freekerrybook.com = Copyright Infringement

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Free Kerry Book

quote:
--------
Since its publication in 1971, John Kerry's book "The New Soldier" has acquired almost legendary status.
....

To make this book widely available, I am providing completely FREE access to a PDF version.
....

I am doing this as a private citizen at my own expense. Unlike those who are trying to profit from the demand for this information, I am making this available absolutely free to anyone who wants it.
----------

"At my own expense" = theft of intellectual property.

Whois:
-------------
Domain Name.......... freekerrybook.com
Creation Date........ 2004-08-23
Registration Date.... 2004-08-23
Expiry Date.......... 2006-08-23
Organisation Name.... James B. Davis
Organisation Address. 4727 Wilshire Boulevard #300
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Los Angeles
Organisation Address. 90010
Organisation Address. CA
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... James B. Davis
Admin Address........ 4727 Wilshire Boulevard #300
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ Los Angeles
Admin Address........ 90010
Admin Address........ CA
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... [e-mail]
Admin Phone.......... [phone]
Admin Fax............

Tech Name............ YahooDomains TechContact
Tech Address......... 701 First Ave.
Tech Address.........
Tech Address......... Sunnyvale
Tech Address......... 94089
Tech Address......... CA
Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
Tech Email........... [e-mail]
Tech Phone........... [phone]
Tech Fax............. +1.6198813010
Name Server.......... yns1.yahoo.com
Name Server.......... yns2.yahoo.com
--------------

Book 'em, Danno.

[JohnLocke]

1. Report it to the FBI and the Internet Fraud Complaint Center here

https://tips.fbi.gov/
http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp

[Sarvis]

4. publisher

According to Amazon.com, it was originally published by Simon and Schuster.

You can send them a message about it here ->

http://www.simonsays.com/content/consumer.cfm?sid=33&app=feedback

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick (nt).

[topanga]

3. Isn't there some way...

That we can get this book banned?

2 Months. We can handle this kind of thing alot easier after we get the Presidency back.

[Sarvis]

5. why ban it?

I don't think anyone's asking for it to be banned (after all, that's what the Republicans effectively did to a work critical of Bush last time around - got it pulled from the shelves and burned the existing copies.)

There's a difference between banning a book and enforcing copyright laws. You might wanna check out the difference. :)

[bobbyboucher]

7. Something smells funny to me.

You obviously noticed too. What the fuck was that guy talking about? Banning it? Very suspicious.

[unfrigginreal]

15. That's nothing...

you should have seen it's post about the Act Up protesters.

[hexola]

19. Welcome to DU - Sarvis !

[Sarvis]

24. Thanks! nice place you all have here. :) n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Banning books is an Ashcroft tactic, not a Democrat tactic

Please don't even think about banning books.

Ever.

Sheesh.

[GreenArrow]

6. bleehhh

Check out the prices on Ebay for one of those books. If someone were smart, they'd reprint it.

I have no interest in reading it, but I have no problem with it being available online for free. More power to the guy.

If you think that's bad, then you'll love the people selling unauthorized copies on Ebay for profit. Check this one out.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3833&item=4923101977&rd=1

Foul.

[Julian English]

9. Report this seller to E-Bay

It is a bootleg operation==which of course violates E-bay policy. Conservatives--no respect for property rights, doncha know.

[LTR]

11. Nobody's bid on it!

Obviously people realize they can find all this stuff on the internet for free.

[Julian English]

12. That no one is buying it doesn't mean the sellers are not criminals

They are breaking about 4 or 5 federal laws by making and offering for sale copyrighted material without permission via e-bay. I think they need to understand laws apply to all people. The same with the folks who are bootlegging it over the net. They are committing crimes and are criminals.

Of course, when their hero W and the rest of his gang act if laws don't apply to them and theirs, the attitude of the acolytes is understandable. Wrong, but understandable. Jail time, fines, and seizure of their computer can add perspective to their anti-social attitude.

[GreenArrow]

13. "anti-social attitude?"

They are trying to make a buck! That's the American Way, ain't it? Free Enterprise, and all that?

As far as crimes go, this is WAY, WAY, WAY down the list in terms of importance. All sorts of things have been crimes at one time or another, and not all of them bad or ignoble. This is pretty trivial, all things considered. A cease and desist order would probably be more appropriate than giving them jail time, fines and stealing their computers, which I would consider both unjust and a waste of my tax dollars.

And Ebay could tell them to unlist it, since it is in contravention of Ebay's rules. That would be the easiest, most effective solution.

[Julian English]

14. It is still a crime.

And the reason these folks are committing crime is probably not just to make a buck--it is to harm the copyright owner. That's far worse in my book. And allow me to correct you--confiscating computers pursuant to a statute is not stealing. Rather, it is enforcing the law. What these bootleggers are doing is stealing. I hope you understand that rather subtle difference.

ETA: the reason I label the attitude anti-social is that these bootleggers are showing an utter disregard for the law and the rights of others. Disregard for the law and for the rights of others are among the stigmata of anti-social behavior, and these bootleggers clearly display both of these.

[GreenArrow]

17. stealing

A slave owner would have used the same argument to prosecute someone who was hiding a fugitive slave, i.e. his property. And the laws would have been on his side. While I don't dispute what the laws are in this case, I just think they are stupid and unjust, and benefit the few at the expense of the many. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's just. In my opinion, confiscating these people's computers in this situation, and asset forfeiture laws in general, is stealing. It may be entirely "legal," but it's stealing. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say. There is more than one way of enforcing the law. A cease and desist order would be more effecient, and less expensive. The law exists not simply to punish, but to educate and inform as well. Tell them what they are doing wrong, and ask them to stop. If that fails, punitive measures can be employed.

I do think these slobs are just trying to make a buck. They see an opurtunity, and they are exploiting it. The book has been out of print for ages, is hard to find, and people want to read it. No big deal.

[Julian English]

21. that's just nonsense

To compare ownership of a book to ownership of human being. You first need to explain your position--you don't whine, "I think they are stupid and unjust...."

You really have to be pretty ethically bankrupt to make that argument. That's the intellectual level of discourse and spelling I would expect from a Freeper.

[GreenArrow]

23. not nonsense, common sense

You completely missed the point I was making, which was that copyright laws are as backwards as laws written to protect slaveowners, and written not to instill justice, but to protect the pecuniary interests of special interests and individuals, not to benefit society as a whole.

There is nothing of a "whine" in my position. The word stupid was used in a specific sense--lacking intelligence, insight or imagination. Simple legality does not equate with justice, which in too many people's minds is tied up with a primitive eye for an eye philosophy, based largely, if not solely on punishment. Talk about ethical bankruptcy. I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. Nothing is created in a vacuum, but as part of a continuum. A simple and reasonable copyright period of five to ten years ought to be sufficient to reward the work and good efforts of the creator or innovator, after which time, the book, song, whatever becomes part of the public domain.

[Julian English]

28. I di not miss your point.

Your point is ridiculous. I noted your point is specious. You make a ridiculous argument. Intellectual property laws are not a bad thing, per se. To paint with such an overlybroad brush is merely provocative, and it is not worthy of further response.

[GreenArrow]

29. yes, you did miss the point.

Let me restate it in extra simple terms: Just because something is a "law" does not make it just.

You have been right about one thing, however; this topic is not worthy of further discussion.

[LTR]

8. There's a few blogs offerring it

Of course, they're RW blogs.

I downloaded the PDF of the book, and didn't find anything really objectionable about it.

Keep in mind, the only ones going to these blogs are freepers anyway. I doubt it will change any pro-Kerry minds.

[JPJones]

10. There's nothing in the book that a reasonable person

would find offensive. If want to see it, check with your local libraries.

My respect for Kerry went UP after reading the book. He was very courageous, the pain of the veterans and the mothers of the dead was real.

[realcountrymusic]

16. Actually . . .

Depending on a number of factors, if it really has been out of print for 33 years, it might well be legal to reprint it and distribute it for free.

RCM

[hexola]

18. It probably isn't protected by copyright anymore...

And - really - the more people that read it the better IMO!

[Julian English]

22. It appears you are right, hexola.

The copyright website doesn't list it as having a current copyright. I think the book is old enough so the old 28 year + 28 year renewal rule applies. Of course my search may be wrong.
http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html

[mahatmakanejeeves]

26. no copyright?

In that case, my original rant was wrong, and the person offering free downloads can do so until the cows come home.

[hexola]

20. Amazon.com - The New Soldier - $2,475.00!!!!!!!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/002073610X/qid=1094090058/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/102-4902349-7597739?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Holy Shit! - Well...it appears to out of print - since 1971 - so it was only published once...and is likely free game....

In fact - if you scroll down - they have the link (in a review) to the free version.

And really - some of you should think before you go inviting people to turn others into the FBI...talk about grounds for a lawsuit...

[cheezus]

27. fuck copyright. this isn't what it's for.

copyright isn't there to make sure you make money from something, it's there so people will write something different rather than just copying it. You've seen how "news" on the internet often goes. The same story with some minor editing or spin.

Add that this book is now significant in the important events of the day -- no way should copyright be used to keep people from reading.