kioku3 Wrote:

ahibba Wrote:Knowledge should be free.

It is. That crummy 1850 translation is free on the internet. There is no copyright on it.
Enjoy.

But you don't want that one, do you? You want the good translation, right? Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free?

For kicks and giggles

Most people have a fairness instinct about them and contribute to some cause or another at some point in their lives. Anonymously or otherwise. People who create something others like will always have supporters if they let it be known they need help.

bodhisamaya Wrote:But then, I support the idea that a person's income should be capped at $25 million/year with the excess going to public works. Kind a Capitalist/Socialist morph I am

What do you think millionaires do with their money? Do you think they keep it tucked under a pillow? They do put it back into the public works, through investments. Which, when done by the private sector, do far and away more good than any government could do with them. For example, what would've happened if the government took all Warren Buffets money when he was only a small time investor? The government would have spent it in a second on some meaningless project. Instead Warren grew that money into a multi billion dollar fund, which is invested in companies which keep thousands and thousands of jobs alive. And it's still growing. Too bad Warren is a moron, and has pledged to take all this wealth and investment out of the worlds economies and plunge it into the black hole that is Africa.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are examples of good that people can do with money.

vosmiura Wrote:If everybody was like that then many creative works would never have been made.

Most people are like that. The population of the world is more than 6,000,000,000 and most of them use their money to feed their families.

vosmiura Wrote:Borrowing and making use of your brothers or libraries things is not the same, and you are not violating copyright if you do that.

What if my brother is so generous and he offer his books to everyone on the street?

What if he lends his e-books to his friends in other countries using the internet?

Most file sharing advocates treat the humanity as their brothers and sisters, and have no objection to show them/lend them what they buy.

vosmiura Wrote:I'm just wondering do you think it would be OK to take some product from a shop without paying for it?

This is not borrowing, this is stealing something physical.

When you steal something from someone, he lose it. But you can't steal an idea. You can steal a book from a shop, but you can't steal something not physical.

Borrowing is not stealing. Copying is not stealing, because you make two copies or more and you don't take the first one!

kioku3 Wrote:But you don't want that one, do you? You want the good translation, right? Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free?

If he want to make money, it's better to open a restaurant or coffee shop.

Knowledge and literature should be free as they were for centuries.

By the way, one of my brothers in humanity lent me his copy of Essential Japanese Verbs CD. It contains more than 3000 example sentences with audio.

He allowed me to lend his copy to anyone interested in it!

My brother support copyright and CosCom. He bought the CD with his money. But he has no objection to lend anything he bought to anyone interested in it. Is he wrong?

The ability to take ownership of ideas has always been a sign of a progressive civilization. Throughout history, the ability to own your ideas has allowed people who would otherwise have been oppressed by the upper class to fight back and stand up for themselves. If invention relies completely on products, then the smart people remain slaves to those with the means of production.

Knowledge should be free after a certain amount of time spent profiting from it, so that one can support themselves.
Should ideas be free from all law that can help the originator claim ownership? Only if we want to regress society back to the dark ages. If you want brilliant people to come up with new things, you have to have copyright in place to support that growth. The fact that you have to pay 10$ for a translation of the Illiad is a sad by-product of that very necessary system.

There's a reason that an advanced(technologically) society always includes some form of copyright system. It's because to become advanced the market for ideas has to be just as profitable as the market for products. A market creates competition, growth, and new ideas, with the promise of rewards and renown.

ahibba Wrote:When you steal something from someone, he lose it. But you can't steal an idea. You can steal a book from a shop, but you can't steal something not physical.

Borrowing is not stealing. Copying is not stealing, because you make two copies or more and you don't take the first one!

Rubbish. You can steal an idea. If someone writes an original book and you copy it and then sell it, then that is stealing their idea - people no longer have to buy from the originator. If you copy it and give it away for free, that is exactly the same.

ahibba Wrote:By the way, one of my brothers in humanity lent me his copy of Essential Japanese Verbs CD. It contains more than 3000 example sentences with audio.

He allowed me to lend his copy to anyone interested in it!

My brother support copyright and CosCom. He bought the CD with his money. But he has no objection to lend anything he bought to anyone interested in it. Is he wrong?

He can lend it to as many people as he likes. That means, handing his copy to someone else - only one use at a time, unless he has a license to broadcast it.

Anyway, back to the thread's topic, KO + Anki is the bees knees for learning kanji + vocab, so I like to have a nice KO deck, however this deck incorporating near 100% of the e-book content and being freely downloadable may harm CosCom's sales.

I bought my copies of the KO books, and I was one of the first to recommend them on the forum (2nd after Zazen?) and following that they've become an almost de facto part of learning by many here. So, I am rooting for CosCom. Come to think of it, I was also first to recommend Anki. Go donate some to Anki :p.

ahibba Wrote:

kioku3 Wrote:But you don't want that one, do you? You want the good translation, right? Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free?

If he want to make money, it's better to open a restaurant or coffee shop.

Knowledge and literature should be free as they were for centuries.

If someone's field of expertise is translating ancient Greek or writing or music or the visual arts, s/he should give it away for free but if the expertise is in cooking or serving coffee, s/he can charge for it? Why?

weldone101 Wrote:Knowledge should be free after a certain amount of time spent profiting from it, so that one can support themselves.

If I were smart and invented a new treatment for AIDS or cancer, is it right for him or his company to monopolize this treatment for a certain amount of time until millions of people die?

vosmiura Wrote:You can steal an idea. If someone writes an original book and you copy it and then sell it, then that is stealing their idea - people no longer have to buy from the originator. If you copy it and give it away for free, that is exactly the same.

No, he is not a copier. He is a liar, and there is a big difference between the two.

If you say that something is your which is not, then you are a liar. But if you copy something, you don't steal anything.

vosmiura Wrote:That means, handing his copy to someone else - only one use at a time, unless he has a license to broadcast it.

Only one use at a time? You remind me of Microsoft! (If you bought this product or that, you can't install it in more than one computer. So you can't install your copy of Windows XP for example in your sister's PC!)

Who said that?

Can't I lend my e-book to my brother and my sister at the same time? Why not?

ahibba Wrote:If he want to make money, it's better to open a restaurant or coffee shop.

Knowledge and literature should be free as they were for centuries.

I think you ought to read some history if you think knowledge was free. Knowledge has never been as free as it is today. Just 10 years ago, if I wanted to cook something I didn't already know about, I had to own several cookbooks to get it done. If I wanted to look up something in an encyclopedia, I had to have it there. I'm guessing anybody here who didn't grow up with the internet can tell you how much more difficult and expensive knowledge and literature was before 1995.

kioku3 Wrote:If someone's field of expertise is translating ancient Greek or writing or music or the visual arts, s/he should give it away for free but if the expertise is in cooking or serving coffee, s/he can charge for it? Why?

Food and coffee are physical things. We can't copy food or coffee, but we can steal them. We can tell a story, but we can't steal it from its author (unless we say that we are the author, and in this case we are liars.)

Yes, the papers of books are physical and you should pay for it, but the content is not. You should be allowed to read for free.

welldone101 Wrote:I think you ought to read some history if you think knowledge was free. Knowledge has never been as free as it is today. Just 10 years ago, if I wanted to cook something I didn't already know about, I had to own several cookbooks to get it done. If I wanted to look up something in an encyclopedia, I had to have it there. I'm guessing anybody here who didn't grow up with the internet can tell you how much more difficult and expensive knowledge and literature was before 1995.

The concept of copyright originates with the Statute of Anne in 1710.

I'm not talking about the last two centuries.

ahibba Wrote:

kioku3 Wrote:If someone's field of expertise is translating ancient Greek or writing or music or the visual arts, s/he should give it away for free but if the expertise is in cooking or serving coffee, s/he can charge for it? Why?

Food and coffee are physical things. We can't copy food or coffee, but we can steal them. We can tell a story, but we can't steal it from its author (unless we say that we are the author, and in this case we are liars.)

Yes, the papers of books are physical and you should pay for it, but the content is not. You should be allowed to read for free.

I'm curious what kind of work do you do that you have such a view about what has value and what doesn't. I work in software, and it has a lot more value than serving coffee :p.

ahibba Wrote:

weldone101 Wrote:Knowledge should be free after a certain amount of time spent profiting from it, so that one can support themselves.

If I were smart and invented a new treatment for AIDS or cancer, is it right for him or his company to monopolize this treatment for a certain amount of time until millions of people die?

This is just silly. Of course he can monopolize it. He made it up. If he didn't exist, neither would the treatment. Whether or not it's right has to do with your religion I'd assume.
What's wrong with him treating millions of people, and making a lot of money in the process. Many drug makers sell expensive drugs to America and give the same ones away in Africa by the tonnage. The creators of them get their due and many people are saved.
Given the system you are supporting I fail to see why this person would have worked so hard to create a cure in the first place, so I'd say your "scenario" is hog wash. An education in the science required to study advanced drugs costs in the half a million dollar range. You propose he finance his education out of pocket and work at a coffee shop while developing your cancer cure on the side?

Somebody sent me the audio for the sentences of the first book ("auex1"). I therefore uploaded a new version of the deck that contains audio for the first half (1551/3104) of the sentences. There seems to be a 200 MB size limit for free users on rapidshare, so I used a split archive.

*removed link, see the first post in this thread for the current download link*

There are now also 1551 "Listening" cards that just contain the sound as the question and the full information as the answer.

This is the updated Python script. Just put the contents of the "auex1" and/or "auex2" folder into a "mp3" folder inside the output directory of the Perl script I posted earlier in this thread to create your own deck with audio for any existing mp3 file.

If somebody sends me the audio for the second part ("auex2") I will add that as well.

I now manged to cut off the furigana for the vocabulary words as well. Is there any interesst in having them in this deck too? Or cards quizzing from kanji to stroke order images or from kanji to images of all its readings or its english meaning?

Rights related to creative works differs between nations and there are at least four different ideas/views that is combined to form today's laws. It also helps explain the different stances that people takes in the debate.

Scandinavian (1220, nonprofit rights) The Westrogothic law (old Swedish law) states that you should give "Honour where honour is due".
Brittish (1703, economical rights) Authors own the right to print their works.
American (1787, economical rights) As an incentive to create, the creator of a work should be given monopoly of providing it to the public.
French (19th century, economical and nonprofit rights) Victor Hugo claims that an author have morally right to be honoured and economic compensation.

Here is some quotes from this threads and which idea/view they support (my interpretation, tell me if you disagree):

Scandinavian
*If I had some creative idea that would help others, as long as I had enough to live a semi-modest life, that contribution would be all the reward I would want. (bodhisamaya)
* Most people have a fairness instinct about them and contribute to some cause or another at some point in their lives. (bodhisamaya)
* If you say that something is your which is not, then you are a liar. But if you copy something, you don't steal anything. (ahibba)

Brittish
* If the people who create the product think it's ok to copy it, then by all means feel free to distribute it. But while they don't want it copied, you can't just say 'oh, but I know better, so I'll distribute it'. (lagwagon555)

American
* Copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and instead serves to enrich a few at the expense of creativity. (ahibba)
* Saying that having downloads available actually helps business is all fine and all, as long as you actually practice what you preach and buy the product if you like it. If you just leech stuff and you think that somehow you're helping the world by doing that then you have issues. (vosmiura)
* A team has sat down and worked to create KO2001, and you're saying that all their time and effort is worthless (in a monetary sense), and their product is only worth the paper and ink it's printed on? (lagwagon555)
* Yeah, it's so unfair that someone who worked for a long time to create something should be paid more than the paper it got printed on... (vosmiura)
* But you don't want that one, do you? You want the good translation, right? Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free? (kioku3)
* If everybody simply used the intellectual property without paying for it, then that would deprive the creator of a way to make effective use of his creation - and would lead to many creative works not being funded. (vosmiura)
* Knowledge should be free after a certain amount of time spent profiting from it, so that one can support themselves. (welldone101)
* What do you think millionaires do with their money? Do you think they keep it tucked under a pillow? They do put it back into the public works, through investments. Which, when done by the private sector, do far and away more good than any government could do with them. (lagwagon555)

French
* So long as this model of society is the norm, there will be a need to protect people's creation and make sure they are retributed for their work (regardless of quantity, since we don't really have minimum "revenue of existence" or maximal wages as part of human rights). (ファブリス)
* My brother support copyright and CosCom. He bought the CD with his money. But he has no objection to lend anything he bought to anyone interested in it. (ahibba)

Seems like the American view is the dominating one on this forum. I wonder how well the writer's origin matches the origin of the views of rights to creative works. I prefer the Scandinavian view which is not very surprising as I'm a Swede.

I hope that everyone that thinks that all information should be free, posts their real name, credit card number, SS number and bank account numbers in this thread. All those things are intangible and information, so everyone here should have free access to it. If you are ok with copyright theft, you should be ok with identity theft, seeing as nothing tangible is being stolen from you(you're just copying).
I also don't understand why everyone is bringing up libraries. Libraries aren't free. Authors don't just give books to libraries, the libraries, buy the books. The author gets paid and the library let's you use the books. Even then it's not free since your taxes pay for the library. You are basically paying a rental fee, through your taxes. There is big difference between letting someone use something and taking it without their permission.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:I hope that everyone that thinks that all information should be free, posts their real name, credit card number, SS number and bank account numbers in this thread. All those things are intangible and information, so everyone here should have free access to it. If you are ok with copyright theft, you should be ok with identity theft, seeing as nothing tangible is being stolen from you(you're just copying).

Not that I'm saying I agree or disagree with people using the material that haven't purchased it, that is their own personal moral decision to make, but the argument above is ridiculous.

A credit card or SSN number does not increase anyone's knowledge. On their own they are simply numbers. They only have value as numbers because they DO represent one's REAL property (one's identity, money, etc).

Chandlerhimself Wrote:I hope that everyone that thinks that all information should be free, posts their real name, credit card number, SS number and bank account numbers in this thread.

This is not the kind of information we are talking about. The last time I checked credit card numbers and bank account numbers are not protected by copyright. So it seems this distiction seems to be backed up by law. Don't waste your time fighting wind mills.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:If you are ok with copyright theft, you should be ok with identity theft, seeing as nothing tangible is being stolen from you(you're just copying).

Nothing tangible is stolen from me, when I am killed, raped or wounded. Getting something tangible stolen is not required for something to be undesirable and hopefully illegal. It is on the other hand required for calling something theft. I therefore don't call identity fraud identity theft.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:Libraries aren't free. Authors don't just give books to libraries, the libraries, buy the books.

To cover the material costs I suppose.

The point was someone said all information should be free. If people are trying to argue that the information has to increase your knowledge somehow, then how can people justify the copying of fiction books, music, movies, etc. Harry Potter doesn't increase your knowledge anymore than someone SS number. Also credit card debt isn't a real thing either, it's just an idea, however the money you have to pay to get rid of it unfortunately is. When you copy something you lower it's demand and thus it's value. Value of course is an idea, however the money you get for something because of it's value is real and tangible(well if they pay in cash).
It would be nice if people didn't take into account things like supply, demand, labor, etc when setting prices. Lobster in Yokohama would most likely be cheaper than apples. On the other hand I doubt many people would be willing to catch lobsters if that was the case.

I also created a deck of the first 1110 kanji of the book including stroke order, english meaning and readings. The zip file includes the Perl and Python script used in the creating of the deck.

Unfortunatly adding Heisig keywords is not possible, because the kanji are just images. Does anybody have a list of the kanji used in KO2001 and their matching numbers in the book?

Chandlerhimself Wrote:The point was someone said all information should be free.

Yes, and the word "information" in this sentence has a specific meaning. You seem to confuse it with another meaning of the word "information".

Chandlerhimself Wrote:Harry Potter doesn't increase your knowledge anymore than someone SS number.

This is obviously not true.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:Also credit card debt isn't a real thing either, it's just an idea, however the money you have to pay to get rid of it unfortunately is.

Money is not "a real thing" either. It is just a form of reverse credit or a bond as it is called.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:When you copy something you lower it's demand and thus it's value.

Not its initicate value, but rather its value for somebody that tries to create a profit by selling this piece of information.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:Value of course is an idea, however the money you get for something because of it's value is real and tangible(well if they pay in cash).

You don't seem to realize what the true nature of money is. It is not a tangible thing. The paper you use while buying is just the proof that you "own" money, but it is not the money itself. A random piece of paper is not valuable unlike money. If I copy such a piece of paper I am not creating new money, but just new pieces of paper that look like proof of ownership for some amount of money.

If you accidentally burn Euro notes and can proof it (e.g by supplying the ash), a Federal State Banks will refund you the same amount of money.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:It would be nice if people didn't take into account things like supply, demand, labor, etc when setting prices. Lobster in Yokohama would most likely be cheaper than apples. On the other hand I doubt many people would be willing to catch lobsters if that was the case.

That is not true. If they don't take supply and demand into account then people will catch lobster for prices cheaper than apples. Lots of people create or do stuff without taking any or much money (e.g. open source software, charity, ...) for other reasons. For example because they just like to catch lobsters or because they want that anybody can eat lobster or because there are too many lobsters and some must be caught and so on.

Chandlerhimself Wrote:I hope that everyone that thinks that all information should be free, posts their real name, credit card number, SS number and bank account numbers in this thread. All those things are intangible and information, so everyone here should have free access to it.

Quote:The point was someone said all information should be free.

That information is already free for everyone to use. I'm free to create my own system using the numbers and presentation like those used with credit cards, bank account or SS numbers.

Besides, all copyright laws requires a work to reach a certain threshold of originality to qualify. I very much doubt that there are any country which would consider a string of numbers or a combination of names to have enough originality.

Quote:If you are ok with copyright theft

What's copyright theft? If you mean copyright infringement, you should just write that. Even if you don't see the difference between copyright infringement and theft, the laws does. And that doesn't change just because you call copyright infringement what it isn't.

Quote:you should be ok with identity theft, seeing as nothing tangible is being stolen from you(you're just copying).

That's fraud. A completely different crime.

Quote:I also don't understand why everyone is bringing up libraries. Libraries aren't free. Authors don't just give books to libraries, the libraries, buy the books. The author gets paid and the library let's you use the books.

Libraries exist to spread knowledge to the population, yet copyright forbids or limits the citizens to do the same.

Even more interesting is that authors protested strongly when libraries were created. They said it was theft of their property, that no one would buy when they could read the work for free at a library and therefore no author would want to write new books.

xaarg Wrote:Somebody sent me the audio for the sentences of the first book ("auex1"). I therefore uploaded a new version of the deck that contains audio for the first half (1551/3104) of the sentences. There seems to be a 200 MB size limit for free users on rapidshare, so I used a split archive. [...]

@ahibba: Can you edit the first post in this thread to use these links instead of your no longer working one?

xaarg: I respect your abilities and spirit of generosity, but I'm puzzled at your decision to create and post links to this material given the site owner's specific request not to. He simply asks that people honour his request, so that he doesn't have to spend time monitoring it.

Ahibba, you are free to create your own site, violate copyright and promote your views on the history, philosophy and reform of intellectual property law. The Rules of this site are quite clear and I don't envision your arguments persuading the owner to change them any time soon.