Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote

>>> A thief in this case is someone who distributes copyrighted
>>>material without rights to do so, or who steals a copy they're
>>>expected to pay for. If you buy a book it's legal. If you resell
>>>that book it's legal. If you distribute copies, it's not legal. If
>>>you steal the book it's not legal.

>>Stealing a physical copy isn't copyright violation, so that's not what's
>>being discussed here.

> I said it's illegal. You can twist the facts to justify
>what you think you deserve, but stealing a book,
>or distributing copies, is illegal.

You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a
criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
violation is an act of piracy.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>> There's also a gray area here. What about Youtube, for
>>example? Google is giving away those files for free. If you
>>stream them then you might see ads. If you use software to
>>simply download the file then you won't see ads. Some would
>>say it's stealing to download the file, but Google has put the
>>file on their server and advertised the download link!

>no. youtube provides a streaming link.

>there isn't an actual file to download. it's actually many segments
>which must be stitched together. regardless, downloading is a violation
>of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
>be caught doing that.

How am I contractually bound by YouTube's terms of service? You'll have
to explain that.

>youtube is *constantly* changing their back end to prevent downloading,
>causing the various download utilities to continually release updates
>to keep up with the changes.

I love YouTube Video Downloader.

On 8/28/2023 4:15 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 8/28/23 12:19 PM, Nic wrote:
>> On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
>
>>>    If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
>>> consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
>>> a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
>>> copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
>>> good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
>>> of DVDS.
>
> BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other libraries.  It may take a while, but it's possible.  Our library loans passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
>

That's an inter-library loan.

You couldn't run a technical library without that,
because it would be "too expensive". That saves the
library system a lot of money.

Paul

"Wally J" <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote

| > downloading is a violation
| > of the terms of service, although it's highly unlikely that anyone will
| > be caught doing that.
| | Everything you said is correct - with the very important clarification
that
| you can easily download youtube material WITHOUT violating ANY YouTube
TOS.
|

I've never seen YT terms of service. The whole idea is absurd.
I can put a TOS on my own website that says you have to send
me $20 to look at a webpage, but the webpages are right there,
free for the taking! People don't understand how the Internet works.
It was designed to be a free, transparent buffet. But companies
think they have the right to trick your browser into visiting 3rd-party
websites when you visit their page... and that you don't have a
right to block that... that they have a right to take over your browser
once you do a GET on their server. It's them who are cheating, by
subverting how script and cookies were intended to work -- limited
to the visited website.

Then again, if it goes to court, usually he with the most lawyers
and congressmen wins. Years ago I had Powerquest software for
partitioning and disk imaging. $60 each. About the price of a hard
disk at the time. Their license said the software could only be used
on one hard disk! More outrageous was that their claim was only seen
during install, and software that's been opened couldn't be returned.

That's like selling you a power tool and claiming you're
only allowed to use it on Tuesdays, so you'll need to buy 6 more.
Yet click-through licenses were deemed legally binding in court.
American judges actually ruled that a unilateral contract, no
matter how mickey mouse and even if the other party doesn't
know about it, is binding.

Which reminds me, reading this post costs $100. Will that be
check or charge?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:46:56 +0100, Quellen wrote:

> There is also the world-renown free public Internet library, whose goal,
> based on what they write, it to make every book possible available to you.
> https://openlibrary.org/

I am not sure but I think Google Scholar & Gutenberg & a few others do too!

Annas Epub Library https://annas-archive.org/
Anybook Epub Library https://www.readanybook.com/
Authorama Epub Library http://www.authorama.com/
Edu Epub Library https://www.base-search.net/
Ebooks Epub Library https://www.ebooks.com/
Ebooks Netlib https://www.free-ebooks.net/
Engineering Epub Library http://www.freeengineeringbooks.com/
Feedbooks Epub Library https://www.feedbooks.com/
Google Scholar Epub Library https://scholar.google.com/
Gutenberg Epub Library https://www.gutenberg.org/
Internet Epub Library https://archive.org/
Libgen Epub Library https://libgen.is/
LibriVox Audio https://librivox.org/
Manybooks Epub Library https://manybooks.net/
Open Epub Library https://openlibrary.org/
Pdfget Epub Library https://pdfget.com/
Science Epub Library https://www.science.gov/
UPenn Epub Library https://digital.library.upenn.edu/

Any others people know about for free epub books online?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

>>> note that it doesn't exempt or allow any particular os. all users are
>>> prohibited from download videos.
>>
>> Why do you think it's always only iOS that can't graphically download
>> youtube videos
>
> it can, but just like with *every* *other* *os*, it's a violation of
> the terms of service.

In your desperation for declaring every useful thing iOS can't do is
illegal, you forget that Google knows _exactly_ what the code does, and,
better yet, the code developers _openly_ state they use legal APIs.

For example... you iNuts are ignorant of this simple fact...
"NewPipe works by fetching the required data from the official API
(e.g. PeerTube) of the service you're using. If the official API is
restricted (e.g. YouTube) for our purposes, or is proprietary,
the app parses the website or uses an internal API instead.
This means that you don't need an account on any service to use NewPipe.

Also, since they are free and open source software, neither the app
nor the Extractor use any proprietary libraries or frameworks,
such as Google Play Services. "
<https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe>

You iNuts are desperate to come up with a different fabricated excuse for
why it's only iOS that can't do useful things every other OS easily does.

>> Google sees the source code - if they thought it was illegal - they have
>> lawyers who could ask for an injunction on these products in a heartbeat.
>
> the source code is not what's illegal.

What's always the case with you iNuts, nospam, is you can't stand that it's
only iOS that can't do thousands of useful things every other OS does.

Hence, you desperately fabricate that the reason iOS can't do thousands of
useful things that every other OS does, is because doing them is illegal.

In article <ucjf17$1u12m$1@dont-email.me>, Newyana2
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> I've never seen YT terms of service. The whole idea is absurd.

<https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms>

> I can put a TOS on my own website that says you have to send
> me $20 to look at a webpage, but the webpages are right there,
> free for the taking!

that would be entirely your fault for not setting up a paywall.

> People don't understand how the Internet works.

clearly.

> Which reminds me, reading this post costs $100. Will that be
> check or charge?

bitcoin.

In article <ucjj7h$27pp3$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J
<walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "NewPipe works by fetching the required data from the official API
> (e.g. PeerTube) of the service you're using. If the official API is

newpipe is not allowed on the google play store because it violates
their terms of service.

>
> What's always the case with you iNuts, nospam, is you can't stand that it's
> only iOS that can't do thousands of useful things every other OS does.

nope. it's *you* who can't do those things.

others can easily do what you claim is impossible and even told you
exactly how, which you ignore so you can troll.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> What's always the case with you iNuts, nospam, is you can't stand that it's
>> only iOS that can't do thousands of useful things every other OS does.
>
> it's *you* who can't do those things.

Heh heh heh ... *you're _desperate_ nospam* to fabricate purely imaginary
functionality for iOS that you can never point to a single app that does.

> others can, and even told you how they can be done, which you ignore so
> you can troll.

You persist in fabricating purely imaginary functionality for iOS when
everyone knows you can't point to a single app that does what you claim.

>> "NewPipe works by fetching the required data from the official API
>> (e.g. PeerTube) of the service you're using. If the official API is
>
> citing newpipe isn't the claim you think it is, given that it's not
> allowed on the play store.

This is how I know you iNuts lack intelligence, nospam, given your own
arguments instantly fail the _simplest_ of tests, given there are thousands
of app functionalities "not allowed" in the Google Play Store repository.

For example, you need to fabricate a _different_ idiotic excuse for each
app "not allowed" in the Google Play Store, such as Ungoogled Chromium and
NetGuard and Aurora and F-Droid, for some of the most obvious examples.

In your desperate attempt to fabricate imaginary functionality for iOS that
simply doesn't exist, your desperate excuses that all functionality iOS
can't do must be illegal (or that all competitive functionality not allowed
on the Google Play Store must be illegal) is absurdly preposterous, nospam.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:46:56 +0100, Quellen <quellennospam@gmx.com>
wrote:

>On 28 Aug 2023 at 9:15:48 PM, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
>>>> consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
>>>> a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
>>>> copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
>>>> good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
>>>> of DVDS.
>>
>> BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other
>> libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
>> passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
>> that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
>
>There is also the world-renown free public Internet library, whose goal,
>based on what they write, it to make every book possible available to you.
> https://openlibrary.org/

I just tried that. It turns out that it's useless to me, for three
reasons:

1. I looked for a couple of well-known books. They didn't have them.

2. When I found one, the book displays on my desktop's screen. That's
not what I want. I want a kindle book that I can read on my phone.

3. It says "Borrow ends at 8:06am." I read pretty fast, but an hour
isn't enough.

On 8/28/23 4:56 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 8/28/2023 4:15 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 8/28/23 12:19 PM, Nic wrote:
>>> On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
>>
>>>>    If we didn't have libraries then I'm sure they'd be banned by a
>>>> consortium of greedy media companies. My local library can buy
>>>> a copy of a movie and loan it out, which is perfectly legal with
>>>> copyrighted material. Unfortunately, most of the US doesn't have
>>>> good local libraries that can afford to stock a wide selection
>>>> of DVDS.
>>
>> BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other libraries.  It may take a while, but it's possible.  Our library loans passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
>
> That's an inter-library loan.
>
> You couldn't run a technical library without that,
> because it would be "too expensive". That saves the
> library system a lot of money.

Every once in a while I get a nice surprise. I saw a reference to a
20-YO book about the San Andreas fault. The Usual Places didn't have
it. Amazon wanted $120 or so for it used. My local library had ONE
copy located at my local branch 1/4 mile away. I'd rather have had the
pdf but I haven't read a paper book for a long time, so YAY!

If we ever decide to close our libraries we're all doomed.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Calling someone an asshole for being rude to a telemarketer
is like accusing someone who's shot a burglar in his home
of being a poor host." -- W.S.Rowell

On 8/28/23 9:15 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Patrick" <patrick@oleary.com> wrote
>
> | What makes a thief?
> | Specifically, What makes content DRM versus the same content not DRM?
> |
>
> DRM stands for digital restriction management. (Later
> cast, with Orwellian flair, as digital rights management.)
> As Paul explained, it's a library to handle encryption, so
> that you never have access to the actual digital file.

I have always called it the Digital Rights Monkey

The good news is that it's doomed because I for one wouldn't
watch 90% of the offering if I was PAID to watch it :-)

Someone once gave me a DVD full of movies, I listed the
directory and directly threw it all in the bin since that's
all it was good for. Nor have I watched a single Oscar or
such for something like 20 years :-)

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a
>criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
>copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
>violation is an act of piracy.

OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:15:48 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>BUT some/many/most/all local libraries can request materials from other
>libraries. It may take a while, but it's possible. Our library loans
>passes to State Parks, hotspots, chromebooks, e-books and other stuff
>that I don't know about in addition to books, DVDs and CDs.
>
Our local library has been part of an 'inter-library loan' system
covering all or nearly all the municipalities in the local
metropolitain area (20 or more) (I use it rarely most recently a book
on the WW2 German A-bomb project)

I've never heard of ILL (inter-library loans) for audio or visual
works.

On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a
>> criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
>> copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
>> violation is an act of piracy.
>
> OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
> audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
> comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?

You are answering in cold thread.
BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous
identity?

--
"Manus manum lavat."

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a
>>>criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
>>>copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
>>>violation is an act of piracy.

>>OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
>>audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
>>comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?

>You are answering in cold thread.
>BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous
>identity?

Settle down, please. He's explained the origin of his pseudonym plenty
of times.

On 19.03.24 18:01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion to a
>>> criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
>>> copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
>>> violation is an act of piracy.
>>
>> OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
>> audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
>> comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?
>
> You are answering in cold thread.
> BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous
> identity?
>
So why do you respond????????

On 19/03/2024 17:33, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 19.03.24 18:01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 19.03.24 03:44, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:24:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You did say it's illegal, but "theft" rather changes the discussion
>>>> to a
>>>> criminal act. I certainly do not agree that someone who has violated
>>>> copyright is a "thief", nor do I agree that large-scale copyright
>>>> violation is an act of piracy.
>>>
>>> OK - there are entire binary newsgroups dealing with books and
>>> audio/visual works (radio, TV shows, movies etc) - by your previous
>>> comment you're saying that's NOT piracy. Yes? No?
>>
>> You are answering in cold thread.
>> BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous
>> identity?
>>
> So why do you respond????????

Because he's an idiot!! And you fell for it. :-)

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:20:45 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>You are answering in cold thread.
>>BTW do you think anyone is answering to a person with such a ridiculous
>>identity?
>
>Settle down, please. He's explained the origin of his pseudonym plenty
>of times.

Thank you Adam - and I've also explained why I abruptly STOPPED using
my previous pseudo.....