4 ms·

Out of 101 comments, no one mentions that this site is hosting an illegal copy of an artist's work? I mean, sure, the whole book is great... but shouldn't we b

by mwexler 17y ago

Out of 101 comments, no one mentions that this site is hosting an illegal copy of an artist's work? I mean, sure, the whole book is great... but shouldn't we be having a bit of respect for someone's intellectual property and not linking to it? If Gorgorat.com has permission to print the book, or it's now in public domain, then I'm the first to say link to that pup... but I didn't see anything on the site to say this. I'm a bit surprised that folks who make their living creating intellectual property are so blase about this. There were more comments about the inappropriate affiliate link than the fact that the book is still in press and under copyright. Let's not devolve into "information wants to be free" and "the world is open source", but stick to the fact that the book is not free and open source in the US legal system at this point, AFAIK. Would we be linking to a hosted full copy of PG's excellent book Hackers etc. (http://www.paulgraham.com/hackpaint.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hackpaint.html) to highlight one of his points? Probably not.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
aerique 17y ago
The author's been dead for a while.
- travisp 17y ago
  Ralph Leighton is not dead, and the copyright is Feynman and Leighton. Feynman also has two children. Surely he is allowed to have his children benefit from his work after his death.
  - noarchy 17y ago
    > Surely he is allowed to have his children benefit from his > work after his death. For how many generations?
    - delano 17y ago
      Until the content enters the public domain.
      - darien 17y ago
        Even as Congress continues to extend copyrights in order to prevent Disney characters from entering the public domain.
      - jwecker 17y ago
        You know that unless something fundamental changes with how congress is extending copyrights, this never happens these days, right?
    - timwiseman 17y ago
      You touch on a good point. I think our copyright term in the US is far, far too long. But, until the copyright term is changed, it is the law and we should respect that, especially since most of the audiance on this site makes their living through IP of one kind or another. Also, for this particular book, remember that the coauthor is alive, the primary author died fairly recently(1988) and this book wasn't published all that long ago(1985). So even if you agree with me that copyright terms are far too long, this one would probably still fall within one reduced to a reasonable time frame (I personally think the right number is around 25 years from first publication).
      - indrax 17y ago
        It is not morally inconsistent for someone to seek compensation for creative works while ignoring unjust copyrights. Doubly so if their compensation isn't based on selling copies.
      - xiaoma 17y ago
        The fact that you consider 1988 to be "fairly recently" shows how badly　US copyright laws and lobbying efforts have skewed people's perceptions. In 1988, there was no Facebook, Youtube, Google, Amazon, or web, cellphones were virtually unheard of, many of the people on this forum were unborn, the Berlin wall was standing and Michael Jackson was at the top of the world. It was a long, long time ago. The justification for intellectual "property" is to encourage creators to work that will eventually belong to the public. I cannot believe that an author's decision to write a book at that time was influenced by whether or not could continue extracting profits in today's world. The original copyright term of 14 years might have been defensible for books in that time, but extensions are very, very hard to justify in terms of the benefits to society.
grosales 17y ago
I'd have to agree with you on this. I read this book last year (got one of my coworkers to read it too) and I was so surprised at how awesome it was that I got "What Do You Care What Other People Think ?" and "Tuva or Bust". Both are really good books because you get to learn more about Richard Feynman and the way he thought about different things ("Surely" is a unique gem though). This particular chapter prompted my attention and by trying to find references online, I ended up at gorgora.com. I didn't want to reference a place I was not sure of so I did not. In hindsight, I should have written a blog post about it. Fortunately, according to whois the site will soon be down (unless my intuition is wrong about what "pending renewal or deletion" means).
grinich 17y ago
Hackers and Painters is actually available on Scribd in its entirety. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47180/Paul-Graham-Hackers-And-Painters http://www.scribd.com/doc/47180/Paul-Graham-Hackers-And-Pain...
- mwexler 17y ago
  Whoops. That was a bad example, wasn't it? Ah well, the rest of the comment (hopefully) is still valid.
Semiapies 17y ago
Because the dominant view here is that only one's own intellectual property exists. EDIT: and companies/organizations one likes. Everyone else's is fair game.
vorador 17y ago
Actually, I've been captivated by this book and I'm planning to buy it, thanks to this pirated version.
- mhb 17y ago
  I robbed a bank last week and I liked the money so much I decided to get a job.
  - vorador 17y ago
    It was something more along the lines of : "I went to Barnes & Noble, found this book, read extensive passages of it and decided to buy it". Besides, suggesting that is thievery is a bit over the top.

by mwexler 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

aerique 17y ago

The author's been dead for a while.

travisp 17y ago
Ralph Leighton is not dead, and the copyright is Feynman and Leighton. Feynman also has two children. Surely he is allowed to have his children benefit from his work after his death.
- noarchy 17y ago
  > Surely he is allowed to have his children benefit from his > work after his death. For how many generations?
  - delano 17y ago
    Until the content enters the public domain.
    - darien 17y ago
      Even as Congress continues to extend copyrights in order to prevent Disney characters from entering the public domain.
    - jwecker 17y ago
      You know that unless something fundamental changes with how congress is extending copyrights, this never happens these days, right?
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    You touch on a good point. I think our copyright term in the US is far, far too long. But, until the copyright term is changed, it is the law and we should respect that, especially since most of the audiance on this site makes their living through IP of one kind or another. Also, for this particular book, remember that the coauthor is alive, the primary author died fairly recently(1988) and this book wasn't published all that long ago(1985). So even if you agree with me that copyright terms are far too long, this one would probably still fall within one reduced to a reasonable time frame (I personally think the right number is around 25 years from first publication).
    - indrax 17y ago
      It is not morally inconsistent for someone to seek compensation for creative works while ignoring unjust copyrights. Doubly so if their compensation isn't based on selling copies.
    - xiaoma 17y ago
      The fact that you consider 1988 to be "fairly recently" shows how badly　US copyright laws and lobbying efforts have skewed people's perceptions. In 1988, there was no Facebook, Youtube, Google, Amazon, or web, cellphones were virtually unheard of, many of the people on this forum were unborn, the Berlin wall was standing and Michael Jackson was at the top of the world. It was a long, long time ago. The justification for intellectual "property" is to encourage creators to work that will eventually belong to the public. I cannot believe that an author's decision to write a book at that time was influenced by whether or not could continue extracting profits in today's world. The original copyright term of 14 years might have been defensible for books in that time, but extensions are very, very hard to justify in terms of the benefits to society.

grosales 17y ago

I'd have to agree with you on this. I read this book last year (got one of my coworkers to read it too) and I was so surprised at how awesome it was that I got "What Do You Care What Other People Think ?" and "Tuva or Bust". Both are really good books because you get to learn more about Richard Feynman and the way he thought about different things ("Surely" is a unique gem though). This particular chapter prompted my attention and by trying to find references online, I ended up at gorgora.com. I didn't want to reference a place I was not sure of so I did not. In hindsight, I should have written a blog post about it. Fortunately, according to whois the site will soon be down (unless my intuition is wrong about what "pending renewal or deletion" means).

grinich 17y ago

Hackers and Painters is actually available on Scribd in its entirety. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47180/Paul-Graham-Hackers-And-Painters http://www.scribd.com/doc/47180/Paul-Graham-Hackers-And-Pain...

mwexler 17y ago
Whoops. That was a bad example, wasn't it? Ah well, the rest of the comment (hopefully) is still valid.

Semiapies 17y ago

Because the dominant view here is that only one's own intellectual property exists. EDIT: and companies/organizations one likes. Everyone else's is fair game.

vorador 17y ago

Actually, I've been captivated by this book and I'm planning to buy it, thanks to this pirated version.

mhb 17y ago
I robbed a bank last week and I liked the money so much I decided to get a job.
- vorador 17y ago
  It was something more along the lines of : "I went to Barnes & Noble, found this book, read extensive passages of it and decided to buy it". Besides, suggesting that is thievery is a bit over the top.