

So, they pay once for that time and effort. That doesn't mean that they should be paid in perpetuity! Imagine a cobbler who fixes my shoes. Should I pay them for every step I take? Of course not, I pay them once for the work they have done.

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That time still isn't free.

So, they pay once for that time and effort. That doesn't mean that they should be paid in perpetuity! Imagine a cobbler who fixes my shoes. Should I pay them for every step I take? Of course not, I pay them once for the work they have done.

That's really a terrible analogy.

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#97
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from? That's a straw man. The argument for paying people for new IP is that for a limited time we should offer rewards for people to add to the collective knowledge of our society. So really in terms of your argument, the consumer isn't paying for "standing on the shoulder of giants" either. The consumer of IP is only paying for the…

Who is arguing that one should pay for every previous idea that a new idea is derived from? Oh, I don't know. The USPTO?

If you read the context of that quote then you're telling me you think that the USPTO is arguing that an effectively infinite amount of money should be paid for every new piece of IP since you'd also need to pay something for all the IP that it was built upon.

The USPTO is certainly NOT arguing that when you pay for IP you also must pay something for everything that the IP is built upon.

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#98

Up-front and clear fees, directly based on the product or service offered, are the most efficient way for a market economy to work. In this case, this should mean simple fees for the classes, and book prices based on the original content in that version divided by the number of people who demand that original content. This patent describes a means to make the prices of things -- like a class -- much more obscure and…

Yes, I've definitely seen many people extolling the virtues of prepaid and I agree that prepaid is a fantastic option for many, but there are reasons why contracts are fine too.

Besides the psychological barriers to putting down an extra couple hundred to save a little money every month (where only in the aggregate do you start coming ahead), many of us just can't afford to drop that much cash at once for a phone. Not only that, but many have families, making that very expensive very quickly.

Speaking of families, prepaid doesn't cater well to families either! For most carriers, you can add a line for what, $10 a month (I use T-Mobile)? In my family of 4, a family plan would cost around $100 to $110 (without data).

The cheapest prepaid plans are now around $30 so a family of 4 would cost $120. Granted, that would include data, which I don't have. But with a contract plan, I would also get unlimited calling to others on the same carrier and free calling at night. Many Americans still actually use their phones as phones, so that's a huge plus that prepaid carriers don't offer.

So while prepaid works for many, it still isn't the perfect solution for a large majority of us.

One sidenote: If you're on T-Mobile, you can wait for phones to go on sale for free after 2 year contract and then get the cheapest data plan ($10 a month for 200mb) and your cost of the smartphone comes out to $240 over two years. Yes, if you HADN'T gone with the subsidy and brought your own phone (not to prepaid, but the other option T-Mobile has), your plan would be $10 less per month, but if you have a family, the benefits stated above quickly make that $10 feel a lot weaker. PM me if you don't quite understand.

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#99
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of IP laws doesn't depend upon the (fabricated) motivations of those who created it. So, yeah, it is an ad hominem.

Actually, it isn't. Ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. In this case, he is referring to a third party (the monarchy) who actually did use it as a monopoly priviledge for the monarchy. Saying that it is frabricated does not make it so. In fact, if you look at all that was said, it was "Historically, Intellectual prope…

> Actually, it isn't. Ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

Which is what the poster did in bringing up the motivations of a monarchy that used some form of IP regulation that we weren't even discussing. Discrediting monarchies' motivations for wanting IP has nothing to do with the situation we have today. It's an ad hominem.

None of that has anything to do with the utility of reward-based IP laws in promoting the creation of useful IP to society. So you could also consider some argument about how monarchies used IP in medieval times to be a red herring. Regardless of the label, the argument is equally invalid.

Re: Anti-Piracy Patent Aims to Stop Students from Sharing Textbooks

#100

I believe professors at my university may already be infringing on this patent. I was required to buy a $90 "workbook" authored by the course professor to access a "course survey" worth 10% of the final grade. Granted, you could share the book and access to the material online, but not if you wanted an A.

Which is the university?
Post reply on HN