Digital piracy hits the e-book industry

""With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away," Alexie added. "It terrifies me.""

what a crock.

yeah open source is all about stealing ebooks.

someone should sue cnn for this libel statement.

I hope they do. I have left a message at the CNN article, stating how wrong that statement is. Perhaps others might like to do the same.

I've also sent a link to the article, to the FSF and LF, to see if there is a legal case. If anyone knows any other organisations that might be interested, perhaps they would like to contact them.

If there is a case for libel, then maybe something will be done.

The EFF?

I don't think the FSF would be too happy helping out here, considering their views of the term: 'open-source.'

Instead try contacting OSI[1] ( Open Source Initiative ), I think they own the trademarks, and could argue this use could affect their business; doubtful though, especially since it's a quote from an author, and so represents his view, and not that necessarily of CNN.

[1] http://www.opensource.org

Did you contact them? or are you waiting for someone else to do so?

They also refer to this site called 'BitTorrent'. But AFAIK that's not a site to download warez.

I got feedback from someone at OSI, a Russ Nelson. This is his personal opinion, not that of the OSI.

Quoting: Only if you label it as my opinion, not an official OSI response. -russ

tracy writes: > > Sorry one more thing > > Do you mind if I post your reply verbatim on LXer (http://lxer.com) > > regards > > Tracy barlow > > On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 20:45 -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: > > I was just talking to my lawyer about libel. Basically, in the US (at > > least), only a false statement of fact can be libel. Opinions (which > > can't be proven true or false) are protected under the 1st Amendment. > > Other countries may have made other choices, but we've made ours. > > > > tracy writes: > > > This may be of interest to you. Of course I may just be getting myself > > > upset about nothing. > > > > > > http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/index.ht... > > > > > > the statement > > > > > > "With the open-source culture on the Internet, the idea of ownership -- > > > of artistic ownership -- goes away," Alexie added. "It terrifies me." > > > > > > seems to me to be possibly libel. I'm not a lawyer, so obviously I > > > wouldn't know. > > > > > > regards > > > > > > Tracy Barlow > > > > >

Looks like there is nothing that can be done.

The antidote for idiotic speech is non-idiotic speech. Pitch a rebuttal to the CNN editor, write a good, well-reasoned and supported LXer feature, which will get picked up by zillions of other publications. Don't waste it in the LXer comments.

Even LXer comments get indexed by Google, so it isn't a total waste. It's just a question of effectiveness.

Carla, you are speaking to your strengths, so if you don't mind.

TC -

Absolutely correct.

TA and anybody who thought the opinions expressed to be libel:

Admit it -- Aren't you glad that the truth can't be libelous? Truth has always been the golden armor against libel lawsuits, and is the real reason why so many prominent people threaten but never file.

@dino:

The truth can be libelous or slanderous in England.

EDIT: And in Canada, too, under the broader term "defamation". The veracity of the defaming comment doesn't enter into it.

gus3 -

I find that hard to believe, given that American law has its roots in English common law. In the US, at least, truth is an absolute defense.

dino,

The base of U.S. law is indeed English, however, we did not import the explicit class distinctions plus royalty. Thus, while it may be truthful to say that English royalty bears strong resemblance to the equine species and an intellect that boarders on the lower end of that animal's posterior. Nonetheless, you might find your veritable @ss in a sling both financially and physically for being so audacious to speak such truths before an adoring public.

Just a warning old buddy,

YBT

@dino:

Yes, but what was true in 1775 does not necessarily apply today. For example, "treason" was poorly defined, deliberately to include disparaging comments about the King.

>> The truth can be libelous or slanderous in England. > I find that hard to believe

Gus3 is correct, Dino. The Register has discussed this before.

Sucks to be English, I guess.

All you ever here is that only .02 percent of people use open source, but any time someone pirates something, it has to be the open source people.

Often, we hear that point-zero-two percent of computer users are using open source software. Still, when software is pirated, it is assumed that these users are to blame.

It's obvious that there are a lot of "professional journalists" who just don't research anything.

The "OpenSource" people are the ones most interested in reputation, attribution and cooperation, independent of the legalities.

Makes me wonder what a closed source book would look like:

Probably all pages glued together or something, with an EULA attached "You don't own the book, you only have a license". In the coming decade (in Russia, but also outside Russia), you don't own the book, the publisher of the book owns _you_ I guess...

Quoting:Makes me wonder what a closed source book would look like:

Requires a NDA to read it.