2025-03-09 00:04:07 <veltas      > The upside is we all already have IRC clients
2025-03-09 00:04:34 <veltas      > A bit like the upside of putting something on the web, is that most people have web browsers
2025-03-09 00:05:12 <veltas      > I guess for maximum reach it would make more sense to put a shared konilo instance on the web than IRC
2025-03-09 00:37:38 <crc         > A web based shated system isn't on my plans. I'm doing the IRC interface, and might also make it accessible via ssh or telnet.
2025-03-09 00:40:51 <veltas      > I think ssh makes the most sense overall
2025-03-09 00:41:30 <veltas      > web would just have the largest possible audience (but might not be a good thing, and the implementation would not be too pretty)
2025-03-09 01:11:48 <crc         > My experience with web interfaces is that they lead to a big increase in support time, but not any real incease in use. Those actually interested in learning to use it are generally willing to invest in a small bit of effort to get it running.
2025-03-09 01:37:41 <thrig       > and then there may be AI scrappers hammering the web
2025-03-09 01:40:21 <xentrac     > hopefully they'll learn Forth
2025-03-09 08:02:44 <veltas      > thrig: Most of my traffic is when I don't configure ssh to a secret port, web traffic is very low
2025-03-09 08:03:02 <veltas      > But that might be because I've only got like 5 small public pages
2025-03-09 11:13:59 <user51      > I might go with rlwrap for now instead of handling all the characters myself.
2025-03-09 22:16:36 <veltas      > What e-ink tablets are recommended then, if you want something to run e.g. something like konilo, so android etc
2025-03-09 22:16:56 <veltas      > KipIngram I seem to remember you're into this stuff?
2025-03-09 22:21:13 <veltas      > I was very tempted by Boox Go 6, but I have seen a ton of bad reviews, they seem to be very hit and miss
2025-03-09 22:22:00 <veltas      > You either get a good one or you don't, it's a cheap option but it's a gamble, that's the impression I'm getting
2025-03-09 22:25:17 <xentrac     > I think I'd get a Kobo because they don't try to keep you from running your own software on it
2025-03-09 23:03:16 <KipIngram   > veltas: Yeah, I can second the Kobo suggestion; my e-reader is a Kobo.  I havn't modified my daily use reader, but my dog chewed up my old one (which is why I got the new one), and I did later install Android on it.  I didn't do a whole lot with  it, but I recall that it was easy to do.
2025-03-09 23:03:49 <veltas      > I don't get impression Kobo is more 'open' that most of these platforms
2025-03-09 23:04:17 <KipIngram   > I didn't mean to be saying that.  Just that I was able to isntall new stuff on one.
2025-03-09 23:04:51 <veltas      > Was replying to xentrac
2025-03-09 23:04:55 <KipIngram   > Years ago I jailbroke a Barnes and Noble unit.  But that was a number of rounds of the arms race around that ago.
2025-03-09 23:05:25 <veltas      > It looks like it might be easier to put stuff on amazon kindle than kobo, and there's a lot of claims that boox is chinese malware
2025-03-09 23:05:31 <KipIngram   > No experience with them since then - I got pissed off at them when they told me I was no longer allowed to download my books to mmy PC anymore.
2025-03-09 23:05:41 <KipIngram   > MY books that I had paid for.
2025-03-09 23:06:00 <KipIngram   > That industry has a really bizarre idea about what it means to "sell" you something.
2025-03-09 23:06:43 <veltas      > That's the whole way copyright works though
2025-03-09 23:06:57 <veltas      > You can buy a book, but you aren't allowed to copy the book
2025-03-09 23:07:03 <KipIngram   > Paper books are copyright too, but you still get to have physical possession of your copy.
2025-03-09 23:07:13 <KipIngram   > I see no reason why it should be any different.
2025-03-09 23:07:38 <veltas      > Downloading is copying though
2025-03-09 23:07:43 <KipIngram   > I resent being treated as though I'm GOING TO COMMIT a crime, when I have no proven personal history of doing so.
2025-03-09 23:08:48 <KipIngram   > My view on copies is that as long only one copy is actually accessed at any given time, that's fair play.
2025-03-09 23:09:01 <veltas      > I don't think I've ever driven to work without seeing people commit crimes
2025-03-09 23:09:27 <veltas      > I can neither confirm nor deny whether I have committed any myself
2025-03-09 23:09:42 <KipIngram   > My point is that the behavior of a group says  nothing about the behavior of a particular individual.
2025-03-09 23:10:52 <veltas      > Well this is your view and it's not how the law works
2025-03-09 23:10:52 <veltas      > I don't particularly find the law to be good, moral, or useful, but it is what it is
2025-03-09 23:11:28 <veltas      > Copying a book without permission I don't think is a crime, though.  At least in UK(?)
2025-03-09 23:11:46 <KipIngram   > And, setting all of that aside, at the time I bought those books, I did so under the understanding that I could download them.  They changed the rules after the fact, which is also uncool.
2025-03-09 23:11:54 <veltas      > I think it's 'unlawful' rather than 'criminal'
2025-03-09 23:12:27 <KipIngram   > I might have felt differently if they announced that future purchases would no longer be downloadable.
2025-03-09 23:12:45 <KipIngram   > I wouldn't have liked it, but I wouldn't have felt injured in the same way.
2025-03-09 23:12:54 <veltas      > Ultimately if they said you could download them, and there was nothing you agreed to saying they could change the rules, then arguably you could sue them
2025-03-09 23:13:19 <KipIngram   > I might still have changed companies, but I wouldn't regard them as scumbags the way I do.
2025-03-09 23:13:40 <veltas      > Damages would probably be of less than the value you would have to pay for those same rights elsewhere today
2025-03-09 23:14:02 <veltas      > So arguably a lot, given that you probably can't easily buy those rights now
2025-03-09 23:15:16 <veltas      > Have you considered they might have removed this permission to download to try and avoid liability for themselves, or because it was becoming impossible to get permission for this from publishers?
2025-03-09 23:15:33 <veltas      > And so they just gave up with the feature
2025-03-09 23:15:54 <KipIngram   > I find it quite hilarious that they've proven more or less completely incapbable of securing their ereaders in an unbreachable way.  They try, over and over, but the community quickly figures out how to beat it.
2025-03-09 23:16:25 <veltas      > It's an interesting problem, I've not 'bought' a lot of media on services like this, and I've never felt like I truly 'own' it in any way
2025-03-09 23:16:36 <veltas      > Although even e.g. DVD's aren't 'owned'
2025-03-09 23:16:45 <KipIngram   > And without that much trouble - you can get a PLUGIN for Calibre that strips the DRM right off of most books.
2025-03-09 23:16:58 <veltas      > You can't 'download' your own DVD for backup purposes, it's not allowed
2025-03-09 23:17:04 <KipIngram   > Let them try to take my DVDs from me.
2025-03-09 23:17:16 <KipIngram   > I live in Texas.
2025-03-09 23:17:51 <veltas      > Nice
2025-03-09 23:18:28 <KipIngram   > That was meant to be a gun joke, even though I'm not really much of a gun nut like a lot of people in Texas are.
2025-03-09 23:18:47 <veltas      > Repo. men exist in Texas, just think about that!
2025-03-09 23:19:20 <veltas      > Although I know that they might avoid direct confrontations
2025-03-09 23:19:49 <veltas      > But I'm sure repo. men have a lot of interesting stories
2025-03-09 23:20:01 <KipIngram   > I think the truth of this is that people do more or less whatever they want - ripping a DVD to a file is also quite straightforward.  My take on it all is that if you have bought the product legitimately, then they have made their profit, and as long as you don't do anything that deprives them of other sales (like make copies and sell them), then you're on the right side of things morally.
2025-03-09 23:20:23 <KipIngram   > If you're tryring to make an illicit business out of it, that's clearly wrong.
2025-03-09 23:21:16 <KipIngram   > And my point is that you generally don't see them going around trying to harass people for making backup copies of their stuff - they go after people actually engaging in piracy, which is appropriate.
2025-03-09 23:21:27 <veltas      > I was going to say I avoid copying stuff without permission, but truthfully I think I do have some PDFs I shouldn't
2025-03-09 23:21:51 <veltas      > e.g. a scan of ANSI C, which is a good reference, and I definitely shouldn't have it
2025-03-09 23:22:11 <KipIngram   > I exported the content of my Dresden Files collection (all of which I paid for) so that I could use a search tool to find stuff in it.
2025-03-09 23:22:23 <KipIngram   > Exported it as text, that is.
2025-03-09 23:22:50 <KipIngram   > I search it with fuzzy finder; have it on a hot key that pops up a kitty window.
2025-03-09 23:22:56 <veltas      > I dislike how streaming is considered different from downloading
2025-03-09 23:23:11 <veltas      > You literally have to download the data to stream it
2025-03-09 23:23:19 <KipIngram   > It's fun - I can just hit the hot key and start typing keywords, and it prunes down a list of every paragraph in the whole series based on my keywords.
2025-03-09 23:23:36 <KipIngram   > Well, they're not going to give up streaming.
2025-03-09 23:23:52 <KipIngram   > So in their eyes it HAS to be, because they want to allow one but not the other.
2025-03-09 23:24:12 <veltas      > Should copyright be a thing at all?
2025-03-09 23:24:37 <KipIngram   > I once thought about making a circuit that intercepted the signal actually going to your monitor and recreated a video file using that.
2025-03-09 23:25:20 <KipIngram   > Then it wouldn't matter how it wsa encrypted - if you can WATCH it, you could use that to copy it.
2025-03-09 23:25:28 <xentrac     > 22:06 < veltas> That's the whole way copyright works though
2025-03-09 23:25:30 <xentrac     > it's not though
2025-03-09 23:25:49 <xentrac     > the courts established the doctrine of first sale as a limit on copyright centuries ago
2025-03-09 23:26:13 <xentrac     > 22:07 <+KipIngram> I resent being treated as though I'm GOING TO COMMIT a crime, when I have no proven personal history of doing so.
2025-03-09 23:26:37 <xentrac     > generally copyright infringement without a profit motive is not a criminal matter, but a civil one, under US law
2025-03-09 23:27:07 <xentrac     > I'm not familiar enough with UK copyright law
2025-03-09 23:27:56 <veltas      > This has got nothing to do with doctrine of first sale
2025-03-09 23:28:31 <xentrac     > US copyright also has an exemption for backups and for temporary copies into computer memory to execute a program
2025-03-09 23:30:54 <veltas      > I am going to wear my libertarian librarian hat and say copyright shouldn't exist
2025-03-09 23:31:18 <xentrac     > that's certainly a reasonable point of view
2025-03-09 23:31:57 <xentrac     > but even as it currently exists, it doesn't normally permit sellers to revoke paid-up purchases, nor to prevent you from transferring the books you bought to someone else
2025-03-09 23:32:04 <xentrac     > in the US
2025-03-09 23:32:17 <veltas      > As I said earlier KipIngram can sue if that was the case
2025-03-09 23:32:39 <veltas      > But what are the damages, is it worth suing, maybe in class action
2025-03-09 23:33:49 <xentrac     > or he can transfer the books he paid for and dare *them* to sue *him*
2025-03-09 23:33:52 <veltas      > I think KipIngram's main point was that he thought the service was engaging in shitty business practices, that make him not want to do more business with them
2025-03-09 23:35:10 <veltas      > I was just engaging with some of the comments about rights, because in my view he doesn't really have a big expectation of such rights, because the whole concept of copyright really contradicts that fundamentally, but that is more of a philosophical point
2025-03-09 23:37:27 <veltas      > You know the main reason I was in favour of copyright was just because I associate disrespect for copyright with degenerates
2025-03-09 23:38:01 <veltas      > But philosophically and economically I am against it, so regardless of the way it manifests in practice ... I have to admit I think it's a bad idea.
2025-03-09 23:39:42 <xentrac     > well, it's true that copyright is a limit on the rights of people who aren't the copyright holder.  but, at least in US jurisprudence, there is a lot of protection for those people's rights.  First sale, fair use, the public domain, etc.
2025-03-09 23:39:57 <xentrac     > That is, the rights reserved to the copyright holder are fairly limited.
2025-03-09 23:41:42 <veltas      > I don't agree at all, but I don't see any point in arguing
2025-03-09 23:42:22 <xentrac     > The spread of computers has kind of diluted the protections for the public, though, because computers copy information around all over the place just in order to use it, bringing a lot of everyday activities under the umbrella of copyright law that wasn't before.
2025-03-09 23:42:27 <xentrac     > At least arguably so.
2025-03-09 23:43:56 <xentrac     > Obviously you have no obligation to explain your point of view, but I'm sure I'd find it interesting.  If you'd prefer I not comment on it (in order to avoid arguing) I can commit to that.
2025-03-09 23:44:34 <veltas      > Copyright was never meant to be a right to *control* all copies, just an *exclusive* right to *make* copies.
2025-03-09 23:45:24 <xentrac     > Right, although much of Queen Anne's motivation in enacting it was to stop the publication of Catholic books.
2025-03-09 23:45:45 <veltas      > Essentially copyright is a 'right' granted by states, that you can seek damages for any copies you did not authorise, that you are the only beneficiary of making copies
2025-03-09 23:46:00 <veltas      > It's a monopoly
2025-03-09 23:46:34 <veltas      > And it's more complicated today because of the proliferation of contracts and licenses that complicate people's already undermined 'ownership' of such copies
2025-03-09 23:47:15 <veltas      > Although I think those contracts and licenses are more legitimate because they're voluntary
2025-03-09 23:47:39 <veltas      > Within reason anyway
2025-03-09 23:47:50 <xentrac     > Yes.  In a sense all property rights are monopolies, but your monopoly right over your house seems more natural than the monopoly right to stop someone else from copying a book in their own house, anywhere in the country
2025-03-09 23:48:08 <xentrac     > I saw a really interesting paper exploring this concept recently and proposing a rather terrifying remedy
2025-03-09 23:48:20 <veltas      > I don't much fancy the licence-to-kill Disney+ licence terms
2025-03-09 23:48:54 <veltas      > Saying property rights are a monopoly I think is meaningless, if we're talking about physical property
2025-03-09 23:48:56 <xentrac     > https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/1/51/3572441 by Posner's son
2025-03-09 23:49:44 <xentrac     > you can surely imagine physical objects that are not anyone's property.  Rocks on the seafloor, for example.
2025-03-09 23:50:51 <xentrac     > "Voluntary" is kind of a spectrum
2025-03-09 23:50:51 <veltas      > If someone claimed ownership of rocks on the seafloor then that would be different
2025-03-09 23:51:08 <veltas      > I don't doubt
2025-03-09 23:51:31 <veltas      > But I wasn't talking about contrived examples, I was talking about property rights, which to some extent I think are very legitimate
2025-03-09 23:51:38 <veltas      > And not at all akin to monopoly
2025-03-09 23:51:42 <xentrac     > garbage is also typically considered to be abandoned and not the property of anyone
2025-03-09 23:51:57 <xentrac     > this aluminum can I have here will be going out with the garbage tomorrow
2025-03-09 23:52:13 <veltas      > Is my house a monopoly?
2025-03-09 23:52:14 <xentrac     > someone will almost certainly walk by and pick it up and put it in his bag of aluminum
2025-03-09 23:52:22 <xentrac     > I should hope so