18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIf he wanted to share "his system" then he should have made provision for it to be freely legally available. If he did not then someone owns the rights, whether they inherited them, bought them or found them in a gutter and are now trying to sell them at a 50 000 000% profit is not the point. DO NOT DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHT material, it is theft.
I know for a fact that there was not one great creative work in history (books, music, films, art, whatever) that was made for the money. Artists create what they do because they want to express themselves.
Nimzowits did not write My System with money in his mind. He wanted to share "his system" and what he learned about the game with the res ...[text shortened]... ownload his work instead of buying it and funding the kapitalist piggs that exploit his legacy.
LOTC has simply come up with another excuse for theft, call it art and no-one owns it.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYour statement reveals not your ignorance so much as that you know things that are just not so.
I know for a fact that there was not one great creative work in history (books, music, films, art, whatever) that was made for the money. Artists create what they do because they want to express themselves.
Take William Faulkner, for example. He was the greatest American novelist of the twentieth century. It is trie that he wrote out of a need for self-expression. Indeed, he considered every one of his books a failure, and he stated that he would "break the pencil" if he ever got it right.
Nevertheless, making a living through his writing was the object and purpose from the beginning
Or take, Sherman Alexie, a hot young writer in Seattle. He also writes because he has a drive to do so. But, if self-expression was the sole motivation, he would still focus upon poetry. Instead he writes novels and screen plays, and labors to produce movies from his books. The past few times I've spoken with him, he seemed rather focused on the money he was making, and what he's been able to buy with that money.
Writing chess books, of course, is first and foremost a way of making a living with chess. When the Soviet Union was underwriting its chess players, many of them were officially employed as journalists. This label was not merely a piece of fiction; writing about chess and playing it go hand in glove for the professional.
18 Jul 05
1 edit
As for the merits of Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess: it is an excellent book that is easy to recommend. Whether it is the best book for you, however, depends on the level of your chess skill, your specific needs for improvement, and the sort of effort you will put into book study.
I have the book, as well as Silman's other books. I also have another 150 books in my chess library. Some of these I've barely cracked open, some I've read without playing through any of the games, some I've studied intensely.
I coach chess, and I have several important lessons developed from Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess that I use over and over with all players above the beginners who are but learning the moves.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardNimzowitz most definitely wrote with money in mind. Chess players in those days had much the same problem with making money from the game as they do today.
I know for a fact that there was not one great creative work in history (books, music, films, art, whatever) that was made for the money. Artists create what they do because they want to express themselves.
Nimzowits did not write My System with money in his mind. He wanted to share "his system" and what he learned about the game with the res ...[text shortened]... ownload his work instead of buying it and funding the kapitalist piggs that exploit his legacy.
Of course his material is today is in the public domain and you're free to download the original material - provided you're prepared to put up with the old notation. If a publishing house puts the effort into the new notation, then I think they have every right to charge a fee for that.
There seems to be a feeling that if it's okay to pirate copies of a mega-million selling game or an operating system from Microsoft (spit, spit), then copyright theft is also okay. But you're stealing from individuals who are trying to make a living - not corporations, although I've got my own gripes about the publishing houses. I've written and published two books and while they did very well on the local market (hit the top three best-selling non-fiction lists), if you're not selling hundreds of thousands or millions, it's not much of a living. Buying a chess writer's book is a reward and a thank you for his efforts. We're not talking pot-boilers churned out in a week - there's some serious intellectual work that goes into it.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by MikeXx2020Why speculate on a purchase that you might not like? Join your local library. Take out the books that interest you. Find out which books help you. Order in some chess books you're interested in (I'm sure the UK library system is good). After a while you'll find a book or two that really work for you that you want to refer to time and again - only then buy them.
Well im only 14 so money isnt easy to get! Im getting soe ooks on amazon but it adds up to £95. I can take £15 off that if I take off: "How to Reassess Your Chess: The Complete Chess Mastery Course ". Should i or should i get rid of "winning chess openings/endings" or sumthing?
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by buffalobillI agree with you competely and I would never download stuff by authors who are trying to make a living. (I have more than enough books on my shelf)
Nimzowitz most definitely wrote with money in mind. Chess players in those days had much the same problem with making money from the game as they do today.
Of course his material is today is in the public domain and you're free to download the original material - provided you're prepared to put up with the old notation. If a publishing house puts th ...[text shortened]... g pot-boilers churned out in a week - there's some serious intellectual work that goes into it.
But I do not agree about nimzowitsch writing for the money. It would explain the hypermodern idees in his books a lot better if he wrote to share his idees with us.
And I only download stuff drom authors who are filthy rich or long dead.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrIf people do not create to express themselves but create for the money then how to you explain michael moore encouraging us to download his stuff from the web???
Your statement reveals not your ignorance so much as that you know things that are just not so.
Take William Faulkner, for example. He was the greatest American novelist of the twentieth century. It is trie that he wrote out of a need for self-expression. Indeed, he considered every one of his books a failure, and he stated that he would "break the penci ...[text shortened]... ly a piece of fiction; writing about chess and playing it go hand in glove for the professional.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardAhh, but that's a different marketing paradigm enabled by the Internet. Almost like shareware or freeware which assumes that if you like his stuff, you'll buy the book. After all, you can't otherwise read in bed, in the bath, on the toilet or in the doctor's waiting rooms, for example. It's his choice about how and where he wants to publish his material. It is after all, his copyright.
If people do not create to express themselves but create for the money then how to you explain michael moore encouraging us to download his stuff from the web???
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardAnd you are the sole judge of whether someone deserves payment for their work or whether it deserves to be pirated?
I agree with you competely and I would never download stuff by authors who are trying to make a living. (I have more than enough books on my shelf)
But I do not agree about nimzowitsch writing for the money. It would explain the hypermodern idees in his books a lot better if he wrote to share his idees with us.
And I only download stuff drom authors who are filthy rich or long dead.
As was said before, if you don't like an author don't buy their books.
It's still stealing.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardIt is not either/or, but both. You suggested that money was not a primary consideration. Your error buried what was otherwise on the mark in your assertions.
If people do not create to express themselves but create for the money then how to you explain michael moore encouraging us to download his stuff from the web???
Copyright law is a mess today (see my "Last Best Place" thread in the debates forum), but downloading books through the internet to avoid buying them is theft.
Moore has plenty of money; he also has a political agenda.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by Wulebgrsure, its theft. I never said otherwise. But of course that does not mean its wrong in every case. So your going to tell us you never download anything?! Because you want bill gates to get his "rightfully" earned money?
It is not either/or, but both. You suggested that money was not a primary consideration. Your error buried what was otherwise on the mark in your assertions.
Copyright law is a mess today (see my "Last Best Place" thread in the debates forum), but downloading books through the internet to avoid buying them is theft.
Moore has plenty of money; he also has a political agenda.