4 ms·

Writing on the subject of exploring how to live doesn’t preclude setting and enforcing healthy boundaries. If anything, it seems to me he’s responding appropria

by Arubis 5y ago

Writing on the subject of exploring how to live doesn’t preclude setting and enforcing healthy boundaries. If anything, it seems to me he’s responding appropriately without being excessively inflammatory.

smegcicle 5y ago
i think the humor is in the juxtaposition of the abstract nature of chinese philosophy against the abstract nature of copyright law, not that the author of one should be somehow immune to the effects of the other
grkvlt 5y ago
> Anyone purchasing [...] any e-book editions of these books is violating the author’s rights seems inflammatory to me; someone selling an e-book edition is certainly violating his rights, the purchaser is probably not.
- ludami 5y ago
  Not really. If the seller does not have the rights to sell something than someone who purchases from them are in effect receiving stolen goods. They may not be intentionally violating those rights but they are still participating in an action which does just that.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    The copyright is the right to restrict reproduction; formally, the purchaser isn't doing anything wrong.
    - toast0 5y ago
      Since an e-book is copied at the moment of purchase, the purchaser is the direct cause of the copy being made, so if they knew it was unlicensed, and they consider copyright violation to be wrong, then I would think they were doing wrong to cause it. Are they civily or crimimaly liable? Probably not, but IANAL. Bigger pockets would say sue the store and the publisher, not the clients.
  - grkvlt 5y ago
    yeah, but intent matters, and someone purchasing an ebook is probably making a good faith attempt to obtain the media in a way that compensates the author - hence my elision in the passage i quoted, which seems to mean well, but is badly phrased. a downloader pirating the book is directly violating the author's rights wheras the purchaser is really also a victim along with the author - they are being deprived of money for something the seller has no legal right to provide. ianal and all that applies, of course!

by Arubis 5y ago

smegcicle 5y ago

i think the humor is in the juxtaposition of the abstract nature of chinese philosophy against the abstract nature of copyright law, not that the author of one should be somehow immune to the effects of the other

grkvlt 5y ago

> Anyone purchasing [...] any e-book editions of these books is violating the author’s rights seems inflammatory to me; someone selling an e-book edition is certainly violating his rights, the purchaser is probably not.

ludami 5y ago
Not really. If the seller does not have the rights to sell something than someone who purchases from them are in effect receiving stolen goods. They may not be intentionally violating those rights but they are still participating in an action which does just that.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  The copyright is the right to restrict reproduction; formally, the purchaser isn't doing anything wrong.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Since an e-book is copied at the moment of purchase, the purchaser is the direct cause of the copy being made, so if they knew it was unlicensed, and they consider copyright violation to be wrong, then I would think they were doing wrong to cause it. Are they civily or crimimaly liable? Probably not, but IANAL. Bigger pockets would say sue the store and the publisher, not the clients.
- grkvlt 5y ago
  yeah, but intent matters, and someone purchasing an ebook is probably making a good faith attempt to obtain the media in a way that compensates the author - hence my elision in the passage i quoted, which seems to mean well, but is badly phrased. a downloader pirating the book is directly violating the author's rights wheras the purchaser is really also a victim along with the author - they are being deprived of money for something the seller has no legal right to provide. ianal and all that applies, of course!