Regarding Glimmers

[Aragorn]

Does anybody know where I can read it without having to pay for it?? I'm a cheap bastard, thanks.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Wait for the book to be released, then go to your local library.

[Anita_Blake]

if you have kazaa, you can download it for free. it's about a 3 mb pdf file. and there's also a smaller file, but i can't get it to open.

[Aragorn]

My local library? Pah, my local library is crap.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

OK, some other library then. :p

[Mike]

Please don't use our forum for promoting illegal activities.

[supuradam]

~hides his prostitutes~

what was that mike? what illegal activites?

~steps out the backdoor~

[nightfairy]

not promote illegal activities???
hmmm.... but immoral activities are okay, right?
...right?
... um, Mike???

[Aragorn]

Not illegal. Its the same as someone else buying a book and letting me borrow it. It isn't like they're making a profit or something.

Illegal is me downloading and watching "Signs" this past weekend.

[Beowulf]

the industry should adapt to suit the public's needs. not the other way around. but as with downloading music or anything it's easy for the existing stale corporate element to just bash on the users of file sharing programs and shut them down instead of re-examining their own changing place in the scheme of things.

selling prologues is clearly just an obvious, dubious money making tactic. The people who are so hyped to be paying for this prologue will no doubt be buying the book as well.

this sort of thing should be made into an incentive to preorder the book:

"preorder the book and get the prologue now!"

not:

"preorder the book, and buy the prologue now!"


bleh. :grumbles:

[Christy Sedai]

~sighs~ I have finally sat down to read Glimmers and will now have suffer through waiting for the rest of the book to come out. :cry: ~is very impatient~

[Anita_Blake]

is it good? i haven't read it yet.... maybe today....

[Mann]

Hmmm. Not bad. It's only a prologue.

[Aragorn]

Its okay if you like a bunch of crappy minor character POVs.

Meh, I hate non-channelers who aren't Mat and Perrin. And Lan. And Bashere. And most Aiel. But except for them, I hate non-channelers. They're boring.

Oh, and Birgitte.

[GWINNA]

Or we could not delude ourselves into thinking we are owed something because we want it, then steal it.
besides, if it Make Robert Jordan money, who cares? Those who want to buy it will, those of us who don't will wait like we always have. Captitalism gives us the Wheel Of Time, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and all those things will love(like food and clothing unless your a self-sustaining farmer). RJ has every right to sell his work for profit and if he didn't get it, well his work would be unpublished, the world is a better place because of capitalism.
~gets off soapbox~

[Harun]

RJ gets plenty of money when we buy his hardcover book at $27 a pop. I really doubt he's gonna starve if some people pirate his prologue. Hell, he used to have them released for free. We're just continuing the tradition. I'm not for law breaking, in general, but capitalism should be defied now and then.

[Anita_Blake]

$27!!! Man, it's like $40 in canada....

:( stupid exchange rate. stupid low valued canuck buck. :(

[Mann]

Rampant capitalism is not neccessarily a good thing. I doubt you could call JK Rowling a capitalist either.

[GWINNA]

Originally posted by Mann
Rampant capitalism is not neccessarily a good thing. I doubt you could call JK Rowling a capitalist either.
Capitalism is next to Godlyness. She sold a book for money, that means she engaged in capitalistic activities, that was what I was pointing out.
Secondly, a good amount of the money of a book goes to the publishers, as they front the money for publication. Look at it this way, every time you pirate something you steal a small amount from someone's wallet, it may not seem like much, but compound that with the number of people doing it, and you have a significant cash loss. How would you like it if it was your wallet.
Bottom line: Stealing is bad

[Anita_Blake]

but is it stealing when you intend to buy the book anyway? Isn't it more just 'borrowing'? 'Tis not the whole book people want to get, merely the first chapter, which to release online, arguably doesn't cost that much to do. A number of people have purchased said e-prologue. Publishing company recoups its costs and makes money to boot, and then some customers share their purchased property, to people who will then continue to purchase said hardcover book. Not theft. Helping. Helping spread the word that there is a new book coming soon. Advertising. Advertising sometimes costs money, but in this case, the advertising is actually being purchased by the consumers! Everybody wins! (except the idiots who actually purchased advertising, silly fools, no wonder they want to share it)

hence: recieving a pirated version of an e-prologue for a book which you were already going to buy anyway (or else read from the library, you cheap bastard) is not theft, it is maintaining the chain of advertising. It's all good, baby!

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Originally posted by Anita_Blake
but is it stealing when you intend to buy the book anyway? Isn't it more just 'borrowing'?

Sure, that's a good idea...

~goes and kills someone~

What? I was just accelerating his life. :confused:

:p

[GWINNA]

Borrowing without permission is stilll stealing

[Ulk]

~wonders how this thread turned into talking about economic systems~... ~sees GWINNA~. ah. ~has gwinna beaten for his insolence~

i dled it, but cant read it, since i'm doing a reread.. ~sighs~ bloody RJ taking the story away from rand all the time.

[Harun]

Um, no, capitalism is an economic system that's occasionally useful, but that, left to it's own devices can and has ruined the lives of millions of people. I'm not saying that other economic systems are necesarilly any better, but making a religion of capitalism, is, with all due respect, totally idiotic.

[Anita_Blake]

Originally posted by G.W.I.N.N.A
Borrowing without permission is stilll stealing

tsk tsk. i told you.... it's not even borrowing..... it's accepting advertising.

(in the case of prologues being released as e-books, not other forms of file sharing.)

[chavv]

Originally posted by G.W.I.N.N.A
Captitalism gives us the Wheel Of Time, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter,...
You're making me laugh ....
Or, maybe you REALLY do think what's quoted above???
Then perhaps, I should cry...

[Beowulf]

capitalism blah blah. in this case, there is no product. there is only virtual product. after people who purchase the prologue then purchase the book. what will they have to show for the odd amount of dollars they spent months before?

NOTHING

there is no real product here, no time was invested in the prologue beyond slapping it into form. you think it's wrong for people to get the prologue for free now, but in a few months they'll get it for free because it's not a stand alone product in itself, it's part of a larger whole.

I haven't read the prologue, in a legal or illegal form btw. but I think it's very shady to make profit on virtual product that had no effort put into it, but is making money just the same.

Also I agree with Anita_Blake/Ahlissa 100%

if you buy the prologue, you're just paying for what is essentially a teaser advertisement. how convenient for Tor. keep it up and I'm sure it will get even more ridiculous in the future. :grumbles:

also:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
[/end rant]

[supuradam]

'bout time those chinese paid for something. ~nods~

[Anita_Blake]

jesus, beo.... that is crazy! Do I ever feel like throwing computers right out the window and going back to the olden days.....

[Mann]

GWINNA IS allstealing wrong?

Also, what about relativistic morals?

[Aragorn]

Relativistic morals, yes. I downloaded Glimmers off of Kazaa as suggested, and read it. The same as if my friend Joe McLoanstuff let me borrow his copy. Tor loses no money from my action, as I wouldn't have bought it anyway. I WILL buy the book. And as far as me taking money from someone's wallet, and it adding up when everyone does, I'm not responsible for anyone else's actions, I'm only responsible for the few cents worth of actual product that I "stole".

Also, there is nothing wrong with capitalism. Those who work harder, and are smarter, get more. This is how it should be. The non-capitalists are always going "Oh no! I have to earn my keep? But, the government should just GIVE me stuff!" My father came from a poor family, didn't graduate high school, but worked hard all his life and was clearing over a thousand dollars a week before he was injured and couldn't do his job anymore. Capitalism works, sapping off of everyone else does not.

And before anybody brings it up, it IS wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family. The proper thing to do is to get a job so you can BUY a loaf of bread.

[Elin]

Beowulf, that link had some scary stuff! *shudders*

CD's that can only play three times??? That is so sick... There's already some scary stuff around, like the regional coding on DVD's - if I travel to the US and legally buy a DVD there, why shouldn't I be able to play it on my own computer?

[Mann]

There isn't always a job to be had. And in strict capitalism the rewarded few aren't those who work hardest or are cleverest, but who pay most.

[Aragorn]

Isn't always a job to be had? Why is it when I drive down the road I'm constantly seeing "Now Hiring" signs?

[Mann]

Globe-trotter that you are

[Aragorn]

Immigration.

[GWINNA]

Originally posted by Mann
GWINNA IS allstealing wrong?

Also, what about relativistic morals?
All stealing is wrong. There are circumstances when theft is the lesser of two evils but that does not remove the the evil from the stealing. If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your child, it is still wrong, though the circumstances make it the lesser evil.
relativistic morals is a lie perpetrated by people who can't face the evil they do. Its an excuse that removes them from the judgement from others, because they can't face the fact that they have done/are doing evil. However, this would be better suited in a diffrent thread so I'll leave it at that unless you wish to take it to another thread, at which case just post a link.

Capitalism is what keeps Billions alive and well. We owe our thanks and loyalty the those corporations that allow us to live. Capitalism allows us to provide for ourselfs, it keeps us from dieing in the gutters.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by G.W.I.N.N.A

Capitalism is what keeps Billions alive and well. We owe our thanks and loyalty the those corporations that allow us to live. Capitalism allows us to provide for ourselfs, it keeps us from dieing in the gutters.

That is just sick.

[Zephfi]

http://freiheit.syntheticdimension.net/views-morality.shtml i would say that this is probably of interest to some of u lot debating morality. of course, this link is biased by the person who put it up (his purple bits) but his (her?) comment about few ppl attaining level 5 is correct.

i'd type out the stuff from my psych notes, but they don't b here.

[Anita_Blake]

hmmm, i followed your link zephi, and it makes sense to a point. But it's also like saying that a person has a type A or B personality: it's true to a point, but every person is going to have a combination of each.

I'm not sure i agree so much with that theory of "rising up" through the various morality levels. I think people are pretty much as moral as they are, they don't just magically attain new levels of morality.....

[Harun]

Originally posted by Aragorn
Relativistic morals, yes. I downloaded Glimmers off of Kazaa as suggested, and read it. The same as if my friend Joe McLoanstuff let me borrow his copy. Tor loses no money from my action, as I wouldn't have bought it anyway. I WILL buy the book. And as far as me taking money from someone's wallet, and it adding up when everyone does, I'm not responsible for anyone else's actions, I'm only responsible for the few cents worth of actual product that I "stole".

Also, there is nothing wrong with capitalism. Those who work harder, and are smarter, get more. This is how it should be. The non-capitalists are always going "Oh no! I have to earn my keep? But, the government should just GIVE me stuff!" My father came from a poor family, didn't graduate high school, but worked hard all his life and was clearing over a thousand dollars a week before he was injured and couldn't do his job anymore. Capitalism works, sapping off of everyone else does not.

And before anybody brings it up, it IS wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family. The proper thing to do is to get a job so you can BUY a loaf of bread.

Well, that's great for your dad, but there are many more people out there who have been failed by capitalism. There are many reasons for this, several of which are too complicated to go into. One problem, for instance, is that even people who show inititive and work hard can't get ahead if they don't have trust and/or understanding for financial institutions and can't make their money profitable. Other people can't get the loans they need to expand a potentially successful business. There are any number of factors that can prevent hard working people from succeeding in this system. And if that's the case (and it is), that's why we need a social welfare system.

No one wants to be on welfare, because a couple of hundred of bucks a month isn't going to exactly allow you to live in idle luxury.

[Harun]

Also, I think at this point, a George Carlin quote becomes necessary: "Sometimes Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' gives the finger to quite a few people."

[val7]

Microsoft is giving it away for free to promote their ebook reader.
www.microsoft.com/reader
And that isn't stealing because they bought "a limited number of copies, so download yours today!" (or something like that)

[Beowulf]

omg, cool. *downloads it legally and for free*

hehe

[supuradam]

Originally posted by Harun
No one wants to be on welfare, because a couple of hundred of bucks a month isn't going to exactly allow you to live in idle luxury.

although i usually like to agree with you harun, here i have to disagree. why work hard for $5.25/hr, before taxes, and make $200 a week, when you can be on welfare and get $250? i can work for little, or do nothing and get more? although i'm pretty sure no one wants to be on welfare, sometimes it's probably in their best interest... or at least that's how i see it.

[GWINNA]

Originally posted by supuradam


although i usually like to agree with you harun, here i have to disagree. why work hard for $5.25/hr, before taxes, and make $200 a week, when you can be on welfare and get $250? i can work for little, or do nothing and get more? although i'm pretty sure no one wants to be on welfare, sometimes it's probably in their best interest... or at least that's how i see it.
Sadly I know people who are proud to be on welfare, I hate those fuckers so much, every first of the month they act like its christmas, never stoping to realize where the money comes from, and I know these assholes can work, they just choose not to. Its not like they looked for a job and couldn't find one.

[nightfairy]

hmmm.... I just read an article in the NY Times yesterday, or the day before, or sometime in the recent past, about how Bush's welfare reform is achieving the goal it set to decrease the number of children living in single parent households. Unfortunately, noone thought ahead to where those children would go. Many (mostly inner city black) children have gone into no-parent households. For example, if a child was living with its mother on welfare, and the mother is required due to welfare reform, to find work in the next state / town / county over, and cannot afford to bring the child with her, or if she doesnt want to rip the child from its school, the child winds up living with grandparents / aunts/uncles, etc. Effectively living without any parents. Just an interesting little ramble. :)

[Zephfi]

Originally posted by Anita_Blake
hmmm, i followed your link zephi, and it makes sense to a point. But it's also like saying that a person has a type A or B personality: it's true to a point, but every person is going to have a combination of each.

I'm not sure i agree so much with that theory of "rising up" through the various morality levels. I think people are pretty much as moral as they are, they don't just magically attain new levels of morality.....

well, it's probably not the best link, but i didn't really feel like doing a huge search on it.

when it talks about "rising up" it is talking about as ppl mature.

i.e. if someone had the same morals at 20 as they had at 2, then they'd either
a) have been a very mature 2 year old or b) a very immature 20 yr old.

i don't know if that link talks about ppl fitting into diff categories for diff situations (like i said, it's not the best description of the model, just the first one i found).

actually, in the "controversy" thread, Beowulf used an example of morality that i've often seen linked with this morality model (a man stealing medicine for his dying wife).

ppl's answers as to whether or not what he did was wrong give an indication of what "level" they fit into.

*shrugs* it's only a theory, but i think it often helps to explain why some ppl think what they do about some situations.

the full model is probably in any under graduate text book

[Aragorn]

Okay, so now Microsoft is giving it away for free to get people to use their Ebook reader thing.

Now, if Microsoft "buys" copies of it and lets people download it for free, and those people who download it aren't stealing, how is it that I'm stealing if I download it from someone who bought it?

The answer: I'm not stealing if they aren't. It is the same thing.

[Beowulf]

well...

they legally reserved some copies, made sure whoever got their profit that was supposed to and then are giving the limited numbers thay purchased away, for free.

the difference between someone downloading it and then someone downloading it from them is that 1 copy of the prologue is serving two people.

...

OMG, libraries are evil in this same way, but how many people do libraries benefits, hundreds, possibly thousands?

clearly, for the sake of capitalism, and the publishing industry libraries must be SHUT DOWN.

can't speak anymore... [is currently choking on his insincerity]

[Jacob]

Copyright was not something which God created, GWINNA. Copyright is an agreement that states that authors are entitled to get reinbursed for their work according to popularity. Copyright is even time limited. E.g. noone owns the works of Shakespeare. Present copyright laws are also something relatively resent. You won't find the copyright laws in your Holy Constitution, GWINNA. Are we arguing simple laws here, or morals? When Lord of the Rings was first released to the public, the first publisher in the US to publish it did so without J.R.R.'s permission. This publisher did not pay a single cent of royalty to J.R.R Tolkien for for this. Illegal? No, in the High Castle of Capitalism, this was not illegal. Immoral? Very immoral in my mind. Which is more important here; The moral or the law?

I do not feel that obtaining a copy of Glimmers friend is immoral no more than I feel that borrowning a book from a friend is immoral. Since you do, GWINNA, where do you draw the line? If one guy buy's the E-book then invites all his friends over to read it at his computer, is that immoral too? Actually, I don't think that obtaining a copy from a friend is illegal even. Not in Sweden atleast. If so, would it then be illegal to borrow a book from a friend? To tape a movie off the TV? If it is in the states that's just stupid. In Sweden it's allowed if it's for personal (non profit) use. Noone here is making money off copying Glimmers. RJ will recieve royalty off of this work when Crossroads of Twilight is released.

Also, alot of the now classic literature was not published due to Capitalism. Without Government and private sponsors, alot of masterpieces would never have been created because there simply was no market to support the production (or the authors). Not too long ago, not many people could read, and they most certainly couldn't afford something so extremely expensive as a book (before mass printing, I believe it could take as much as a year to make a singly copy: That's expensive)

[Mann]

it's still expensive :grumbles:

[QuirkyTemplate]

Download a book?! Do you hear yourself?!!! It's a level of nerdendom that even I dare not approach!

>shakes head<

That's a shame ...

[Aragorn]

"nerdendom"?

[GWINNA]

Originally posted by Jacob
Copyright was not something which God created, GWINNA. Copyright is an agreement that states that authors are entitled to get reinbursed for their work according to popularity. Copyright is even time limited. E.g. noone owns the works of Shakespeare. Present copyright laws are also something relatively resent. You won't find the copyright laws in your Holy Constitution, GWINNA. Are we arguing simple laws here, or morals? When Lord of the Rings was first released to the public, the first publisher in the US to publish it did so without J.R.R.'s permission. This publisher did not pay a single cent of royalty to J.R.R Tolkien for for this. Illegal? No, in the High Castle of Capitalism, this was not illegal. Immoral? Very immoral in my mind. Which is more important here; The moral or the law?

I do not feel that obtaining a copy of Glimmers friend is immoral no more than I feel that borrowning a book from a friend is immoral. Since you do, GWINNA, where do you draw the line? If one guy buy's the E-book then invites all his friends over to read it at his computer, is that immoral too? Actually, I don't think that obtaining a copy from a friend is illegal even. Not in Sweden atleast. If so, would it then be illegal to borrow a book from a friend? To tape a movie off the TV? If it is in the states that's just stupid. In Sweden it's allowed if it's for personal (non profit) use. Noone here is making money off copying Glimmers. RJ will recieve royalty off of this work when Crossroads of Twilight is released.

Also, alot of the now classic literature was not published due to Capitalism. Without Government and private sponsors, alot of masterpieces would never have been created because there simply was no market to support the production (or the authors). Not too long ago, not many people could read, and they most certainly couldn't afford something so extremely expensive as a book (before mass printing, I believe it could take as much as a year to make a singly copy: That's expensive)
First I'd like to clear up something, the whole "capitalism as a relgion" thing was rather a joke, I was accused of making capitalism my relgion, so I decided to demonstrate that it wasnt' by pretending that it was so a visible diffrence could be seen. That stated, where do I draw the line? I drawn the line at copies. If you invite someone to your computer to read it, there is one copy that has been paid for. If you send 100 copies to 100 friends, that is 100 copies of which 1 has been paid for. Dispite what some people think, a digital copy of something is physical, it is a bunch of 1's and 0's which make up its form, but it is a physical form none the less. Lets say I right a paper, and I sell it to you(I don't know why you would want it, buts this is just and example), then you let others read it. That is fine. But if you retype it, and print it out and give those copies to others, well that is just wrong. Lets pretend you could do something similar to tvs. now you get ahold a tv, and you copy it, and give tv's to others. Seems like a good idea, but think of the consequences of this. I think you'll understand why I take the position I do if only you stop to think of the consequence of the action. BTW, MS pays for the copies downloaded, so its not stealing, After all, I can buy a physical book and give it to you as a gift, but I can't copy the book and give it to you

[LaughingTurtle]

Originally posted by QuirkyTemplate
Download a book?! Do you hear yourself?!!! It's a level of nerdendom that even I dare not approach!

>shakes head<

That's a shame ...

On A Side Note - It's great to see you posting again Quirky

~wipes tear from eye from laughing too hard~

[Harun]

Originally posted by supuradam


although i usually like to agree with you harun, here i have to disagree. why work hard for $5.25/hr, before taxes, and make $200 a week, when you can be on welfare and get $250? i can work for little, or do nothing and get more? although i'm pretty sure no one wants to be on welfare, sometimes it's probably in their best interest... or at least that's how i see it.

Okay, so don't you think that makes it a good idea to raise the minimum wage then?

[Harun]

Originally posted by Mister Beowulf
well...

they legally reserved some copies, made sure whoever got their profit that was supposed to and then are giving the limited numbers thay purchased away, for free.

the difference between someone downloading it and then someone downloading it from them is that 1 copy of the prologue is serving two people.

...

OMG, libraries are evil in this same way, but how many people do libraries benefits, hundreds, possibly thousands?

clearly, for the sake of capitalism, and the publishing industry libraries must be SHUT DOWN.

can't speak anymore... [is currently choking on his insincerity]

Scary thing is, if you talk to an Objectivist, they'd take you at face value.

[GWINNA]

Originally posted by Harun


Okay, so don't you think that makes it a good idea to raise the minimum wage then?
I have no problem raising the minimum wage, the only problem is that when you raise the minimum wage unemployment has a tendancy to go up, basic economics shows that as the cost of a worker raises, the number of works desired goes down. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything.:o

[Litefoot]

If people can live off the minimum wage, then it is adequate as a 'minimum'. I don't know the living costs in the USA, and are unfamiliar with the welfare system there. In Australia, the minimum wage comes to around $430 a week, which is okay to live on, except you have a crap rental house, no computer, an old TV, a bomb of a car, you go out to dinner maybe twice a year etc etc. But, hey, YOU ARE ALIVE, you have a house and food. Things start getting difficult when you aspire to more than that - you want a Playstation, a CD-player, a DVD-player, trips to Bali (Indonesia), nicer car, cinema tickets every weekend, access to the internet (expensive!!! in Australia). All these things are unneccessary for living, but we EXPECT that we should have them as some kind of 'minimum'. That's what I object to - the fact that the 'poor' in Australia often are not 'poor' in the sense that they are starving, but that they want everything the rich have.

And (shock, horror) I agree with GWINNA on one thing: people that take welfare payments when they can work for their money are a burden on society and really annoy me. (Australians call them dole bludgers).

Now, I know that things are a bit different in the USA, I gather the absolute minimum wage is very low and difficult to live off - I mean like difficult to afford food or housing or the cost of clothing. That's more like the definition of 'poor', and I would think that really is a problem. In that case, you must raise the minimum wage to a level where people can survive okay if they budget correctly. You can't have a situation where you say that because you want unemployment to stay low, you keep the minimum wage low. What does that do?? Creates a class of people that work hard for their money, but are still desperately poor. Fine, everyone is employed, but when you look at it that way, it sounds more like communism than capitalism.

[Aragorn]

"Dole Bludgers"...I like that. I believe I'll start using it. Thanks.

[Mann]

Dole wallers over here.

[magatsu17]

I don't know if any one else has commented on this so I'm sorry if this is a repeat, but did any think that the dumb ass who interviewed RJ could as more stupid questions that he did?

"What advice would you give Rand on dealing with his women?"

What kind of stupid ass question is that? Why not ask him why Rand is banging most of the major female characters in the series. That would be a better question to me!

Or better yet ask him how many years it's gonna be till we see another book. God i've been readin this thing for Seven years and it's still not over!!


Or best yet ask him why is he doing an interview with a dumb ass when his should be finishing up his book. That the question i want an aswer to!!!


Sorry just felt the need to rant a lil bit.

[Mann]

They picked some questions from a poll on a couple of web-sites. I looked (and posted), their were some pretty good Q's. It's just whoever picked the Q's should be shot. He did it for publicity/as a gimmick.

[Chiv]

Originally posted by Mann
Dole wallers over here.

Scummy fucking bastards is what I call them, but then until last week I worked in the job centre, so I'm allowed.

[Mann]

I hate my job. I think I'm going to quit and return to education.

[magatsu17]

Only quit your job if you don't mind not having money, or you have another job lined up. cause it really sucks to be broke.