Status
Not open for further replies.

mr chievous

Removed
Jun 12, 2012
375
4
Texas
Status
Pre-Medical
mr chievous and dbate have no hope of entering medical school. It's blatantly obvious with every retort they offer. Let them prance around the subject behind thinly veiled moral relativism.

We all know who you are: you're the person who doesn't work hard enough and isn't consistent enough to get where you want. If you had to do without any number of things you waste your money on, you could afford these books.

Berkeley Review is not big business, they don't employ slave labor, they don't outsource their jobs, they don't drive other small businesses out of the market. They serve a very small, niche market.

Now go back to your video games and pipe dreams, while the grown men (and women) do real work.
Won't get into medical school? Try telling this to my med school friends that TOLD me about the TBR torrents. Looks like they didn't have too much trouble.

I also enjoy your personal attacks on an online forum. Tough guy, eh?
 

BerkReviewTeach

Company Rep & Bad Singer
Vendor
10+ Year Member
May 25, 2007
3,905
690
This seems to be more a function anachronistic copyright law more than anything else. In modern society, documents are constantly scanned and the ease of reselling electronic materials--as opposed to physical materials---is a central part of commerce.

There is a false distinction being made here that somehow enables people to morally condemn individuals for engaging in activities that even this site supports (albeit in an ever so slightly different form).
There is no way at this point you can believe what you are doing could possibly be legal. I assume you are clinging to your failing argument to avoid admission to yourself. So I'm going to attempt to give an analogy that will hopefully register with you.

If you go into a retailer and purchase a paper copy of a book, you are entitled to that copy and you are free to sell that copy to a secondhand buyer. But if you take that copy, duplicate it, and then go to the bookstore and sell the copy, you have violated the law. No matter where you try to sell it, it is illegal. You violated the law upon duplication. This is no different than the person who buys a movie, duplicates it in bulk, and then sells the copies on a downtown street corner. They are selling stolen goods.

What is completely legal, and encouraged by BR, is the selling of the actual books once you are done with them. That helps a buyer of the books to recoup some of their costs, which is a good thing if someone is strapped for cash. Given the way the market works with resale prices, they can get back nearly all of what they spent. So in essence, the current system helps the struggling student quite nicely.

When you come along and buy a stolen copy from a criminal, you deny the company that made the book and the authors of that book, money they worked for. But I have gathered from this thread that is irrelevant to you. But that's not the only person you screwed over. The person who is struggling to get by each month who obeyed the law and bought the books full price with the intention to sell them now has to compete with a criminal giving away stolen materials for free. Your criminal actions are hurting the very person you are claiming to care about, because the people who might have bought their used copy legally are now getting illegal copies from you.

You have dropped a few diatribes here about how you are doing all this to help the poor and needy, but in reality you are only helping yourself. You have claimed to not care about the money and that your intentions are purely good. Yet when I offered you a great way to help those need, pay what you should have paid, and live up to your claims of not caring about the money, you completely ignored the offer. It still stands.

If you can show that you donated $250 (the difference between what you paid for a stolen copy and what you should have paid new) to a needy organization, argument is over. Also, if you want to buy a needy group (such as the students in a state-augmented postbacc program) a full set of new books (or even a used set from an SDN seller), BR will send a second set to that group for free. You have the opportunity to live up to the words you have typed in this thread. It's completely up to you whether you want to keep up this charade of buying stolen goods under the auspices of helping the poor or whether you actually want to help them.
 
Jun 29, 2011
1,721
285
Status
Medical Student
The central argument seems to be that buying books second hand on SDN from another student is not stealing.

But buying books in pdf format second hand from another student who purchased the material from TBR is stealing. That's an illogical argument.

And now that I am done with the books, I offered to give them to the OP for free. I will never use them again. I don't see any dimension of stealing there.

In fact, when I first offered, I told the OP that I would provide them to him if it were not illegal, and BerkeleyReviewTech instantly attacked me for stealing material that I legitimately purchased second hand--which many people do and that is highly legal (every heard of eBay).

A better question is why is it considered stealing to give books away for free, but selling them on SDN is considered legitimate.
I highly advise you never to make legal decisions on your own and to always contact a lawyer ahead of time since it doesn't seem like you have a good fundamental grasp of the law.

When you buy a book or a CD or any creative work, you buy the right to own THAT copy and that copy alone. You can sell that copy for more money if you like, you own it. You can give that copy away for free. But you cannot duplicate that copy and PRODUCE more of the creative work. That is a copyright violation. You never purchased the right to produce more of the creative work. That right is reserved for the people who produced the work in the first place.

Think about how this country would be if that was allowed. Why publish a book when the first person who buys it can simply mass distribute it to everyone else? Why write a song?

If you work your ass off in your career and somehow manufacture a robot surgeon that can do appendectomies by itself, it would be totally fair and legal if some other company copies your work and gives away the same product for free.. right? All your hard work down the drain.. but you'd be okay with that.
 

Dbate

7+ Year Member
Aug 24, 2009
1,411
82
Status
Pre-Medical
There is no way at this point you can believe what you are doing could possibly be legal. I assume you are clinging to your failing argument to avoid admission to yourself. So I'm going to attempt to give an analogy that will hopefully register with you.

If you go into a retailer and purchase a paper copy of a book, you are entitled to that copy and you are free to sell that copy to a secondhand buyer. But if you take that copy, duplicate it, and then go to the bookstore and sell the copy, you have violated the law. No matter where you try to sell it, it is illegal. You violated the law upon duplication. This is no different than the person who buys a movie, duplicates it in bulk, and then sells the copies on a downtown street corner. They are selling stolen goods.

What is completely legal, and encouraged by BR, is the selling of the actual books once you are done with them. That helps a buyer of the books to recoup some of their costs, which is a good thing if someone is strapped for cash. Given the way the market works with resale prices, they can get back nearly all of what they spent. So in essence, the current system helps the struggling student quite nicely.

When you come along and buy a stolen copy from a criminal, you deny the company that made the book and the authors of that book, money they worked for. But I have gathered from this thread that is irrelevant to you. But that's not the only person you screwed over. The person who is struggling to get by each month who obeyed the law and bought the books full price with the intention to sell them now has to compete with a criminal giving away stolen materials for free. Your criminal actions are hurting the very person you are claiming to care about, because the people who might have bought their used copy legally are now getting illegal copies from you.

You have dropped a few diatribes here about how you are doing all this to help the poor and needy, but in reality you are only helping yourself. You have claimed to not care about the money and that your intentions are purely good. Yet when I offered you a great way to help those need, pay what you should have paid, and live up to your claims of not caring about the money, you completely ignored the offer. It still stands.

If you can show that you donated $250 (the difference between what you paid for a stolen copy and what you should have paid new) to a needy organization, argument is over. Also, if you want to buy a needy group (such as the students in a state-augmented postbacc program) a full set of new books (or even a used set from an SDN seller), BR will send a second set to that group for free. You have the opportunity to live up to the words you have typed in this thread. It's completely up to you whether you want to keep up this charade of buying stolen goods under the auspices of helping the poor or whether you actually want to help them.
If you are going to actually engage in a discussion with someone else, then please learn to refrain from personally attacking them. It implies a deficit of maturity and is simply unbecoming.


A central point you seem to be arguing is that conversion to electronic form constitutes duplication, which is not necessarily true. One could scan a document and then send it to another, while at the same time destroying the physical copy that they previously possessed or simply lose the physical copy. At which point they would no longer have ownership of it.

Then if that person were to send that electronic document to another, would it be duplication? Clearly not. The problem arises only if there is mutual ownership of the electronic document (i.e. transmission and retention).

I no longer use the documents, they serve no purpose to me and could be sent via unilateral, mutually exclusive channels and it would not be a violation of copyright.


I no longer use the document, so in effect I don't retain possession of it.


In all actuality there is a whole body of case law that grapples with this very topic. Ownership in the contemporary, electronic age is far more complicated than the times at which the copyright laws were written.

You have dropped a few diatribes here about how you are doing all this to help the poor and needy, but in reality you are only helping yourself. You have claimed to not care about the money and that your intentions are purely good.
This doesn't make sense. I don't stand to gain monetarily from helping the OP.
 
Jun 29, 2011
1,721
285
Status
Medical Student
If you are going to actually engage in a discussion with someone else, then please learn to refrain from personally attacking them. It implies a deficit of maturity and is simply unbecoming.


A central point you seem to be arguing is that conversion to electronic form constitutes duplication, which is not necessarily true. One could scan a document and then send it to another, while at the same time destroying the physical copy that they previously possessed or simply lose the physical copy. At which point they would no longer have ownership of it.

Then if that person were to send that electronic document to another, would it be duplication? Clearly not. The problem arises only if there is mutual ownership of the electronic document (i.e. transmission and retention).

I no longer use the documents, they serve no purpose to me and could be sent via unilateral, mutually exclusive channels and it would not be a violation of copyright.


I no longer use the document, so in effect I don't retain possession of it.


In all actuality there is a whole body of case law that grapples with this very topic. Ownership in the contemporary, electronic age is far more complicated than the times at which the copyright laws were written.



This doesn't make sense. I don't stand to gain monetarily from helping the OP.
The very act of duplicating the material without explicit consent from the copyright holder is against the law.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_107

Whether you destroy the original material or not.
 

Dbate

7+ Year Member
Aug 24, 2009
1,411
82
Status
Pre-Medical
The very act of duplicating the material without explicit consent from the copyright holder is against the law.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_107

Whether you destroy the original material or not.
Well I admit that I didn't know that. Thanks for showing me.

Before this thread became a sanctimoniousness denunciation by BerkeleyReviewTech, I explicitly stated that I would provide the documents to the OP if it were not illegal.
 
Jun 29, 2011
1,721
285
Status
Medical Student
Well I admit that I didn't know that. Thanks for showing me.

Before this thread became a sanctimoniousness denunciation by BerkeleyReviewTech, I explicitly stated that I would provide the documents to the OP if it were not illegal.
No problem. Copyright law is very complicated in terms of what you can and can't do but the basic premise is that the authors are granted exclusive rights to reproduce the material. (There are tons of exceptions though, mostly involving educational facilities).

It's why you always hear warnings after sports broadcasts (especially NFL) that you can even give a written account of the game without their consent.
 

MrMention

5+ Year Member
Oct 2, 2012
186
65
At a Bar near you.
Status
Non-Student
Hello Dbate:

Let me see if I can try to explain this...

The PDF versions are illegal. Someone illegally up loaded them to the internet to sell copies for a profit (Berkeley Review does not sell or make an EBook/PDF version.) Hence, stealing from the company. This is not like you buying the books and then either selling or giving them away to your neighbor. It is more like buying a copy, making hundreds of copies and standing in the middle of Time Square selling them as if they were yours to sell (Mayor Bloomberg would not like that.) Ok...
 

Fifty 3rds

tertium quid
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 20, 2009
209
2
Status
Pre-Health (Field Undecided)
Won't get into medical school? Try telling this to my med school friends that TOLD me about the TBR torrents. Looks like they didn't have too much trouble.

I also enjoy your personal attacks on an online forum. Tough guy, eh?
Yes, tough. Very tough. That was the main point of my post.

Sometimes personal attacks are required when reason doesn't work.
 
Jun 29, 2011
1,721
285
Status
Medical Student
Hello Dbate:

Let me see if I can try to explain this...

The PDF versions are illegal. Someone illegally up loaded them to the internet to sell copies for a profit (Berkeley Review does not sell or make an EBook/PDF version.) Hence, stealing from the company. This is not like you buying the books and then either selling or giving them away to your neighbor. It is more like buying a copy, making hundreds of copies and standing in the middle of Time Square selling them as if they were yours to sell (Mayor Bloomberg would not like that.) Ok...
Let's be honest, Mayor Bloomberg couldn't care less as long you aren't drinking a large sugary beverage at the same time.
 

Infarction

5+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jun 26, 2011
126
1
Status
Medical Student
Wow. I cannot believe I just read that.

To the OP: Buying TBR books is an investment, but a great one at that. I can, without a doubt in my mind, tell you that their books are worth the price. The great thing about their books, too, is that they have a high resale value (at least when I bought them). I didn't write in them, kept them in perfect condition, and was able to sell them to a friend for only a ~$30 drop in price. I would highly suggest simply buying them from TBR and reselling them to other premeds in your school after you take the test.

To those advocating the distribution and the use of pirated materials: Grow up. If you invested countless hours and money creating a product and didn't receive anything in return as compensation or even for the further improvement of that product because it is being pirated illegally, you would be peeved too. BerkTechReview is right and also has a right to be frustrated. The fact that you argue with the representative of a company that you stole from makes you look pathetic and immature. There is no 'discussion' or 'debate'. Stealing is stealing. No argument is necessary.
 

sector9

Moderator Emeritus
5+ Year Member
Apr 27, 2011
11,139
161
Status
Medical Student
Closing thread as it has turned into mostly a discussion on copyrights and ways to avoid paying for MCAT prep materials. This is a general reminder that SDN forum rules state "Respect copyrighted information"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.