<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rights management &#8211; a real problem with ebooks and digital publishing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.teleread.org/2009/04/15/rights-management-a-real-problem-with-ebooks-and-digital-publishing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/04/15/rights-management-a-real-problem-with-ebooks-and-digital-publishing/</link>
	<description>News &#38; views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:56:03 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: LuYu</title>
		<link>http://www.teleread.org/2009/04/15/rights-management-a-real-problem-with-ebooks-and-digital-publishing/comment-page-1/#comment-1039052</link>
		<dc:creator>LuYu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.teleread.org/?p=20449#comment-1039052</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
It is not really hard to understand why they’re in this position and it isn’t really anybody’s “fault”,
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

It absolutely is the someone&#039;s fault, and that someone is the publishers.  &lt;b&gt;They wanted this.&lt;/b&gt;  This is why they pushed for copyright to be extended to all works regardless of whether they were commercial or not (who -- honestly speaking -- wants to copyright a letter to Aunt Martha?).  They wanted a situation where all -- as opposed to very little -- information was subject to their monopolies.  They wanted a situation where ambiguity protected works that authors did not wish to protect, where publication would be suppressed by doubt (as opposed to the law).  They wanted a situation where all information was government by law.  They wanted a situation where information could be called &quot;property&quot;.  

And they succeeded -- in the very face of the First Amendment.  So, the publishers all owe society for what they stole from us:  Our Right to Free Speech.  They should begin to pay us back my creating a database for us at &lt;b&gt;their&lt;/b&gt; expense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
It is not really hard to understand why they’re in this position and it isn’t really anybody’s “fault”,
</p></blockquote>
<p>It absolutely is the someone&#8217;s fault, and that someone is the publishers.  <b>They wanted this.</b>  This is why they pushed for copyright to be extended to all works regardless of whether they were commercial or not (who &#8212; honestly speaking &#8212; wants to copyright a letter to Aunt Martha?).  They wanted a situation where all &#8212; as opposed to very little &#8212; information was subject to their monopolies.  They wanted a situation where ambiguity protected works that authors did not wish to protect, where publication would be suppressed by doubt (as opposed to the law).  They wanted a situation where all information was government by law.  They wanted a situation where information could be called &#8220;property&#8221;.  </p>
<p>And they succeeded &#8212; in the very face of the First Amendment.  So, the publishers all owe society for what they stole from us:  Our Right to Free Speech.  They should begin to pay us back my creating a database for us at <b>their</b> expense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
